Review of Book, The Opposable Mind: How Successful Leaders Win Through Integrative Thinking by D. Clifford, CRS 625, Current Issues class, Summer 2008

Martin, R, (2007). The opposable mind: How successful leaders win through integrative thinking. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

The author, Roger Martin, is dean of the University of Toronto’s Rotman School of Management. In his introduction to the book, Martin’s acknowledged the huge influence of three scholars: Hilary Austen Johnson - how a person develops artistic knowledge; James March - organizational learning and Elliot Eisner - qualitative research, on bringing this book on integrative thinking skills into existence.

The First Half

Introduction to the book:

Martin opens the book with a real-life case history of Michael Lee-Chin and his rescue of his money management firm from bankruptcy by using a thinking practice that Martin terms ‘integrative’. He defined this as:

The ability to face constructively the tension of opposing ideas and instead of choosing one at the expense of the other, generate a creative resolution of the tension in the form of a new idea that contains elements of the opposing idea but is superior to each (p.15).

Martin’s research of this ‘higher level’ thinking skill consists of interviews with “more than fifty great managerial leaders” (p. 9), over the course of 6 years with some of these interviews lasting more than 8 hours. Fitting leaders for these interviews were described as those “who have striking and exemplary success records” (p. 5). Martin in selecting these leaders to interview was intent on discovering if there was a shared theme in their successes. His conclusion was that integrative thinking was this shared theme.

Martin noted that often the focus is upon what successful leaders are doing - their actions as opposed to ‘how’ they decided to do what they did. However, sometimes actions that look good at the time are often proven to be disastrous decisions. Martin noted that the leaders with proven records did not operate in the same style all the time. However, their thinking style was consistent . He wanted to learn first of all what this style was and find ways of developing this cognitive skill in other aspiring leaders.

Characteristics of integrative thinkers: (p. 41 - 43)

1. They take a broader view of what is salient.

2. They don’t flinch from considering multidirectional and nonlinear casual relationships.

3. They don’t break a problem into independent pieces and work on each piece separately. They keep the entire problem in mind while working on its individual pieces.

4. They always search for creative resolutions of tensions, rather than accepting unpleasant trade-offs.

Martin describes conventional thinking or linear regression as the business world’s preferred tool because “it is easier to think about simple, unidirectional causal relationships” (p. 45). People who make a problem more complicated than it ought to be are irritating to managers because they want to move on. He notes that “the most common failing of conventional thinking is the tendency to lose sight of the whole decision” (p. 46). Failure to think in a ‘holistic’ way results in fixing one piece of the pie while ruining other pieces of the same pie.

Whose reality?

Martin noted that everyone converts data into their version of what is ‘reality’. The same data can and will be converted into different realities based on the different individuals. Integrative thinkers, according to Marin, do not feel the need to defend a particular position or version of ‘the facts’. Instead they concentrate on merging as many of those realities together as possible to enhance the quality of the outcome. They also refuse to settle for “mediocrity and half measures” (p. 71). If trade-offs were unpleasant it simply meant that the current solution wasn’t good enough. One interesting fact noted by Martin is the refusal of these leaders to take action ‘now”. Rather, they chose to ‘think harder’ until the solution met their predetermined standards and the unpleasant trade-offs disappeared.

Stop simplifying!

Martin blamed the ‘factory settings’ of contemporary business organizations for its bias “toward simplification and specialization”. Humans in general, asserted Martin “gravitate toward simplification and specialization” (p. 75). People are desperate to keep the complexity and chaos at a manageable level. Although simplification is comforting, it impairs integrative thinking causing us to edit rather than consider more salient features. This editing results in less than satisfactory answers to many challenges. Truly creative resolutions, according to Martin, spring from complexity.

Specialization in the business arena results in each different department acquiring a large degree of expertise in an area of specific knowledge - finance, marketing, operations, etc.

“That expertise actually works against the development of expertise in business itself” (p. 79). Martin quotes management expert, Peter Drucker as saying, “there are no finance decisions, tax decisions, or marketing decisions; only business decisions” (p. 79).

In embracing complexity as the only pathway to truly creative solutions, Martin offered encouragement for those fearful of allowing yet more complexity into their lives. He quoted from F.C. Kohli, the founder of Indian software company, Tata Consultancy:

“Any situation has a certain number of alternative, but if you are doing system thinking, even for a complex problem, and you realize what is the system, what are the subsystems, what are the sub-subsystems, and you define their relationships as well as you can, you will start seeing some daylight, how to get out of it” (p.81)

The key then, according to Martin, is to look for patterns, connections and causal relationships and to give ourselves credit for being able to handle more complexity than we think we can.

