Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Creativity is increasingly seen as a key human capability that can be deliberately developed. Correspondently, a proliferation of tools, techniques, and methods are available in the academic and popular literatures. Creative problem-solving (CPS) is one framework among these, and has a 70-year history of research and development. This essay overviews this history and the key stages of its continuous development, as well as the rationale for the changes and improvements that have been made. Foundational work established the Osborn–Parnes paradigm for CPS. Initial efforts were aimed at enhancing this approach. Then came work to stretch the Osborn–Parnes approach, and ultimately to break this paradigm. Understanding these major stages of development should better differentiate contemporary CPS approaches from the variety of earlier versions. Future research and development are also highlighted that will move our understanding, learning, and application forward.

Keywords

creativity creative problem-solving problem-solving style creative climate collaboration

Introduction

Creativity was historically seen as the province of the lone genius. More recently, creativity has been considered an important natural human characteristic—something we all possess in varying degrees. This corresponds with the recognition that creativity is required to help us meet the challenges of today and tomorrow. The broad and increasing interest in creativity is illustrated by a Google search done while writing this article. I found over 760 million hits when using “creativity” as the search term. Browsing through the many pages of results, I observed a plethora of tools, techniques, and methods aimed at increasing individual and group creativity.

If we are interested in the development of creative potential, we need to know when, how, and with whom to apply these tools. This is the power of having a process framework, as it links the tools and techniques to a purpose. Typically, these purposes can include obtaining an improved understanding of the problem; having many, varied, or unusual ideas to solve those problems; or taking an idea forward by strengthening it and getting it ready for implementation. Creative problem-solving (CPS) is one such framework that has withstood the test of time.

Yet, I found over 360 million hits when I Googled “creative problem-solving.” Again, I found a surfeit of tools and techniques, as well as a wide variety of frameworks, methods, and models.

The purpose of this article is to focus on one major tradition that spans 70 years of consistent research and development: the Buffalo-based CPS framework. Further, I will highlight the key areas of collaboration and outcomes produced by Donald J. Treffinger, myself, and colleagues. I will also identify a few future possibilities that can continue the journey.

On a personal note, Don Treffinger and I shared 40 years of friendship and collaboration. Don's community of practice centered on education for the gifted and, more broadly, developing talents within the context of education (Houtz & Selby, 2021; Treffinger et al., 2013). Mine was focused on preparing future and current professionals in business organizations (Dorval, 2021; Isaksen, 2020a). We shared a passion for improving the deliberate development of creative potential and saw great value in the tradition of CPS we inherited. We also shared an interest in and commitment to pursuing research and development aimed at improving our understanding and development of creativity.

On the Deliberate Development of Creativity

When Don and I started studying creativity, it was not widely accepted. In fact, a dean on the campus where we were professors of creative studies called our unit “a cult on campus.” It is gratifying to see that creativity is now broadly considered an essential twenty-first century skill (e.g., Lucas & Venckuté, 2020; Marshall & Kinser, 2012; World Economic Forum, 2020).

There are numerous reasons why deliberately developing creative thinking and problem-solving skills are important. First, and foremost, is the unprecedented pace of change and complexity we all face in the world in which we live. For example, we are facing a level of velocity of the doubling of knowledge we have never seen before. It took 25 years to double our knowledge in 1945—and now some assert that it doubles every 12 hours (Fuller, 1981; Chamberlain, 2020). We live in an increasingly VUCA (volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous) world that demands new and useful solutions and responses. It has never been more important that children learn how to develop creative thinking and problem-solving skills rather than simply memorize information.

Secondly, there is more than sufficient evidence that creative potential can be deliberately developed (e.g., Puccio et al., 2006; Puccio et al., 2020; Rose & Lin, 1984; Scott et al., 2004; Torrance, 1987). Our current compendium of evidence supporting the learning and application of the Osborn-Parnes tradition of CPS (and its modifications) contains more than 1200 studies and citations (Isaksen, 2022a).

Finally, there is increasing evidence that when we nurture and develop creative talent, the quality of peoples’ lives improves (e.g., Karwowski & Kaufman, 2017; Lucas & Venckuté, 2020; Perry & Karpova, 2017). Creativity is increasingly understood as something worthwhile and productive, that everyone possesses and can manifest to some degree (e.g., Richards, 2007; Sawyer, 2012), and that doing so has many positive outcomes.

Don and I, along with our colleagues, shared a belief in the power of process – particularly CPS – and invested a large portion of our professional lives in advancing this cause. Our colleague, Ruth Noller (1979; p. 4–5) defined CPS by focusing on each of the three main words: creative, problem, and solving:

By creative we mean: having an element of newness and being relevant at least to you, the one who creates the solution. By problem we mean: any situation which presents a challenge, offers an opportunity, or is a concern to you. By solving we mean: devising ways to answer or to meet or satisfy the problem, adapting yourself to the situation, or adapting the situation to yourself. creative problem-solving or CPS is a process, a method, a system for approaching a problem in an imaginative way resulting in effective action.

CPS has a unique history and has undergone numerous developments over its 70 years, reflecting an integration of academic research with an eye toward practical application. This is explained in more detail below.

The Dynamic Nature of Creative Problem Solving

We can point to one transformative individual who broke the prevailing paradigm of ‘creativity is something you are born with or without’ it would be Alex F. Osborn (AFO). He is well known as a founding partner of Batten, Barton, Durstine, and Osborn (BBDO), a global advertising agency, and as the author of Applied Imagination (1953), and the initiator of the ubiquitous brainstorming approach. Osborn established a new paradigm that laid the foundation for deliberate efforts to develop creativity.

The Foundations

Although most people may consider AFO primarily as a creativity practitioner, fewer may know that he was also quite a scholar. He earned a graduate degree in psychology from Hamilton College in 1921. In a precursor to Applied Imagination, Osborn (1952) decried the general lack of psychological literature on the deliberate development of human imagination. He also identified some of the more influential scholarly works that influenced his thinking (e.g., Conant, 1947; Dewey, 1933; Dimnet, 1928; O’Connor, 1945; Spearman, 1931; Wallas, 1926). He wrote in a very accessible style and drew on a wealth of experiences and contacts, avoiding a ‘heavy’ academic style. Osborn's pioneering efforts left a legacy that included the founding of the Creative Education Foundation, the Annual Creative Problem-Solving Institutes (CPSI), and the creation of a unique academic program in Buffalo, New York.

As the first to outline explicit and deliberate stages of the CPS process, Osborn himself considered it to be a dynamic process. For example, he originally outlined seven stages in the first edition of Applied Imagination, but he condensed these to three stages in the 1963 version (Osborn, 1963).

Osborn's protégé, Sidney J. Parnes, had already conducted studies on the efficacy of brainstorming (e.g., Meadow & Parnes, 1959; Parnes, 1961; Parnes & Meadow, 1959, 1960), and conducted a major study of the effects of CPS utilizing a five-stage model (Parnes, 1966; Reese & Parnes, 1970). These early efforts culminated in a two-year experimental study to examine the effects of deliberately developing creativity called the Creative Studies Project (Biondi, 1971; Parnes, 1987; Parnes & Noller, 1971, 1972a & b; Reese et al., 1976). These efforts created the basis for the Osborn-Parnes CPS approach, and was the key framework for the academic program, as well as the annual Creative Problem-Solving Institute (CPSI) for the 1960's and 1970's (e.g., Noller et al., 1976; Parnes et al., 1977). The Osborn-Parnes CPS model (see Figure 1) included five stages including: fact-finding, problem-finding, idea-finding, solution-finding, and acceptance-finding.

Figure 1.

The Osborn-Parnes model of CPS.

The Creative Studies Project was well received and provided important empirical support for the efficacy of attempts to deliberately develop creative potential, as well as the academic program (Isaksen & Parnes, 1985). Yet, as with all research, some interesting questions emerged. Parnes and Noller (1973) reported some intriguing personality differences between those experimental subjects who completed the four-semester study and those who dropped out. My own experience with one of those drop outs of the experimental program prompted Don and I to reflect on the curriculum itself. This young man was one of the most creative people I’ve ever met. He went on to write TV shows and receive awards for his creativity. When I asked him why he dropped out of creative studies, he told me: “Scott, I have loads of ideas. I don’t need any help with this! I need help figuring out what to do with my ideas.”

Bringing Balance to CPS

It became clear that our program was focused heavily on divergent thinking when we examined the sequence of courses and the instructional materials within the program. We believed that effective problem-solving required a delicate and dynamic balance between divergence (generating many, varied, and unusual options) and convergence (screening, selecting, and supporting novel options)—both creative and critical thinking. The eclectic creative studies program already included specific guidelines and many tools and techniques for generating, but lacked those resources for productive focusing and convergence.

This provided our initial efforts to build upon the Osborn-Parnes tradition of CPS. We reviewed the academic literature, visited numerous other creativity development programs, and reflected on our experiences in order to create appropriate guidelines and an initial suite of tools and techniques for convergence and focusing (e.g., Firestien & Treffinger, 1983a & b; Treffinger et al., 1982; Isaksen & Treffinger, 1985a & b). Appendix One and Two provide a listing of a basic set of CPS tools for generating and focusing.

The guidelines for focusing and converging complement those for generating and diverging. A primary guideline for generating is to defer judgment. The corresponding one for focusing is to apply affirmative judgment—aimed at identifying positives and strengthening alternatives. Other guidelines for generating include: strive for quantity (as quantity breeds quality); freewheel (set your imagination free); and build on options that others contribute. Other guidelines we developed for focusing included: be deliberate (have an intentional way to screen, select, and support options); consider novelty (choose new options and make them stronger); and stay on course (ensure you meet the challenge or problem upon which you are working).

Deliberate CPS Process Management

By bringing some balance to CPS, we recognized that not everyone contributed to, or benefitted from, the same things from the process. Further, when we observed Sid Parnes applying CPS outside the academic program we noticed that he was doing things that were not actually included within our instructional program. Sid was clearly a world-class facilitator, but it was difficult to make what he was actually and intuitively doing explicit, deliberate, and repeatable—it was hard to repeat the “magic” (e.g., Parnes, 1981, 1985).