In summary, in seemingly irreconcilable alternatives, creative resolutions are brought about by: separating existing models from reality; setting unyielding standards; taking responsibility instead of claiming to be a victim of circumstance; taking a broad view of salient features; exploring more sophisticated causal relationships among the salient elements; keeping the whole firmly in mind while working on the parts and driving relentlessly for a creative resolution. (p. 89).

The Second Half

Developing your opposable mind and building your integrative thinking capacity

In the second half of the book Martin focused on developing integrative thinking skills.

He used the interviews conducted with Bob Young the co-founder and former CEO of Red Hat to outline the various components of a personal knowledge system model consisting of:

1. Consciousness of our stance: Who you are and what you are after

Martin defined stance as “how you see the world around you, but it’s also how you see yourself in that world” (p. 93). Stance is different for each one of us.

Some of the critical components within ‘Young’s stance’ were :

Ÿ Motivation - according to Martin this is vital. “When combined with learning, it’s a more powerful problem-solving tool than sheer intellect” (p. 95).

Ÿ Learning trumps intellect

Ÿ Patience

Ÿ Reserve judgment

Ÿ Build data over time

Ÿ Act when you have mastered what you need to know

Ÿ Accept criticism as valid

Ÿ Improve a little bit every day

2. Tools we use to organize our thinking and understanding of the world. These range from formal theories to established processes to rules of thumb. Your stance guides what tools you choose to accumulate.

3. Experiences - products of your stance and tools

Experiences form your most practical and tangible knowledge.

These three components make up our personal knowledge system. “Stance guides the acquisition of tool, and stance and tools shape experiences which in turn inform tools, which in turn inform stance” (p. 103). A narrow and defensive stance will lead to acquisition of extremely limited tools and extremely limiting experiences. Your stance, tools and experiences are however, under your control and you have wide latitude in how you develop your personal knowledge system.

The integrative thinker’s stance: (p. 111 - 113)

1. They believe that whatever models exist at the present moment do not represent reality; they are simply the best or only constructions yet made

2. They believe that conflicting models, styles, and approaches to problems are to be leveraged not feared.

3. They believe that better models exist that are not yet seen.

4. They believe that not only does a better model exist, but that they are capable of bringing that better model from abstract hypothesis to concrete reality.

5. They are comfortable wading into complexity to ferret out a new and better model.

6. They give themselves time to create a better model.

The three most powerful tools of the integrative thinker

1. Generative Reasoning (also known as model reasoning)- inquires into what might be rather than what is. Makes use of both inductive and deductive logic and adds a third - abductive logic. Abductive logic seeks the best explanation in response to interesting or novel data that does not fit an existing model.

2. Causal Modeling – considering nonlinear and multidirectional causal links between salient variables while keeping the whole in mind.

3. Assertive inquiry – a sincere search for another’s views; a seeking for common views. It seeks to explore the underpinnings of your own model and that of another person. The objective is to “fashion a creative resolution between that person’s model and your own” (p. 157).

Marks of the integrative thinker:

Deepening on both ends of the mastery-originality spectrum

Nurturing the marks of originality (spontaneity, experimentation, flexibility and openness) while deepening mastery of organization, planning, focus, repetition, etc…seemingly opposite countermarks.

Key though is a trust in their own judgment with research being an aid to that judgment.

Reflections on The Opposable Mind:

What Martin is describing essentially is a view of the kind of thinking involved in the ‘creative process’ which has a clear mandate of a novel and useful outcome. I found the book really interesting in its clear outline and in-depth description of the “how to” components for developing these deeper level thinking skills. What really surprised me though was how little these types of skills are actually studied and taught to aspiring leaders. It is interesting to realize that sitting down at a table within the context of a business situation often calls for tweaks to the model/s in existence currently. Learning to really question established models and bring into existence something new is disruptive and often entered into only when the trade-offs are impossible to handle.

There are however, so many parallels between Martin’s research on integrative thinking and creativity research that it seemed to me an almost unnecessary piece of literature. After all, much of what Martin has described in his book echo the work of creativity scholars – most of which was done many years before this book was published.