Despite admonitions to the contrary, we also observed many of those we taught CPS applied the process as though it was a linear, predetermined series of stages to be ‘run through.’ Our initial response to these observations was to add an additional stage to the Osborn-Parnes CPS model called Mess-Finding. This stage included orienting individuals to their preferred approach to problem-solving, deliberately generating desired outcomes and challenges that stood in their way of making progress, examining their outlook surrounding the situation, and checking for their ownership of the task upon which they wished to apply CPS. We referred to these as the 5 O's (Orientation or characteristics of individuals or stakeholders; Outcomes and Obstacles; Ownership, and Outlook or the context surrounding the task) of Mess-Finding (Isaksen & Treffinger, 1985a & b; Treffinger et al., 1982). This was our initial attempt to link people and place with process, and clearly started to “stretch” the Osborn-Parnes paradigm of CPS.

In addition to making this modification to CPS, we also began work on improving our understanding of the art and science of the different roles involved in facilitating the process (e.g., Isaksen, 1983; Treffinger et al., 1983). The facilitator was responsible for managing the process along with a “client” who owned the content and outcomes from the process. The resource-group was responsible for providing input and suggestions. Detailing these roles and specifying aspects of Mess-Finding (the 5 O's) seemed to bring some clarity that helped with learning and applying the Osborn-Parnes tradition of CPS (Firestien & Treffinger, 1983b; Treffinger & Firestien, 1989).

Departing from the Osborn-Parnes Tradition

The new process modifications (adding more explicit emphasis on the “front-end” of CPS) and the addition of the three social roles of facilitator, client, and resource group, made it nearly impossible to “run through” the entire process in one setting. Concurrent with the departure of the Creative Education Foundation from our campus, Don focused on a new outlet for disseminating our work through the Center for Creative Learning. I started working with the Center for Creative Leadership and founded the Creative Problem-Solving Group-Buffalo (CPSB). Working through these organizations provided opportunities for us to share our developments, as well as engage in reflective practice with our clients, each other, our students, and our colleagues (e.g., Isaksen et al., 1993a; Isaksen & Treffinger, 1991; Treffinger et al., 2003).

We were also able to capitalize on these applied engagements by conducting, supervising, and reviewing numerous studies of the real-world impact of CPS (e.g., Isaksen & Treffinger, 2004; Treffinger & Isaksen, 2005). Don was also able to help conduct numerous evaluations of other programs that relied on learning and applying CPS like Destination Imagination, Future Problem-Solving, Camp Invention, and Lost Prizes (e.g., Place et al., 2000; McCluskey et al., 1998; Treffinger et al., 2012; Saxon et al., 2003). I was able to conduct proprietary impact studies on the use of CPS in helping organizations meet their innovation challenges (e.g., Isaksen & Lewandowski, 1997; Isaksen, & Puccio, 1988; Isaksen, & Murdock, 1990; Isaksen et al., 1991).

Along with our colleagues, we were able to combine and synthesize our learning from these experiences, and this resulted in some major changes to our approach to CPS. First, impact studies clearly indicated that those applying CPS did not use the entire linear five or six-stage model. Instead, they often used the six stages independently, based on their personal assessment of how the stages and tools might naturally help them to deal with a certain task or challenge. As a result, it appeared that people used CPS flexibly to clarify their understanding of problems, generate ideas, and/or plan for taking action.

Breaking up the Model. The first major change we implemented was to break the linear model into three main components: obtaining clarity (which included Mess, Data, and Problem Finding), generating ideas (Idea Finding), and planning for action (Solution and Acceptance Finding). From there, facilitators could rely on the guidelines, tools, and language from earlier developments. This better reflected how people were actually applying CPS (e.g., Isaksen & Treffinger, 1991; Treffinger & Isaksen, 1992). Once the linear model was broken, the next big challenge was: How do we help people choose the appropriate component and stage or design their process journey? This required careful observation of practical application and facilitation experiences, as well as consideration of emerging insights from research.

Introducing Mindful Metacognition. Our teams at CCL and CPSB had many opportunities to collaborate and observe those we trained as facilitators as they applied CPS to their real-world challenges and opportunities. We were able to ask the facilitators and clients to describe and explain what they were considering and how they were making choices within their experiences. We would then debrief each of these experiences with our team. As a result, we were able to identify the inputs and outputs for each of the CPS components and stages. The aim was to make planning and decision-making more transparent. Facilitators were better able to monitor progress during sessions and make changes along the way. Many of the elements of our earlier work on Mess-Finding were further elaborated, and found to be an important arena of work to help everyone involved better navigate their journeys with CPS.

The result was the development of a new “management” component of CPS that we called Planning your Approach (Isaksen et al., 1994, 2000, 2011). This component was different from the other three. It involved deliberate “thinking about thinking” or metacognition, and was influenced by emerging research into constructivism (e.g., Phillips, 1995; Vygotsky, 1978). Planning your Approach included two stages: Appraising the Task, and Designing the Process (Isaksen, 1995). This CPS component, and its stages, are described in more detail later. A more detailed description of the current approach to CPS is provided below.

The Current Approach to CPS

Our current approach builds on the rich Osborn-Parnes tradition, but departs from this history in some meaningful ways. We are gratified that the changes and improvements we endeavored to make have been adopted and adapted by many who teach, train, apply, and facilitate CPS.

We see CPS as a broadly applicable framework for organizing specific tools, guidelines, and language to help people develop new and useful outcomes. It includes a balanced set of guidelines and tools to foster both generating (divergent thinking) and focusing (convergent thinking). It provides a general, open, and dynamic system for understanding and framing opportunities, problems, and challenges; generating many, varied, and unusual ideas; as well as evaluating, developing, and implementing potential solutions. The current approach provides problem-solvers support in navigating their journey so that they can consider the people involved, the situation or context for their efforts, as well as determining the best fit between CPS and their desired outcome (Isaksen et al., 2011). This framework can also provide teachers and trainers, who may be uncertain about how to develop creative thinking and problem-solving skills, productive guidance in doing so.

The current CPS framework helps to achieve clarity, generate ideas, and take action. Since these are three distinct choices and areas into which the tools, guidelines, and language of CPS coalesce, problem-solvers need to be able to navigate their way through its various components and stages. Navigation is obtained by a component called Planning your Approach. Clarity is achieved by Understanding the Challenge. Many, varied and original ideas are obtained by a component called Generating Ideas. The Preparing for Action component includes strengthening potential solutions and developing plans of action. These main components of CPS are described in more detail below (see Figure 2).

Figure 2.

The current CPS framework.

Planning Your Approach

The current version of CPS includes a unique management component called Planning your Approach that focuses on producing the desired results, as well as consideration of the people involved, the climate within the organization, and designing the appropriate process approach. The purpose of this component is to help you navigate your way through the application of the CPS process.

Planning your Approach contains two main stages: Appraising Tasks and Designing Process. These stages deal with the deliberate management of the other components within CPS. Since problem-solvers need to be able to personalize and customize CPS for many different applications, these stages help them determine if CPS is an appropriate method and, if it is, to design an effective application of the components, stages, language, and tools.

Appraising Tasks. Task appraisal involves determining whether or not CPS is appropriate for a given task, and whether modifications of the approach might be necessary. When approaching a task problem-solvers consider the key people, the desired outcome, the characteristics of the situation, and the possible methods for handling the task. Task appraisal enables the assessment of the extent to which CPS might be appropriate—the method of choice, as it were—for addressing a given task or for managing creativity in appropriate ways. Appraising a task integrates the 4P's (person, process, product, and place), or general system of creativity, into CPS (e.g., Isaksen, 2010).

When appraising a task, problem-solvers consider:

People – A key part of the system is to ensure that the proper level of ownership (interest, influence, and imagination) and sponsorship is in place. Engaging people in CPS without clear and legitimate ownership can be a waste of time, energy, and resources. A key decision point when appraising a task is to insure that you are working with a client – someone who owns the task. It is also helpful to understand the abilities, motivations, skills, and styles of the people who will be involved in CPS.

Place – The climate, working atmosphere, and culture are important factors influencing your approach to CPS. Considering the context can help you understand if the context is ready, willing, and able to use a particular method. Since CPS takes an investment of energy, appraising tasks helps to determine the level of priority that should be assigned to a specific task. A great deal of research has been done to understand the climate that supports creativity and innovation, and climate assessments can be used to supplement your understanding of the context (more on this later).

Desired Outcomes – Having a clear image of the desired results is key to successful application of CPS. Attention is focused on the domain-relevant knowledge of the current reality when appraising a task. This is where having a client with appropriate content expertise is important. By understanding the desired outcome or need, problem-solvers are in a much better position to validate the need for novelty. Afterall, if there is no real need for newness, there is no need to apply CPS.

The current approach to CPS requires the development of an explicit written task summary that clearly points out the need for originality and the requirements for the outcomes, including key background information. This statement guides the specific application of the tools and language and helps everyone understand the purpose of the session, project, or initiative. Task summaries act as springboards for effective problem-solving and ensure delivery of desired outcomes, and are helpful when applying CPS in-person, or through some form of digital collaboration. Having and using explicit task statements can also support formative assessment for teachers and facilitators to ensure that groups stays on the right track.

Methods – Since CPS is an open system, it allows for the integration and use of a number of alternative methods. The information gained from an improved understanding of the people, context, and outcomes guides the choice to use CPS or integrating other methods within the approach. CPS is best applied when problem-solvers are approaching a novel, complex, or ambiguous situation for which there is no solution currently available.

Designing Process. As a result of appraising tasks, problem-solvers are in the position to design an approach to the process journey. This stage includes considering the scope of the work. Will it be a single session, a longer-term project, or an even larger and longer-term initiative? Is the level of the application targeted to an individual, group or team, or at an organizational level? And then, which of the components or stages of CPS will be most helpful?

Once the scope and level of application for CPS is determined, problem-solvers need to decide if the need is for clarity, ideas, or action. These are the main purposes of the three main process components of CPS. In some cases, a gap may exist between current reality and the desired future, but no clear understanding of the opportunity or problem exists. In this case, problem-solvers may benefit from the clarity component: Understanding the challenge. If there is a clear statement of the problem, but a lack of ideas to address the problem, then the generating ideas component would be a good fit. If there is a tentative solution that needs to be strengthened for implementation and acceptance, the planning for action component would be appropriate.

Understanding the Challenge

The Understanding the Challenge component includes a systematic effort to define, construct, or focus problem-solving efforts. This component deals with the natural structural tension (Fritz, 1993) that arises when there are discrepancies between what you want or desire, and what you have – or current reality.

Understanding the Challenge includes the three stages of Constructing Opportunities, Exploring Data, and Framing Problems. Constructing Opportunities involves generating broad, brief, and beneficial statements that help set the principal direction for problem-solving efforts. We use invitational stems like “Wouldn’t it be great if . . .” or “Wouldn’t it be awful if . . .” These statements are framed at a rather high level of abstraction to point out the boundaries of the domain (e.g., Floridi, 2008; Ogden & Richards, 1927; Upton, 1941). This is an example of the deliberate and careful integration of language into the CPS process (e.g., Noller, 1971). This stage focuses on helping to identify broad goals at a strategic level phrased as both opportunities and obstacles. This helps you identify your vision as well as key barriers or discrepancies to accomplishing it.