In Creativity is Forever, our first year text by Davis, the overview on creativity theorists such as Amabile’s three part model – domain-relevant skills, creativity-relevant skills and task motivation and Csikszentmihalyi’s (and Gardner’s) –person, domain and field model encapsulate Martin’s thoughts very nicely. Martin throws in many traits of the creative personality such as the need for openness, the suspension of judgment, divergent thinking and generative reasoning which are all noted by Martin as key attributes for successful integrative thinking. The whole outcome of this kind of thinking conforms to the typically accepted notion of creative product which is novel + useful ideas, bringing into existence something which did not exist before.

On the whole though, it is an interesting and necessary discussion on thinking skills which does a great job of describing creative thought processes and acknowledges that these are indeed necessary, complex and can be developed by anyone committed to learning them – just as creativity is.

Review of Book, Enlightened Power: How Women are Transforming the Practice of Leadership by C. Hedge, CRS 625, Current Issues class, Summer 2008

Below is a book review of Enlightened Power: How Women are Transforming the Practice of Leadership. It was written as part of CRS 625, Current Issues class, Summer of 2008. By Cynthia A. Hedge

Enlightened Power: How Women are Transforming the Practice of Leadership was like an oyster (Coughlin, Wingard, & Hollihan, 2005). Each of its 30 chapters contained pearls of wisdom about women and leadership. The authors, some men but mostly women, shared lessons about leadership through experiences of their own as well as those of other women leaders. They talked about every day leadership whether it be in the context of the economy, business, family, relationships, work, or non-profit organizations. Everywhere, they reported, women leaders face barriers, incorporate their strengths into leadership and create strategies to become better leaders.

Generally speaking, women are natural born leaders. Their strengths are documented: they build and sustain trusting relationships; they use intuition; they integrate details quickly and rearrange them into complex patterns; they listen, collaborate and optimize resources. Women leaders tend to be "caring, inclusive, open, transparent" (Coughlin, et al., 2005, p. xxi).

These female qualities are greatly needed in the 21st Century. Until the last 25 years, leadership was based on hierarchy and control. Then, people were expected to perform tasks– not to think. Technology and globalization changed that paradigm. "This economy requires people able to learn, relate, work in teams, and solve problems flexibly and creatively" (Coughlin, et al., 2005, p. 34).

Though times have changed, women still face barriers in their leadership. "Continued institutional barriers– formal and informal, overt and subtle– create an unequal playing field that over time leads to physical, emotional, and psychological fatigue" (Coughlin, et al., 2005, p. 9). For starters, people’s perceptions about leadership hinder women: a notion that a traditional, masculine style of leadership is effective; an assumption that women do not want to lead; a belief that certain leadership characteristics are acceptable for men but not women; and an impression that women leaders are tokens who are incompetent (Coughlin, et al., p. 11). In the business world, women encounter other barriers. They receive only 5% of venture financing for various reasons: a lack of mentors and role models to guide them in raising capital; the strength of the "old-boys" network; a dearth of women as venture capitalists; perceptions of women-own businesses as unprofitable; and women’s discomfort with self-promotion and criticism (Coughlin, et al., p. 222).

The good news comes from women who have transformed the practice of leadership. They have created strategies that help women use their strengths to become effective leaders. Their powerful strategies include finding a mentor and networking.. "In the final analysis, merit matters, but only when networks are nurtured" (Coughlin, et al., 2005, p. 244). Moreover, women can enhance their influence by finding, rekindling and sustaining their passions. They can also improve their communication styles. Specifically, women must manage their conversations by understanding different perspectives; refraining from blame; exploring the intentions of others; valuing feelings; and developing a strong identity (Coughlin, et al., pp. 280-284). In addition, women can project a strong image by using practical tips such as standing tall; maintaining eye contact; stopping self-deprecating remarks; getting rid of the tilted head; and stepping into the lime light (Coughlin, et al., pp. 334-335).

Though many barriers remain, creative women will continue to transform the traditional practice of leadership. Because of the transformation, women enhance creative climate, appeal to people’s intrinsic motivation and build organizations that prosper. Women’s leadership styles also translate into a more just and caring society. In other words, everyone wins!

References
Coughlin, L., Wingard, E., & Hollihan, K., Eds. (2005). Enlightened Power: How Women are Transforming the Practice of Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Open Source Innovation: What is it?

Each year our planet’s inhabitance’ become more competitive with one another for resources. Whether you’re a starving artist who dreams of one day selling your work, or a well established corporate giant looking for the next best thing, we are all looking for ways to produce products which are unique and in demand. Without continual growth and innovative change we will become stagnant; our products will become dinosaurs irrelevant to the fast changing consumer environment we are confronted with today.

In the past organizations have confronted this need for continuous refinement with vigilant research and design teams but, today the speed of communication and technology has for many, changed the equation. To stay relevant and satisfy customer needs many groups have chosen to open up their research and design efforts to the public.

By supporting web sites and blogs dedicated to consumer feedback and product suggestions, organizations are able to collect valuable data which can be instrumental in successful product innovation. While internal R&D teams may have explored many of the incoming outsider ideas themselves previously, there is also the possibility that many minds are greater than the few (especially when they belong to the individuals who utilize the products); who is better to generate a demand than those with a need?
What problems does it present?

Of course there are many problems presented with open innovation, as it is an innovative idea in itself. To begin with, someone needs to support and mange the meeting place; take care of software and site maintenance. Another concern, which is of monumental proportion, is how to compensate outside contributors. To what extent does one idea contribute to product innovation? How many ideas where built on and modified before a challenge was overcome? Open innovation may create a demand for us to refine our copyright guidelines and force us to deal with intellectual property in another way.

Another problem, which I believe will be a great obstacle and which may not be so obvious, is how to manage volumes of consumer feedback if it does arrive on the organization’s doorstep. Who will determine whether the ideas are old hat or fresh perspectives? Someone will need to extract that data and they will need to manage it properly or it may itself represent a missed opportunity for the organization.

Creativity

The open sourcing of innovative efforts doesn’t represent an end to internal R&D efforts but it does create some interesting demand for creative individuals outside of the product development area. As I have mentioned, organizations will need to manage the information as it comes in. Having individuals who can see the potential in ideas and extract value from the various inputs will inevitably be an asset.

Open source innovation is testament to the notion that product innovation is less frequently a genius revelation from one mind than it is the collective creative results of many minds. Organizations who seek to compete in our rapidly changing environments will need to rely more and more heavily on creative solutions. To stay viable both products and people alike must become more sensitive to new ways of looking at things and also be ready to adapt and react to the demands of an ever changing consumer’s marketplace.

Open source innovation is a response to the need for rapid development but I think it also represents a new era in creative collaboration. Many may resist the change but I believe it is inevitable. In the past, customer collaboration of this kind could have only been possible through a promotion or contest but today it has the potential to become a standard of product innovation. With its’ inception will come many new challenges as well as countless new opportunities.

Shawn Hess, ICSC Graduate Student

Creativity and Technology

It is interesting and quite paradoxical that I have been assigned the topic of Creativity and technology in the classroom. As my classmates know, I am the one who has just received my first cell phone this past Christmas. I still don’t know how to use it, other than to answer it and punch phone numbers in and press send (or the green phone sign) I had my kids a just the sound so if by any slight chance I get a call during class it will not disturb anyone else. However, it was quite a novel experience for me to be having a conversation while driving during a recent road trip. What a wonderful opportunity to utilize time to accomplish another task. Mind you I would not have tried it in intercity driving; too many distractions and I am not a multi-tasker by today’s standards. Now admit it ...if I was talking on my cell, even with the earpiece, but slowing down others or recklessly driving you would be cursing me on the road.

I come from a different generation whether I want to acknowledge it or not. The fact is “ More information has been produced in the last 30 years than in the previous 5000” (Wurman,1989,p.229 in Runco, 2007) It is hard to believe I know, but I was completing my undergraduate work thirty years ago this spring! I was entering the education field without the use of computers. The first home computer had just been introduced less than half a year before my graduation. There was no internet, no search engine and Sony's Walkman was the most incredible piece of technological genius on campuses at the time! The Post-it had not been introduced until 1980.

With the way the education system works, you know these technologies would not be available in the classroom for some. I know it is a stretch for some of you, but really consider how you could learn/teach/facilitate in an environment without the technology you have currently available. Can I adapt to the new technology? Yes, I can. Do I want to adapt to it? Well, this is a more important question for an individual to consider.

I have personally begun to acknowledge new technologies in what has become a disposable society. With some certainty, I can state that at some point for a number of people, all of these new technologies are novel. It is a judgment call whether they are truly useful. Ascertaining usefulness is the key using any new technology, especially in the classroom. Let us also remember that the parameters of the “classroom” are not necessarily the traditional ones.