Exploring Data includes generating and answering questions that bring out key information, feelings, observations, impressions and questions about the task. This emphasis on information processing helps problem-solvers to develop an understanding of the current situation. Exploring Data helps you obtain a deeper understanding of the current reality within the context of the opportunity or problem space.

Framing Problems involves seeking specific or targeted questions (problem statements) on which to focus subsequent efforts. The questions are framed using language like “How to …” or “In what ways might we . . .” as invitational stems. Framing Problems is related to the concept of problem finding which is well described in the creativity literature (Dillon, 1982; Getzels & Csiksentmihalyi, 1976; Runco, 1994).

Generating Ideas

When you have a well-defined problem space but lack ideas to address the issue, the Generating Ideas component and stage helps you come up with many, varied, or unusual options for responding to the problem. During the generating phase of this stage, problem solvers produce many options (fluent thinking), a variety of possible options (flexible thinking), novel or unusual options (original thinking), or a smaller number of detailed or refined options (elaborative thinking). The focusing phase of Generating Ideas provides an opportunity to examine, review, cluster, and select promising ideas. Although this stage includes a focusing phase, its primary emphasis rests in generating or the commitment of extended effort to seek creative possibilities (Basadur & Thompson, 1986; Parnes, 1961).

Brainstorming is the most widely known, and also likely the most misunderstood aspect of CPS. Many think that brainstorming is equivalent to CPS, despite the fact that it is only one generating tool within the broader CPS framework. Some of our colleagues have referred to brainstorming as ‘the tail that wagged the dog’ given its widespread use and eventual controversy.

After its introduction by Osborn, early evidence supported the efficacy of brainstorming (Parnes & Meadow, 1959; Parnes et al., 1959). Yet, researchers at Yale published a study aimed at answering: Does group participation facilitate or inhibit creative thinking (Taylor et al., 1958)? They compared nominal (individuals working alone) versus real groups instructed to brainstorm, and concluded that group participation inhibited creative thinking. This study initiated a rather public argument pitting the value of individuals versus groups involved in CPS. For Osborn (1953) brainstorming was never meant to exclude individual ideation. In fact, he encouraged participants who were to be involved in brainstorming sessions to generate ideas before and after working within the group. Brainstorming was designed to help creative collaboration in groups in order to address real challenges and opportunities requiring new ideas—as a supplement to individual ideation.

Individuals working independently do not face the many barriers, trip-wires, and challenges associated with actual social interaction. Hundreds of studies have helped us understand the many obstacles when groups work together to generate ideas. Some of these barriers include uniformity pressure (e.g., Diehl & Stroebe, 1987), social loafing (e.g., Paulus, 1983), and production blocking (Nijstad et al., 2003). Yet, we need not ‘throw the baby out with the bathwater!’

Brainstorming research has also focused on two key ways to mitigate these barriers. The first is the use of technology such as group decision support systems or electronic brainstorming (Cooper et al., 1998; Thompson & Coovert, 2002). Nunamaker et al. (1997) shared lessons from their experience in using technology to support brainstorming and concluded that it: “. . . can make a well-planned meeting better, and it can make a poorly planned meeting worse . . . any tool is only as good as the artisan who wields it” (pp. 171–172). The use of technology does not replace the need for a group leadership role of facilitation.

The second major way to overcome these barriers is to use trained facilitators— something outlined earlier by Osborn. Facilitators not only work to mitigate the barriers, they also focus on leveraging the benefits of working in groups and teams. CPS groups using trained facilitators did better than groups without one, and facilitated groups can actually match or exceed the productivity of nominal groups (Offner et al., 1996). Oxley et al. (1996) reported similar findings when studying the level of training of the facilitator. They found that the groups having the benefit of a highly-trained facilitator outperformed non-facilitated groups and those helped by facilitators with less training. They concluded that groups with a highly trained facilitator may achieve the productivity of nominal groups without foregoing the advantages of interaction. Isaksen and Gaulin (2005) confirmed these findings.

Preparing for Action

Problem solvers use the Preparing for Action component to make decisions about, develop, or strengthen promising alternatives, and to plan for their successful implementation. The two stages included in the component are called Developing Solutions and Building Acceptance.

During Developing Solutions, promising options may be analyzed, refined, or developed. If there are many options, the emphasis may be on compressing or condensing them so that they are more manageable. If there are only a few promising options, the challenge may be to refine, strengthen, or develop each one to make them as strong as possible. This stage can involve ranking or prioritizing a number of possible options, generating and selecting specific criteria for evaluating promising options, or selecting the most promising options from a larger pool. The emphasis in this stage is primarily on focusing options and developing promising ideas into plausible solutions. This stage of CPS transforms the potential solutions into more workable and implementable concepts.

The building acceptance stage involves searching for potential sources of assistance and resistance and identifying possible factors that may influence successful implementation of solutions. The aim is to help prepare solutions for improved acceptance and greater value. This stage helps the problem solver identify ways to make the best possible use of assisters and avoid or overcome possible sources of resistance. By considering these factors, problem solvers can develop and evaluate a plan of action. Preparing for implementation also provides opportunities to consider alternative possibilities, contingency plans, or feedback loops.

Considering People and Place Along with Process

There is a substantial body of literature pointing out that all behavior is a function of people and their environment (e.g., Lewin, 1936). This holds true for developing creative potential, and has highlighted the need to consider creativity as a system (e.g., Csikszentmihalyi, 2014; Hennessey, 2017; Tromp & Sternberg, 2022). The importance of considering people and place also influenced our research and development activities (e.g., Isaksen et al., 1984; Isaksen et al., 1993b). It was clear to us that work on the creative process could not be isolated or insulated from people and their environment.

Concurrent with our developments to improve the learning and application of CPS, Don and I collaborated with our colleagues and students on two major research initiatives. The first was called the cognitive styles project and the second was called the creative climate project. Each of these will be summarized below.

The Power of Preference

We were confident that CPS worked, yet had recognized early on that there were many important individual differences involved when people learned and applied CPS. Our research focus expanded to better understand what aspects of CPS worked well, for whom? We conducted numerous examinations of a wide variety of measures related to creativity performance (e.g., Puccio & Murdock, 1999; Treffinger et al., 2002). We were also influenced by an emerging body of research that made a distinction between level and style of creativity (e.g., Isaksen & Dorval, 1993; Kirton, 1978). After examining many different style assessments, we endeavored to create a new measure that would be independent of creative level, have a low level of readability, and have direct relationships to learning and applying CPS for individuals and teams (Isaksen, 2004; Selby et al., 2004; Treffinger et al., 2008). The result was the creation of VIEW: An assessment of problem-solving style.

The foundation for this new assessment was based on our understanding of individual differences in personality, as well as our combined experience with CPS (see Figure 3). The VIEW assessment integrates the three most influential theories and measures we examined. We were influenced by work on learning and cognitive style, as well as psychological type (Dunn & Dunn, 1978; Kirton, 1989; McCaulley, 1990, respectively) and this resulted in defining and assessing three dimensions of problem-solving style.

Figure 3.

Foundations of VIEW: An assessment of problem-solving style.

The orientation to change dimension encompasses individual preferences for responding to and managing structure, authority, and novelty when dealing with change or solving problems and is anchored by explorer and developer styles. The manner of processing dimension focuses on preferences for how and when individuals use their inner energy and resources (and those of others or from the environment) when processing information when managing change or solving problems and is anchored by external and internal styles. The ways of deciding dimension refers to dispositions of individuals in balancing concerns for tasks and interpersonal needs when focusing, making decisions or taking action, and is anchored by Person and Task styles.

There is more than sufficient evidence regarding VIEW's reliability and validity (Isaksen et al., 2021a; Isaksen et al., 2021b). VIEW is clearly linked to individuals’ preferences for various aspects of CPS (e.g., Isaksen & Geuens, 2007). Yet, since it is not specifically linked to any particular model or method, it can be applied to guiding the use of a wide variety of creativity, innovation, and change methods. VIEW is value-neutral, as the evidence indicates it is unrelated to various level measures like intelligence (Isaksen et al., 2016), and creative-thinking abilities (Woodel-Johnson et al., 2012). Since VIEW is value-neutral, it readily provides individuals with valuable insights into their preferences. It also easily translates to the team level to encourage the understanding and appreciation of the preferences of others. As such, VIEW also readily improves teamwork and outcomes when addressing creative challenges (Main et al., 2019).

The Power of Place

Following the inclusion and integration of problem-solving style preferences into our approach to CPS, further impact studies led us to observe that participants often mentioned their workplace environment as a unique source of encouragement or resistance for applying what they learned. The atmosphere within which people applied CPS made a difference in their impact. Our learning was that we could have a great model and method, and help people understand and manage their problem-solving preferences, but if the conditions were not conducive, impact would be limited. We had made progress on ‘what works, for whom’—and now we needed to include “under what circumstances?” This concern led to the development of the creative climate project.

The creative climate project was heavily influenced by the ground-breaking work of Göran Ekvall (1987; 1996) who studied the work atmosphere that supported creativity and innovation. Ekvall defined and differentiated climate and culture. Climate is the perceived patterns of behavior that characterize the atmosphere in a particular place. Culture is about the deeper aspects of values and assumptions that exist, and influences the climate. He identified key dimensions of the climate supporting creativity and innovation, along with a clear conceptual model and an assessment of these dimensions. We collaborated with him beginning in the early 1980's to translate and further develop his assessment (e.g., Isaksen, 2022b; Isaksen & Ekvall, 2015; Treffinger et al., 1996; 2011) that has been applied in schools, classrooms, universities, businesses, and for teams and leadership development programs.

Creative Climate Dimensions

Some conceive of climate in a very general sense. Another trend is to link climates to more specific areas of focus like the climate for safety, service, etc. Ekvall was interested in the climate for creativity and innovation. There is still some debate about the number and kind of dimensions of climate that support creativity, innovation, and CPS (e.g., Hunter et al., 2007), but there is clear and substantial support for the following nine dimensions.

Challenge and Involvement. This dimension has to do with the degree to which people are involved in daily operations, long-term goals, and visions. High levels of challenge and involvement means that people are intrinsically motivated and committed to making contributions to the success of the organization. The climate has a dynamic, electric, and inspiring quality. People find joy and meaningfulness in their work, and therefore, they invest much energy. In the opposite situation, people are not engaged and feelings of alienation and indifference are present. The common sentiment and attitude is apathy and lack of interest in that work and interaction is both dull and listless.

When challenge and involvement exists for students, they are interested, curious, motivated to learn, and eager to explore. When challenge and involvement are not present, students lack engagement in their learning.

Freedom. The freedom dimension reflects the level of independence in behavior exerted by the people in the organization. In a climate with much freedom, people are given autonomy to define much of their own work. People are able to exercise discretion in their day-to-day activities. People take the initiative to acquire and share information, make plans and decisions about their work. In the opposite climate, people work within strict guidelines and roles. People carry out their work in prescribed ways with little room to redefine their tasks.

When freedom is present for students, they are provided with opportunities to set their own goals independently and engage in self-directed learning. They have a variety of activities from which they can choose. When freedom is absent, students work within strict and confining rules and procedures, and there is little room for flexibility.

Trust/Openness. The trust and openness dimension refers to the degree of emotional and psychological safety in relationships. When there is a level of trust, individuals can be genuinely open and frank with one another. People can count on each other for personal support. People have a sincere respect for one another. Where trust is missing, people are suspicious of each other, and therefore, they closely guard themselves and their ideas. In these situations, people find it extremely difficult to openly communicate with each other.

When trust and openness exists for students, open communication and respect results in a safe place for different ideas and opinions to be expressed. When these are missing, people become suspicious and guarded.

Idea-Time. Idea-time is the amount of time people can use (and do use) for elaborating new ideas. In the high idea-time situation, possibilities exist to discuss and test impulses and fresh suggestions that are not planned or included in the task assignment. There are opportunities to take the time to explore and develop new ideas. Flexible timelines permit people to explore new avenues and alternatives. In the reverse case, every minute is booked and specified. The time pressure makes thinking outside the instructions and planned routines impossible.

When idea-time exists for students possibilities exist to pursue meaningful learning projects and explore new topics. When idea-time is missing, every moment is filled with prescribed activities with heavy emphasis on “covering the material.”

Playfulness/Humor. The playfulness and humor dimension focuses on the degree to which spontaneity and ease are displayed within the workplace. A relaxed atmosphere where good-natured jokes and frequent laughter occur is indicative of this dimension. People can be seen having fun at work. The atmosphere is seen as easy-going and light-hearted. The opposite climate is characterized by gravity and seriousness. The atmosphere is stiff, gloomy, and cumbrous. Jokes and laughter are regarded as improper and intolerable.

“Laughter and learning are comfortable companions” (Treffinger et al., 2013; p. 93). When playfulness and humor exist for students, there is a good balance between working hard and allowing students to enjoy what they are doing. When these are missing, jokes and laughter are seen as improper and even intolerable.

Conflict. The conflict dimension is the only negative dimension. It refers to the presence of personal and emotional tensions in the organization. Groups and single individuals dislike and may even hate each other when the level of conflict is high. The climate can be characterized by “interpersonal warfare.” Plots, traps, power, and territory struggles are usual elements in the life of the organization. Personal differences yield gossip and slander. In the opposite case, people behave in a more mature manner; they have psychological insight and control of impulses. People accept and deal effectively with diversity.

When students experience high levels of conflict, they may express dislike and even hatred easily resulting in verbal and even physical aggression. Learning of any sort has a hard time taking root. When conflict is low, the level of threat and personal tension is reduced.

Idea-Support. The idea-support dimension assesses the way new ideas are treated. In the idea-supportive climate, ideas, and suggestions are received in an attentive and professional way by bosses, peers, and subordinates. People listen to each other and encourage initiatives. Possibilities for trying out new ideas are created. The atmosphere is constructive and positive when considering new ideas. When idea-support is low, the automatic “no” is prevailing. Every suggestion is immediately refuted by a destructive counter-argument. When idea-support is low, faultfinding and obstacle raising are the usual styles of responding to ideas.

When idea-support is high for students, their ideas, input, and suggestions are actively listened to and considered. When idea-support is too low, no attention is paid to them and suggestions are quickly dismissed.

Debate. Debate refers to the occurrence of encounters and disagreements between viewpoints, ideas, and differing experiences and knowledge. In the debating organization, many voices are heard and people are keen on putting forward their ideas for consideration and review. People can often be seen discussing opposing opinions and sharing a diversity of perspectives. Where debates are missing, people follow authoritarian patterns without questioning. Debate provides appropriate “idea” tension as opposed to conflict which provides “personal” tension.

When debate is high for students, they readily engage in good arguments and disagreements are considered in a respectful manner. Many different points of view are tolerated and encouraged. When debate is low, only singular positions are considered and there is no tolerance for disagreement.

Risk-Taking. Risk-taking is defined as the tolerance of uncertainty and ambiguity exposed in the workplace. In the high risk-taking case, bold new initiatives can be taken even when the outcomes are unknown. People feel as though they can “take a gamble” on some of their ideas. People will often “go out on a limb” and be first to put an idea forward. In a risk-avoiding climate there is a cautious, hesitant mentality. People try to be on the “safe side.” They decide, “to sleep on the matter.” They set up committees and they cover themselves in many ways before making a decision.

When risk-taking is high, students are willing to take on challenges and assignments for which the outcomes may be ambiguous and uncertain. When risk-taking is low, students take on assignments and tasks that are on the “safe side” or are easy and familiar.

These dimensions have been able to successfully distinguish innovative from stagnated organizations (Ekvall, 1996), and have been linked to a variety of important organizational outcomes related to creativity and innovation (e.g., Iqbal, 2019; Turnipseed & Turnipseed, 2013). The climate dimensions have also been applied to identify productive learning environments (e.g., Aliberti & Paolino, 2018) and creative classroom behaviors (e.g., McLellan & Nicholl, 2013; Peter-Szarka, 2012).

Situational Outlook Questionnaire

A key result of the creative climate project has been the development of the Situational Outlook Questionnaire (SOQ). The early versions of the SOQ assessed the nine dimensions of climate, and were applied at the individual level of analysis as psychological climate (Isaksen & Lauer, 1999), as well as the team (Isaksen & Lauer, 2002), and organization levels (Isaksen & Ekvall, 2010). The SOQ has more than adequate evidence regarding its reliability, validity, and psychometric qualities (e.g., Isaksen, 2020b; 2022b).

The climate for creativity was clearly an important part of the overall picture of the appropriate atmosphere or context, yet there were other important aspects that influenced the overall environment that was not originally included within the assessment such as culture or leadership. The next major phase of research and development was to include open-ended questions to the quantitative assessment of the dimensions. Adding the narratives to the SOQ allowed qualitative analysis to identify other salient factors within the environment affecting the climate within any specific context (e.g., Geurts, 2009; Sobieck, 1996). These data supplemented the quantitative results on the dimensions and promoted a deeper understanding of the context. A complete reporting of the developments can be found within Isaksen and Ekvall (2015).

This qualitative work created an opportunity to revise the earlier conceptual models for the SOQ (e.g., Isaksen, 2013; 2017) and resulted in a modified conceptual model that was also influenced by the work of Burke and Litwin (1992) to help guide future research and practice (see Figure 4).

Figure 4.

The work environment for creativity and innovation.

Potential Future Possibilities

The complete story of CPS has yet to be written. Contemporary CPS has achieved deep theoretical foundations, robust empirical research, and powerful practical applications. Many important challenges remain for creative, and disciplined, future research and development. Our thrust for CPS research and development has been: What works, for whom, under what circumstances? There are a number of current and future key questions and issues that I hope we might address. A few of these are outlined below.

Extending the Balance

In common parlance, creativity is all about generating ideas, and innovation is all about executing and implementing ideas. It seems more reasonable to consider innovation as a complex, dynamic, nonlinear, and unpredictable journey (e.g., Acar, Tarakci, & van Knippenberg, 2019; Van de Ven, 2017) with iterative cycles of divergence and convergence (Dooley & Van de Ven, 2016) that demand creativity throughout the entire process (Dul & Ceylan, 2014). This contemporary view should foster more nuanced definitions and allow for a deeper understanding and appreciation of the reciprocal relationship between creativity and innovation. Perry-Smith and Mannucci (2017, p.71) outlined the path through which an idea becomes a reality, and they asserted that: “Our investigation of the idea journey from generation to acceptance by the field helps illuminate how the creativity literature can inform the innovation literature, and vice versa.” This shifts us away from a simplistic dichotomy between ‘out of the box’ versus ‘in the box’ type of thinking, and opens up a more balanced conceptualization of the relationship among creativity, CPS, and innovation.

The preponderance of research on creativity has focused primarily on generating tools, particularly idea generation, brainstorming, and its derivatives. A promising trend is a move toward considering idea selection, convergence, and focusing tools (e.g., Berg, 2019; Fleury et al., 2020; Steele et al., 2018).

Our applications of CPS illustrate the value of considering the other components within the framework. The dynamic balance between generating and focusing has yielded important innovative outcomes by improving the clarity of ambiguous and novel problems, as well as building novel ideas to create actionable outcomes. It's not just about ideas. We should seek an improved balance of research and development beyond idea generation. Contemporary approaches to CPS include a balance of generating and focusing tools, techniques, and guidelines that can be applied within the entire framework. This is supplemented by using language that is appropriate for each stage. For example, there may be important differences between generating ideas and generating problem statements (e.g., how to…, in what ways might we…) that provide the focus for idea generation.

A few important questions to be pursued include:

Much more work should be done on focusing tools and guidelines such as seeking a better understanding of the relationships between the quantity and quality of generated options and the effects on screening, selecting, and supporting behaviors. We would also benefit greatly from moving beyond descriptive to experimental studies.

CPS includes two important components beyond Generating Ideas. It is important to examine the independent and interactive effects of Constructing Opportunities, Exploring Data, and Framing Problems on Generating Ideas. Further research and development should also include a robust examination of the efficacy of different approaches to Developing Solutions and Building Acceptance.

Encouraging Mindful Cognition

One of the most significant transformations for contemporary approaches to CPS has been the movement away from seeing the creative process as a series of linear, step-by-step, prescribed stages and toward considering CPS as an open, dynamic system or framework. (No more mindless “run-throughs” of a predetermined process!)

This development led to the creation of the Planning your Approach component which plays a unique role within CPS. This component provides the opportunity to consciously and continuously plan, select, and monitor one's approach to CPS. This involves the engagement of the problem solver's executive function (e.g., Diamond, 2013; Doebel, 2020). The implication is that those engaged in CPS ‘think about their thinking,’ and make deliberate choices about the application of process tools, stages, and language while also considering the context and people. This allows monitoring progress toward the goal or outcome of the method and making ongoing adjustments along the way.

This metacognitive activity allows the individual problem solver to blend domain-relevant content knowledge with process knowledge (e.g., Norman, et al., 2019; Rhodes, 2019). For example, creative tasks can demand paradigm breaking, stretching, or enhancing outcomes. Some CPS tools are more likely to provide paradigm-breaking, and others more paradigm enhancing outcomes (e.g., Gryskiewicz, 1987). Beyond choosing tools, this metacognitive activity allows problem solvers to fit the overall process framework to the specific needs and purposes they require, and make ongoing adjustments to their process design.

Many creative challenges require collaboration and teamwork. The Planning your Approach component can be applied at the individual level, as well as for groups or teams. This allows the engagement of social metacognition (e.g., Briñol, & Demarree, 2012; Chiu & Kuo, 2009; Frith, & Frith, 2012). Social metacognition involves distributing metacognition across group members to monitor and control their engagement in CPS, and underscores the importance of facilitation.

Like the other CPS components, planning your approach can be applied independently from the others. For example, if the problem solver already has a clear statement of the problem, they can reach into the framework and detach and apply only the generating ideas component. Metacognition and social metacognition can be applied to a wide range of human behavior. The tools, assessment mechanisms, and approaches within this management component can support mindfulness (Langer, & Ngnoumen, 2017), and sensemaking (Weick, 2020) outside the application of CPS.

A few intriguing issues to be addressed include:

Since current approaches to CPS now include meta- and social meta-cognitive aspects, we need to learn much more about how facilitators can best help others navigate the process. Some early work has already been accomplished (e.g., McFadzean, 2002; Wallgren, 1998; Wrobel et al., 2021). An updated focus on identifying the competencies required to effectively engage in CPS is required.

CPS includes a specialized language and vocabulary. For example, within this framework, there are some important distinctions among concepts like ideas, problem statements, criteria, opportunity statements, etc. We need to improve our understanding of the effects of applying these concepts within the domain of general semantics. Language and thinking are inextricably linked.

Considering People and Place

Systemic approaches to CPS should include consideration of people and place. It is likely that people who possess different preferred styles will make diverse contributions to, as well as need different beneficial aspects from, their engagement in the creative process. It is also likely that different styles may require distinctly diverse climates and work environments in order to manifest their creativity.

Some suggestions for needed insights include:

The level-style of creativity issue poses some important challenges for going forward. The value-neutral aspect of style opens the door for including a wide diversity of people, yet also points out that there may be some intriguing biases related to CPS (e.g., Glaveanu, 2014). For example, the concept of creative self-efficacy (CSE) seems rather pointed in the direction of a particular style of thinking. We may need to reconceptualize CSE, and other concepts, to allow improved inclusion of diverse styles, so that many are ready, willing, and able to apply CPS.

The nature of the climate and work environment is likely to effect CPS performance (e.g., Hunter et al., 2020; Watts et al., 2017). Are there certain climate dimensions that matter more for certain aspects (tools, stages, or components) of CPS? We also do need to work toward an informed consensus on which dimensions relate to the creative and innovative climate, and which factors belong to the larger concept of work environment.

Some initial progress has been made to better understand the potential linkages between style and climate (e.g., Isaksen, 2009; Isaksen & Aerts, 2011; Hoßbach, 2019). Yet, we need a much deeper understanding of their interrelationship and interaction, particularly as they relate to learning and applying CPS.

Conclusion

Modern-day CPS holds great promise and potential for deliberately developing creative potential. When I am asked to differentiate the current approaches to CPS from others, I would point out three major characteristics.

The first of these is that contemporary approaches include a dynamic balance and interplay between generating (divergence) and focusing (convergence). This implies having and appreciating a diverse set of tools, appropriate guidelines and language for both kinds of thinking and behaving.

The second characteristic is that the framework that links process to purpose is open, dynamic, and comprehensive. A descriptive approach allows for approaching CPS in a flexible manner—using tools, guidelines, language, stages, and components in ways that are fit for purpose. The framework needs to go beyond idea generation, and include a sufficient breadth to allow for application across a wide variety of tasks. Finally, the framework should go beyond limited consideration of just the CPS process and the task—to include attention to people and place.

The third feature of modern-day CPS is the focus on facilitation. At the individual level, a current approach provides sufficient information and guidance for effective personal use and helps people metacognitively make choices and design their way through the framework. For group-level application, contemporary CPS includes a social role for the facilitator who uses social metacognition with the client and resource-group to obtain an optimum design for their CPS journey.

This article has focused on process, people, and place. What about the fourth “P” called product? First, the main focus of all our efforts has been on people applying the process in their situations to produce outcomes that meet their innovation challenges, and their needs for new and useful results. Second, developing creative potential and talents is an outcome that is worthy in its own right. If we ignore or discount its importance and value at every level of society, we do so at our own peril.

Footnotes

Appendix 1: CPS Tools for Generating Options

Brainstorming - During Brainstorming, individuals think of options that address the topic (stated as an open-ended question), and share them aloud for the group. An individual records the options as stated in a visible place. In contrast to group discussion (where generating and focusing often happen together), during Brainstorming, critical analysis and development are temporarily suspended.

Brainstorming with Post-its^® - As in Brainstorming, group members generate options by sharing them aloud. However, instead of one person recording the options, group members record their own options on Post-it^® notes. An individual then collects the Post-it^® notes and places them on a flipchart or other visible space. This allows for a greater flow of options because you do not have one person attempting to write each option generated by the group. Also, because the Post-its^® are movable, options do not need to be rewritten, thereby, increasing the efficiency of subsequent focusing activities.

Brainwriting - Brainwriting provides quiet time to group members as they generate options. Group members work individually and quietly to record their options on a Brainwriting worksheet. After generating three options, each group member exchanges the worksheet for another one lying in the middle of the workspace. The group member reads these options silently and uses them as stimuli to generate three additional options. Members can build on the options previously written or generate entirely new options. Repeat the exchange of the Brainwriting worksheets until they are completely filled, or until a stated time period has elapsed.

Brainstorming Enhancers - SCAMPER and Forced Fitting are tools to help people shift their perspectives and think about things from new directions. Forced Fitting requires an individual to force a relationship between a random object (e.g., a toy) and the task at hand. SCAMPER is a mnemonic device for a menu of thought-provoking questions that can be used to stimulate a shift in thinking.

Imagery Trek - The goal of Imagery Trek is to create new connections by taking a mental or physical journey, first away from a task and then connecting back to it. First, a list of words is generated. One word is selected and used to create an image. The image is used to stimulate “fuzzy” connections back to the task at hand. Finally, more concrete connections are made which relate to the task.

Ladder of Abstraction - As the name Ladder of Abstraction suggests, this tool consists of moving up and down different levels of abstraction in a systematic way. Asking the question “Why,” about a task, helps to identify a broader view or a higher level of abstraction. Asking “How,” leads to a more specific or concrete view of the task, and moves down the ladder. Asking “Why else” or “How else” stimulates a search for other options or views at the same (or parallel) level of abstraction. Moving up and down the Ladder of Abstraction, viewing many possibilities at different levels, helps to determine the most appropriate and useful level of abstraction at which to pose and work with the task.

Morphological Matrix - The Morphological Matrix uses 3–5 key parts or parameters of the task as a framework for creating new options. Each parameter is listed as a column heading in the matrix. Below each parameter is placed specific examples of possible values that parameter might have. New options are generated by selecting one item from each column. These items are combined to make a composite option. A matrix containing four parameters with ten values for each parameter yields ten thousand possible combinations.

Visually Identifying Relationships (VIR) - VIR uses visual images to help group members distance themselves from an issue in order to develop fresh and novel perspectives. After an initial relaxation exercise, group members look at three—four pictures and record several observations or reactions to each on a worksheet (individually and quietly). Group members then connect their observations and reactions back to the task to generate highly original or unusual possibilities. By stepping away and then reengaging, there is an increased probability of finding new perspectives on the task.

Appendix 2: CPS Tools for Focusing Options

Advantages, Limitations, Unique, overcoming Limitations (ALUo) - ALUo provides a structured approach to analyzing and developing promising options. To use this tool, identify the Advantages (strengths), Limitations (concerns or possible weaknesses) and Unique Qualities (novel or useful elements) of an option. In addition, you will develop and strengthen the option by identifying and overcoming the key limitations (overcome limitations). The tool's structure helps avoid the common idea-slaughtering that often occurs when groups confront novel or unusual options.

Criteria - Criteria are used to make the process of evaluation and decision-making explicit and deliberate. First, develop a list of possible criteria using the generating guidelines. Then, use the focusing guidelines to select the key criteria to act as “yardsticks” for evaluation. These yardsticks are used to screen, select, and support options under consideration. When creating the list of criteria, use the phrase, “Will it…”. Once the criteria are chosen, they may be applied informally or in conjunction with other structured focusing tools (e.g., Evaluation Matrix).

Evaluation Matrix - The evaluation matrix provides a structure for evaluating promising options against key criteria. Write specific criteria across the top and options to be evaluated down the left side of the matrix. Complete the matrix by evaluating each option against the criteria, column by column. A rating scale is used to determine how well each option meets each specific criterion. The results of the matrix are then used to evaluate, develop and strengthen the options.

Selecting Hits - By selecting hits, an individual uses internal or implicit criteria, experience, and personal judgment to identify and select promising options from a list of alternatives. Review the options and ask, “Which ones are on target, intriguing, or intuitively seem to be the best possibilities?” Selecting Hits is often used as an initial or preliminary focusing tool, particularly when considering a large number of options

Highlighting - Highlighting is a tool commonly used to compress options. First, options considered important, called Hits, are selected from a list. The Hits are then clustered into groupings called “hot-spots,” based on emerging themes. The theme for each Hot Spot is identified and used as a title for the grouping. Finally, the titles for each Hot Spot are restated in a format that accurately captures the meaning of the hot-spot.

Paired Comparison Analysis (PCA) - The PCA uses a simple grid to develop an understanding of the relative priority of a group of options. Individuals list the options under consideration on the PCA form. Options are then compared to each other, one pair at a time. Two decisions are made for each comparison. First, which option is most important. Next, how much more important is the option over the other—and a rating is assigned. Total scores are calculated for each option and used to understand their priority. Individual results can be placed on a flipchart and used to help groups come to consensus about priority.

Musts/Wants - Sorting options into “Musts” and “Wants” provides an informal but effective approach to focusing options. A person selects, evaluates, and places promising options into categories of priority called Musts and Wants. Musts are the most important options that most certainly need to be addressed in order to reach a sound or effective choice or decision. Failing to consider the Musts may jeopardize the success of subsequent efforts or actions. Wants are options that you would like to consider for selecting, refining, polishing, or strengthening, although they may not be “critical factors” influencing the success or failure of future efforts or actions. The Musts are what you have to consider; the Wants are what it would be nice to consider.

Short-Medium-Long (SML) - This tool is used to focus options by arranging them in a meaningful way based on time. Short, medium, and long-range time frames are defined and then promising options are placed into groups based on these time frames.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article

ORCID iD

Scott G. Isaksen

About the Author

Scott G. Isaksen (EdD) is a professor of Leadership and Organizational Behavior at BI-Norwegian Business School in Bergen, Norway, and Founder of the Creative Problem Solving Group-Buffalo. He conducts research on organizational creativity and innovation and has 50 years of experience in developing and applying creative problem solving for individuals, groups and teams, and organizations.

References

Acar

O. A.

Tarakci

van Knippenberg

(2019). Creativity and innovation under constraints: A cross-disciplinary integration. Journal of Management, 45(1), 96–121. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206318805832

Aliberti

Paolino

(2018). Being absorbed in technological learning environments: Distraction, boredom, and the effects of a Creative climate on learning and training transfer. In Lazazzara

Nacamulli

Rossignoli

(Eds.), Organizing for digital innovation (pp. 189–197). Springer.

Basadur

M. S.

Thompson

(1986). Usefulness of the ideation principle of extended effort in real world professional and managerial creative problem solving. Journal of Creative Behavior, 20(1), 23–34. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.1986.tb00414.x

Berg

J. M.

(2019). When silver is gold: Forecasting the potential creativity of initial ideas. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 154(1), 96–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2019.08.004

Biondi

A. M.

(1971). Applied creativity: The creative studies project - introduction. Journal of Creative Behavior, 5(4), 242–244. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.1971.tb00894.x

Briñol

Demarree

K. G.

(2012). Social metacognition: Thinking about thinking in social psychology. In Briñol

Demarree

K. G.

(Eds.), Social metacognition (pp. 1–18). Taylor & Francis.

Burke

W. W.

Litwin

G. W.

(1992). A causal model for organizational performance and change. Journal of Management, 18(3), 523–545. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639201800306

Chamberlain

(2020). Knowledge is not everything. Design for Health, 4(1), 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1080/24735132.2020.1731203

Chiu

M. M.

Kuo

S. W.

(2009). From metacognition to social metacognition: Similarities, differences, and learning. Journal of Education Research, 3(4), 1–19.

10.

Conant

J. B.

(1947). On understanding science: An historical approach. Yale University Press.

11.

Cooper

W. H.

Gallupe

R. B.

Pollard

Cadsby

(1998). Some liberating effects of anonymous electronic brainstorming. Small Group Research, 29(2), 147–178. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496498292001

12.

Csikszentmihalyi

(2014). The systems model of creativity: The collected works of Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. Springer Science.

13.

Dewey

(1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. D. C. Heath.

14.

Diamond

(2013). Executive functions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 135–168. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143750

15.

Diehl

Stroebe

(1987). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward the solution of a riddle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(3), 497–509. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.53.3.497

16.

Dillon

J. T.

(1982). Problem finding and solving. Journal of Creative Behavior, 16(2), 97–111. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.1982.tb00326.x

17.

Dimnet

(1928). The art of thinking. Vail-Ballou Press.

18.

Doebel

(2020). Rethinking executive function and its development. Perspectives in Psychological Science, 15(4), 942–956. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620904771

19.

Dooley

Van de Ven

(2016). Cycles of divergence and convergence: Underlying processes of organizational change and innovation. In Langley

Tsoukas

(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of process organization studies (pp. 574–590). Sage Reference.

20.

Dorval

K. B.

(2021). Scott Isaksen: 50 years as a scholar practitioner. In Reisman

(Ed.), Celebrating giants and trailblazers in creativity research and related fields (pp. 187–222). KIE Publications.

21.

Dul

Ceylan

(2014). The impact of a creativity-supporting work environment on a firm’s product innovation performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(6), 1254–1267. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12149

22.

Dunn

(1978). Teaching students through their individual learning styles: A practical approach. Prentice- Hall.

23.

Ekvall

(1987). The climate metaphor in organization theory. In Bass

Drenth

(Eds.), Advances in organizational psychology (pp. 177–190). Sage.

24.

Ekvall

(1996). Organizational climate for creativity and innovation. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5(1), 105–123. https://doi.org/10.1080/13594329608414845

25.

Firestien

R. L.

Treffinger

D. J.

(1983b). Creative problem solving: Guidelines and resources for effective facilitation. Gifted Child Today, 6(2), 2–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/107621758300600101

26.

Firestien

R. L.

Treffinger

D. J.

(1983a). Ownership and converging: Essential ingredients of creative problem solving. Journal of Creative Behavior, 17(1), 32–38. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.1983.tb00972.x

27.

Fleury

Agnés

Cados

Denis-Lutard

Duchéne

Rigaud

Richir

(2020). Effects of social influence on idea selection in creativity workshops. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 37, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100691

28.

Floridi

(2008). The method of levels of abstraction. Minds and Machines, 18(3), 303–328. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-008-9113-7

29.

Frith

C. D.

Frith

(2012). Mechanisms of social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 287–313. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100449

30.

Fritz

(1993). Creating: A practical guide to the creative process. Fawcett Columbine.

31.

Fuller

R. B.

(1981). Critical Path. St. Martin’s Press.

32.

Getzels

J. W.

Csiksentmihalyi

(1976). The creative vision: A longitudinal study of problem finding in art. John Wiley and Sons.

33.

Geurts

(2009). An examination of the model for organizational change, innovation and creativity. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Hogeschool-Universiteit: Brussels, Belgium.

34.

Glaveanu

V. P.

(2014). Revisiting the ‘art bias’ in lay conceptions of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 26(1), 11–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2014.873656

35.

Gryskiewicz

S. S.

(1987). Predictable creativity. In Isaksen

S. G.

(Ed.), Frontiers of creativity research: Beyond the basics (pp. 305–313). Bearly Limited.

36.

Hennessey

(2017). Taking a systems view of creativity: On the right path toward understanding. Journal of Creative Behavior, 51(4), 341–344. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.196

37.

Hoßbach

(2019). Organizational climate for creativity: Exploring the influence of distinct types of individual differences. Springer-Gabler.

38.

Houtz

Selby

(2021). Donald John Treffinger, Ph. D: Creativity driver. In Reisman

(Ed.), Celebrating giants and trailblazers in creativity research and related fields (pp. 754–775). KIE Publications.

39.

Hunter

S. T.

Bedell

K. E.

Mumford

M. D.

(2007). Climate for creativity: A quantitative review. Creativity Research Journal, 19(1), 69–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400410709336883

40.

Hunter

S. T.

Farr

J. L.

Heinen

R. L.

Allen

J. B.

(2020). Integrating creative climate and creative problem solving. In Mumford

M. D.

Todd

E. M.

(Eds.), Creativity and innovation in organizations (pp. 137–160). Routledge.

41.

Iqbal

(2019). The strategic human resource management approaches and organizational performance: The mediating role of creative climate. Journal of Advances in Management Research, 16(2), 181–193. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAMR-11-2017-0104

42.

Isaksen

S. G.

(1983). Toward a model of facilitation of creative problem solving. Journal of Creative Behavior, 17(1), 18–31. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.1983.tb00971.x

43.

Isaksen

S. G.

(1995). CPS: Linking creativity and problem solving. In Kaufmann

Helstrup

Teigen

K. H.

(Eds.), Problem solving and cognitive processes: A festschrift in honour of Kjell Raaheim (pp. 145–181). Fagbokforlaget Vigmostad & Bjørke AS.

44.

Isaksen

S. G.

(2004). The progress and potential of the creativity level - style distinction: Implications for research and practice. In Haukedal

Kuvas

(Eds.), Creativity and problem solving in the context of business management (pp. 40–71). Fagbokforlaget.

45.

Isaksen

S. G.

(2009). Exploring the relationship between problem-solving style and creative psychological climate. In Meusburger

Funke

Wunder

(Eds.), Milieus of creativity: An interdisciplinary approach to spatiality of creativity (pp. 169–188). Springer Science.

46.

Isaksen

S. G.

(2010). A systems view of creativity: Searching for the whole elephant. In Harland

P. E.

Schwarz-Geschka

(Eds.), Immer eine idée voraus: Wie innovative unternehmen kreativitat systematisch nutzen (Always one step ahead: How to apply creativity and innovation systemically) (pp. 21–30). Harland Media.

47.

Isaksen

S. G.

(2013). Managing for innovation: Examination of a climate-centric model for organizational creativity. Kindai Management Review, 1(1), 41–58.

48.

Isaksen

S. G.

(2017). Leadership’s role in creative climate creation. In Mumford

M. D.

Hemlin

(Eds.), Handbook of research on leadership and creativity (pp. 131–158). Edward Elgar Publishing.

49.

Isaksen

S. G.

Aerts

(2011). Linking problem-solving style and creative organizational climate: An exploratory interactionist study. International Journal of Creativity and Problem Solving, 21(2), 7–38.

50.

Isaksen

S. G.

(2022b). Assessing the work environment for creativity and innovation: Building on the Mathisen and Einarsen review (2004). Creativity Research Journal. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2022.2112837

51.

Isaksen

S. G.

(2022a). A compendium of evidence for creative problem solving. The Creative Problem Solving Group - Buffalo. Available to download from www.cpsb.com.

52.

Isaksen

S. G.

(2020a). Unleashing creative talent in organizations: Linking learning and creativity through creative problem solving. In Mumford

M. D.

Todd

(Eds.), Creativity and innovation in organizations (pp. 339–392). Routledge.

53.

Isaksen

S. G.

Dorval

K. B.

(1993). Toward an improved understanding of creativity within people: The level-style distinction. In Isaksen

S. G.

Murdock

M. C.

Firestien

R. L.

Treffinger

D. J.

(Eds.), Understanding and recognizing creativity: The emergence of a discipline (pp. 299–330). Ablex.

54.

Isaksen

S. G.

Dorval

K. B.

Noller

R. B.

Firestien

R. L.

(1993a). The dynamic nature of creative problem solving. In Gryskiewicz

S. S.

(Ed.), Discovering creativity: Proceedings of the 1992 international creativity and networking conference (pp. 155–162). Center for Creative Leadership.

55.

Isaksen

S. G.

Dorval

K. B.

Treffinger

D. J.

(1994). Creative approaches to problem solving. Kendall-Hunt.

56.

Isaksen

S. G.

Dorval

K. B.

Treffinger

D. J.

(2000). Creative approaches to problem solving: A framework for change. Kendall/Hunt Publishing.

57.

Isaksen

S. G.

Dorval

K. B.

Treffinger

D. J.

(2011). Creative approaches to problem solving: A framework for innovation and change (3rd ed.). Sage.

58.

Isaksen

S. G.

Ekvall

(2010). Managing for innovation: The two faces of tension in creative climate. Creativity and Innovation Management, 19(2), 73–88. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8691.2010.00558.x

59.

Isaksen

S. G.

Ekvall

(2015). Development of the Situational Outlook Questionnaire^®: A technical resource for the SOQ. The Creative Problem Solving Group, Inc. Available to download from soqonline.net.

60.

Isaksen

S. G.

Gaulin

J. P.

(2005). A reexamination of brainstorming research: Implications for research and practice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49(4), 315–329. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620504900405

61.

Isaksen

S. G.

Geuens

(2007). An exploratory study of the relationship between an assessment of problem-solving style and creative problem solving. The Korean Journal of Thinking and Problem Solving, 17(1), 5–26.

62.

Isaksen

S. G.

Kaufmann

A. H.

Bakken

B. T.

(2016). An examination of the personality constructs underlying dimensions of creative problem solving. Journal of Creative Behavior, 50(4), 268–281. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.75

63.

Isaksen

S. G.

Lauer

K. J.

(1999). Relationship between cognitive style and individual psychological climate: Reflections on a previous study. Studia Psychologica, 41(3), 177–191.

64.

Isaksen

S. G.

Lauer

K. J.

(2002). The climate for creativity and change in teams. Creativity and Innovation Management Journal, 11(1), 74–86. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8691.00238.

65.

Isaksen

S. G.

Lewandowski

B. R.

(1997). An impact investigation: The CPS initiative in Bull UK & Ireland. Unpublished research project. The Creative Problem Solving Group-Buffalo.

66.

Isaksen

S. G.

Murdock

M. C.

(1990). Project Discovery evaluation report: A comprehensive quantitative and qualitative impact report on a program designed to introduce exploratory consumer research methodologies and develop new consumer products. Unpublished research report. The Center for Studies in Creativity and The Creative Problem Solving Group - Buffalo.

67.

Isaksen

S. G.

Murdock

M. C.

De Schryver

(1991). How continuous improvement and creative problem solving are impacting Exxon’s marketing organization: A qualitative interview analysis documenting the impact of change following CPS training with continuous improvement facilitators. Unpublished research project. The Center for Studies in Creativity and the Creative Problem Solving Group - Buffalo.

68.

Isaksen

S. G.

Parnes

S. J.

(1985). Curriculum planning for creative thinking and problem solving. Journal of Creative Behavior, 19(1), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.1985.tb00400.x

69.

Isaksen

S. G.

Puccio

G. J.

(1988). The impact of training creative thinking skills: A quantitative and qualitative study of the impact of training on participants within the Procter & Gamble’s two-day training course of Creative Thinking Skills. Unpublished research project. The Center for Studies in Creativity and the Creative Problem Solving Group – Buffalo.

70.

Isaksen

S. G.

Puccio

G. J.

Treffinger

D. J.

(1993b). An ecological approach to creativity research: Profiling for creative problem solving. Journal of Creative Behavior, 27(3), 149–170. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.1993.tb00704.x

71.

Isaksen

S. G.

(2020b). Research literature on the CCQ and SOQ: An annotated bibliography. The Creative Problem Solving Group - Buffalo. Available to download from soqonline.net.

72.

Isaksen

S. G.

Selby

E. C.

Treffinger

D. J.

(2021a). Evidence supporting VIEW. Think First Serve. This, and other related resources available for download from: www.viewassessment.com.

73.

Isaksen

S. G.

Stein

M. I.

Gryskiewicz

S. S.

Hills

(1984). A proposed model for formulation of creativity research. Journal of Creative Behavior, 18(1), 67–75. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.1984.tb00991.x

74.

Isaksen

S. G.

Treffinger

D. J.

(1991). Creative learning and problem solving. In Costa

A. L.

(Ed.), Developing minds: Programs for teaching thinking (Vol. 2, pp. 89–93). Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

75.

Isaksen

S. G.

Treffinger

D. J.

(2004). Celebrating 50 years of reflective practice: Versions of creative problem solving. Journal of Creative Behavior, 38(2), 75–101. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.2004.tb01234.x

76.

Isaksen

S. G.

Treffinger

D. J.

(1985a). Creative problem solving: The basic course. Bearly Limited.

77.

Isaksen

S. G.

Treffinger

D. J.

Selby

E. C.

(2021b). VIEW: Literature and resources. Think First Serve. This, and other resources available for download from: www.viewassessment.com.

78.

Isaksen

S. G.

Treffinger

D. J.

(1985b). Workbook for Creative problem solving: The basic course. Bearly Limited.

79.

Karwowski

Kaufman

J. C.

(2017). (Eds.), The creative self: Effects of beliefs, self-efficacy, mindset, and identity. Academic Press.

80.

Kirton

M. J.

(1978). Have adaptors and innovators equal levels of creativity? Psychological Reports, 42(3), 695–698. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1978.42.3.695

81.

Kirton

M. J.

(1989). (Ed.), Adaptors and innovators: Styles of creativity and problem solving. Routledge.

82.

Langer

E. J.

Ngnoumen

C. T.

(2017). Mindfulness. In Dunn

D. S.

(Ed.), Positive psychology: Established and emerging issues (pp. 1–17). Routledge.

83.

Lewin

(1936). Principles of topological psychology. McGraw-Hill.

84.

Lucas

Venckuté

(2020). Creativity - A transversal skill for lifelong learning: An overview of existing concepts and practices. Publications Office of the European Union.

85.

Main

L. F.

Delcourt

M. B.

Treffinger

D. J.

(2019). Effects of group training in problem-solving style on future problem-solving performance. Journal of Creative Behavior, 53(3), 274–285. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.176

86.

Marshall

Kinser

(2012). Connected generation: Perspectives from tomorrow’s leaders in a digital world - Insights from the 2012 IBM global student study. IBM Global Services.

87.

McCaulley

M. H.

(1990). The Myers-Briggs type indicator: A measure for individuals and groups. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 22(4), 181–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481756.1990.12022929

88.

McCluskey

K. W.

Baker

O’Hagan

Treffinger

(1998). Recapturing at-risk, talented high-school dropouts: A summary of the three-year Lost Prizes project. Gifted and Talented International, 13(2), 73–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332276.1998.11672889

89.

McFadzean

(2002). Developing and supporting creative problem solving teams: Part 2 – facilitator competencies. Management Decision, 40(6), 537–551. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251740210433936

90.

McLellan

Nicholl

(2013). Creativity in crisis in design and technology: Are classroom climates conducive for creativity in English secondary schools? Thinking Skills and Creativity, 9, 165–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2012.11.004

91.

Meadow

Parnes

S. J.

(1959). Evaluation of training in creative problem solving. Journal of Applied Psychology, 43(3), 189–194. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0046040

92.

Nijstad

B. A.

Stroebe

Lodewijkx

H. F.

(2003). Production blocking and idea generation: Does blocking interfere with cognitive processes? Journal of Experimental and Social Psychology, 39(6), 531–548. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1031(03)00040-4

93.

Noller

R. B.

(1971). Some applications of general semantics in teaching creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 5(4), 256–266. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.1971.tb00896.x

94.

Noller

R. B.

(1979). Scratching the surface of creative problem solving: A bird’s eye view of CPS. DOK.

95.

Noller

R. B.

Parnes

S. J.

Biondi

A. M.

(1976). Creative actionbook: Revised edition of creative behavior workbook. Scribners.

96.

Norman

Pfuhl

Saele

R. G.

Svartdal

Lag

Dahl

T. I.

(2019). Metacognition in psychology. Review of General Psychology, 23(4), 403–424. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/1089268019883821

97.

Nunamaker

J. F.

Briggs

R. O.

Mittleman

D. D.

Vogel

D. R.

Balthazard

P. A.

(1997). Lessons from a dozen years of group support systems research: A discussion of lab and field findings. Journal of Management Information Systems, 13(3), 163–207. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.1996.11518138

98.

O’Connor

(1945). Ideaphoria. Human Engineering Laboratory.

99.

Offner

A. K.

Kramer

T. J.

Winter

J. P.

(1996). The effects of facilitation, recording, and pauses on group brainstorming. Small Group Research, 27(2), 283–298. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496496272005

100.

Ogden

C. K.

Richards

I. A.

(1927). The meaning of meaning: A study of the influence of language upon thought and of the science of symbolism. Harcourt, Brace.

101.

Osborn

(1952). Your creative power: How to use imagination. Charles Scribners’ Sons.

102.

Osborn

A. F.

(1953). Applied imagination: Principles and procedures of creative problem solving. Charles Scribner’s Sons.

103.

Osborn

S. F.

(1963). Applied imagination: Principles and procedures of creative problem solving (2nd revised edition.). Charles Scribner’s Sons.

104.

Oxley

N. L.

Dzindolet

M. T.

Paulus

P. B.

(1996). The effects of facilitators on the performance of brainstorming groups. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 11(4), 633–646.

105.

Parnes

S. J.

(1961). Effects of extended effort in creative problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 52(3), 117–122. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0044650

106.

Parnes

S. J.

(1966). Programming creative behavior. State University of New York at Buffalo. Final Report of NDEA Title VII Project #5-0716, Grant #7-42-1630-213.

107.

Parnes

S. J.

(1981). The magic of your mind. The Creative Education Foundation.

108.

Parnes

S. J.

(1985). A facilitating style of leadership. The Creative Education Foundation.

109.

Parnes

S. J.

(1987). The creative studies project. In Isaksen

(Ed.), Frontiers of creativity research: Beyond the basics (pp. 156–188). Bearly Limited.

110.

Parnes

S. J.

Meadow

(1959). Effects of brainstorming instructions on creative problem solving by trained and untrained subjects. Journal of Educational Psychology, 50(4), 171–176. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0047223

111.

Parnes

S. J.

Meadow

(1960). Evaluation of persistence of effects produced by a creative problem-solving course. Psychological Reports, 7(2), 357–361. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1960.7.2.357

112.

Parnes

S. J.

Meadow

Reese

(1959). Influence of brainstorming instructions and problem sequence on a creative problem solving test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 43(6), 413–416. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043917

113.

Parnes

S. J.

Noller

R. B.

(1971). The creative studies project: Raison d’etre and introduction. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 4(3), 63–66.

114.

Parnes

S. J.

Noller

R. B.

(1973). Applied creativity: The creative studies project: Part IV— personality findings and conclusions. Journal of Creative Behavior, 7(1), 15–36. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.1973.tb00943.x

115.

Parnes

S. J.

Noller

R. B.

(1972b). Applied creativity: The creative studies project, part II –results of the two-year program. Journal of Creative Behavior, 6(3), 164–186. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.1972.tb00927.x

116.

Parnes

S. J.

Noller

R. B.

(1972a). Applied creativity: The creative studies project, part I –the development. Journal of Creative Behavior, 6(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.1972.tb00902.x

117.

Parnes

S. J.

Noller

R. B.

Biondi

A. M.

(1977). Guide to creative action: Revised edition of creative behavior guidebook. Scribners.

118.

Paulus

P. B.

(1983). Group influences on individual task performance. In Paulus

P. B.

(Ed.), Basic group processes (pp. 97–120). Springer-Verlag.

119.

Perry

Karpova

(2017). Efficacy of teaching creative thinking skills: A comparison of multiple creativity assessments. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 24, 118–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2017.02.017

120.

Perry-Smith

J. E.

Mannucci

P. V.

(2017). From creativity to innovation: The social network drivers of the four phases of the idea journey. Academy of Management Review, 42(1), 53–79. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2014.0462

121.

Peter-Szarka

(2012). Creative climate as a means to promote creativity in the classroom. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 10(3), 1011–1034. https://doi.org/10.25115/ejrep.v10i28.1547

122.

Phillips

D. C.

(1995). The good, the bad, and the ugly: The many faces of constructivism. Educational Researcher, 24(7), 5–12. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X024007005

123.

Place

D. J.

McCluskey

A. L. A.

McCluskey

K. W.

Treffinger

D. J.

(2000). The second chance project: Creative approaches to developing the talents of at-risk native inmates. Journal of Creative Behavior, 34(3), 165–174. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.2000.tb01209.x

124.

Puccio

G. J.

Burnett

Acar

Yudess

J. A.

Hollinger

Cabra

(2020). Creative problem solving in small groups: The effects of creativity training on idea generation, solution creativity, and leadership effectiveness. Journal of Creative Behavior, 54(2), 453–471. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.381

125.

Puccio

G. J.

Firestien

R. L.

Coyle

Masucci

(2006). A review of the effectiveness of creativity training: A focus on workplace issues. Creativity and Innovation Management, 15(1), 19–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8691.2006.00366.x

126.

Puccio

G. J.

Murdock

M. C.

(1999). Creativity assessment: Readings and resources. Creative Education Press.

127.

Reese

H. W.

Parnes

S. J.

(1970). Programming creative behavior. Child Development, 41(2), 413–423. https://doi.org/10.2307/1127041

128.

Reese

H. W.

Parnes

S. J.

Treffinger

D. J.

Kaltsounis

(1976). Effects of a creative studies program on structure-of-intellect factors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 68(4), 401–410. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.68.4.401

129.

Rhodes

M. G.

(2019). Metacognition. Teaching of Psychology, 46(2), 168–175. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628319834381

130.

Richards

(2007). Everyday creativity and new views of human nature: Psychological, social, and spiritual perspectives. American Psychological Association.

131.

Rose

Lin

H.-T.

(1984). A meta-analysis of long-term creativity training programs. Journal of Creative Behavior, 18(1), 11–22. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.1984.tb00985.x

132.

Runco

M. A.

(Ed.). (1994). Problem finding, problem solving, and creativity. Ablex.

133.

Sawyer

R. K.

(2012). Explaining creativity: The science of human innovation (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.

134.

Saxon

J. A.

Treffinger

D. J.

Young

G. C.

Wittig

C. V.

(2003). Camp invention: A creative, inquiry-based summer enrichment program for elementary students. Journal of Creative Behavior, 37(1), 64–74. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.2003.tb00826.x

135.

Scott

Leritz

L. E.

Mumford

M. C.

(2004). The effectiveness of creativity training. Creativity Research Journal, 16(4), 361–388. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400410409534549

136.

Selby

E. C.

Treffinger

D. J.

Isaksen

S. G.

Lauer

K. J.

(2004). Defining and assessing problem-solving style: Design and development of new tool. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 38(4), 221–243. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.2004.tb01242.x

137.

Sobieck

M. A.

(1996). Examination of cross-site narrative responses on the CIQ and SOQ (Unpublished master's thesis). International Center for Studies in Creativity, State University of New York College at Buffalo.

138.

Spearman

(1931). Creative mind. Appleton-Century.

139.

Steele

L. M.

Johnson

Medeiros

K. E.

(2018). Looking beyond the generation of creative ideas: Confidence in evaluating ideas predicts creative outcomes. Personality and Individual Differences, 125(1), 21–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.12.028

140.

Taylor

D. W.

Berry

P. C.

Block

C. H.

(1958). Does group participation when using brainstorming inhibit creative thinking? Administrative Science Quarterly, 3(1), 23–47. https://doi.org/10.2307/2390603

141.

Thompson

L. F.

Coovert

M. D.

(2002). Stepping up to the challenge: A critical examination of face-to-face and computer-mediated team decision making. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 6(1), 55–64. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2699.6.1.52

142.

Torrance

E. P.

(1987). Teaching for creativity. In Isaksen

S. G.

(Ed.), Frontiers in creativity research: Beyond the basics (pp. 114–143). Bearly Limited.

143.

Treffinger

D. J.

Firestien

R. L.

(1989). Guidelines for effective facilitation of creative problem solving. Gifted Child Today, 12(4), 35–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/107621758901200416

144.

Treffinger

D. J.

Isaksen

S. G.

(1992). Creative problem solving: An introduction. Center for Creative Learning.

145.

Treffinger

D. J.

Isaksen

S. G.

(2005). Creative problem solving: History, development, and implications for gifted education and talent development. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 49(4), 342–353. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620504900407

146.

Treffinger

D. J.

Isaksen

S. G.

Dorval

K. B.

(2003). The creative problem solving framework: An historical perspective. The Center for Creative Learning.

147.

Treffinger

D. J.

Isaksen

S. G.

Dorval

K. B.

(1996; 2011). Climate for creativity and innovation: Educational Implications. Center for Creative Learning Idea Capsule Series.

148.

Treffinger

D. J.

Isaksen

S. G.

Firestien

R. L.

(1982). Handbook of creative learning. Center for Creative Learning.

149.

Treffinger

D. J.

Isaksen

S. G.

Firestien

R. L.

(1983). Theoretical perspectives on creative learning and its facilitation. Journal of Creative Behavior, 17(1), 9–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.1983.tb00970.x

150.

Treffinger

D. J.

Schoonover

P. F.

Selby

E. C.

(2013). Educating for creativity and innovation. Prufrock Press.

151.

Treffinger

D. J.

Selby

E. C.

Isaksen

S. G.

(2008). Understanding individual problem-solving style: A key to learning and applying creative problem solving. Learning and Individual Differences, 18(4), 390–401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2007.11.007

152.

Treffinger

D. J.

Solomon

Woythal

(2012). Four decades of creative vision: Insights from an evaluation of the future problem solving program international (FPSPI). Journal of Creative Behavior, 46(3), 209–219. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.14

153.

Treffinger

D. J.

Young

G. C.

Selby

E. C.

Shepardson

(2002). Assessing creativity: A guide for educators. NRC/GT University of Connecticut.

154.

Tromp

Sternberg

R. J.

(2022). Dynamic creativity: A person x task x situation interaction framework. Journal of Creative Behavior, 56(4), 553–565. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.551

155.

Turnipseed

P. H.

Turnipseed

D. L.

(2013). Testing the proposed linkage between organizational citizenship behaviors and an innovative organizational climate. Creativity and Innovation Management, 22(2), 209–216. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12027

156.

Upton

(1941). Design for thinking: A first book in semantics. Pacific Books.

157.

Van de Ven

A. H.

(2017). The innovation journey: You can’t control it, but you can learn to maneuver it. Innovation: Organization & Management, 19(1), 39–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/14479338.2016.1256780

158.

Vygotsky

L. S.

(1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.

159.

Wallas

(1926). The art of thought. Jonathon Cape.

160.

Wallgren

M. K.

(1998). Reported practices of creative problem solving facilitators. Journal of Creative Behavior, 32(2), 134–148. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.1998.tb00811.x

161.

Watts

L. L.

Steele

L. M.

Medeiros

K. E.

Mumford

M. D.

(2017). Minding the gap between generation and implementation: Effects of idea source, goals, and climate on selecting and refining creative ideas. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 13(1), 2–14. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000157

162.

Weick

K. E.

(2020). Sensemaking, organizing, and surpassing: A handoff. Journal of Management Studies, 57(7), 1420–1431. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12617

163.

Woodel-Johnson

B. L.

Delcourt

Treffinger

D. J.

(2012). Relationships between creative thinking and problem-solving styles among secondary school students. The International Journal of Creativity & Problem Solving, 22(2), 79–95.

164.

World Economic Forum (2020). The future of jobs report: Employment, skills and workforce strategy for the fourth industrial revolution. World Economic Forum.

165.

Wrobel

A. E.

Johansen

M. K.

Jørgensen

M. S.

Cash

(2021). Facilitating creativity: Shaping team processes. Creativity and Innovation Management, 30(4), 742–762. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12465

Developing Creative Potential: The Power of Process,People,and Place

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

On the Deliberate Development of Creativity

The Dynamic Nature of Creative Problem Solving

The Foundations

Bringing Balance to CPS

Deliberate CPS Process Management

Departing from the Osborn-Parnes Tradition

The Current Approach to CPS

Planning Your Approach

Understanding the Challenge

Generating Ideas

Preparing for Action

Considering People and Place Along with Process

The Power of Preference

The Power of Place

Creative Climate Dimensions

Situational Outlook Questionnaire

Potential Future Possibilities

Extending the Balance

Encouraging Mindful Cognition

Considering People and Place

Conclusion

Footnotes

Appendix 1: CPS Tools for Generating Options

Appendix 2: CPS Tools for Focusing Options

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iD

About the Author

References