What is it we really need to educate students in today’s classrooms? What is the main objective or goal we are trying to achieve in educating our students? Does technology allow us to achieve more of these goals in a faster period? Can we achieve the same goals without the expense of new technologies? Can we engage our students without using technology as a crutch or is it a necessity?

As educators/facilitators, these are the questions we must explore when dealing with technology. The reality is that teachers must be creative both innovating and adapting programs, methods and tools to aid in reaching the ultimate goals of our endeavors. Buying into the latest technology is not always the best call. It really is up to us to do our homework and use our minds in these kinds of decisions. It is a great way to use the Creative Problem Solving process to decide what is best for the given situation.
That being said I did a search and found the following interesting read with some great applications of technology for the classroom. The abstract and reference is below with a link to the PDF.

Bonnie Doliszny, ICSC graduate student


Runco, M. A. (2007). Creativity theories and themes: Research, development, and practice. New York: Elsevier


Abstract ftaken directly from:

Thompson, S. D., Martin, L., Richards, L., & Branson, D. (2003). Assessing critical thinking and problem solving using a Web-based curriculum for students. Internet and Higher education, 6, 185-191.


Assessing critical thinking and problem solving using a Web-based curriculum for students
Critical thinking skills lead to more productive, prepared, and employable students in the workforce. In view of the skills that are necessary when students enter the job market, a Web-based curriculum requiring critical thinking and creative problem-solving skills was developed to meet those needs. A multidisciplinary team of educators created the “virtual exchange,” in which students are presented with scenarios involving relevant societal issues. Each student was assigned a scenario character to portray in their interactions with the other characters (students). They interact on the Internet to promote critical thinking skills in a “virtual exchange” of research-based ideas. The process used to design this exchange is discussed

.

Personality and Motivation

Chapter 9

Phares (1986) as cited in Runco (2007) defines personality as “that pattern of characteristic thoughts, feelings and behaviors that distinguishes one person from and that persists over time and situations”. Phares’ works well within my understanding of personality. It has been my experience that personalities rarely change outside of some unfortunate incident or necessity.

Feist (1998) determined that creative individuals have common tendencies and traits and that a “general creative personality” does exist and creative achievement can be related to it.

Some disagree with Feist’s conclusion. Mumford and Gustafson (1988) find personality to be at fault for an individual’s inability to convert ideas into action. I happen to also disagree with Feist. I don’t believe that all creative individuals share a common personality. The fact that we are not expectedly similar is a wonderful part of what makes us creative individuals.

Creative persons often have a playful mood or childlike tendency. This is usually indicative of spontaneity and self-actualization. It is now my belief (after attending and facilitating several creative problem solving sessions) that thinking and believing that anything is possible as we did when we were younger heightens our creative capability.

Intrinsic motivation is one of the more prominent characteristics of a creative individual. Runco (p. 37) discusses the work of Sir Francis Galton (1869), Nicholls (1983), MacKinnon(1962), Crutchfield (1962) and Golann (1963) and concludes in his analysis that all agree on this point.

Amabile (1996) makes mention of a more specific type of motivation (task motivation) as one of three necessary pieces for her componential theory, the other two being domain relevant skills and creativity relevant processes.

Runco states that Gardner (1993) believed the seven (7) persons he studied during his development of the initial multiple intelligences all were consummate creators who possessed a significant degree of perseverance. Additionally, Runco defined a similar attribute of persistence as “the willingness to expend effort” (p. 295).

Perseverance and persistence are two more traits listed in a creative person’s personality repertoire. This is justified by the 10 year rule. 10 years is the length of time considered necessary for one to gain the knowledge necessary for a given field or domain to be considered an expert (Runco, p. 37).

In addition to the ones listed, confidence, sensitivity, autonomy, flexibility, tolerance of ambiguity, risk taking, psychological androgyny, values and self-efficacy may be found among traits, tendencies or characteristics which may be combined within a creative individual.

Surprisingly or not, it is possible to possess all the recognized traits of a creative individual and to not behave in a creative manner. I find this to be a sad realization that one can be filled with all the aids to be creative and make a cognizant choice to not make use of them. I believe that it is much more common for an individual to be unaware that within her is everything she needs to be creative.

As I have come to learn as a student of creative studies, we are all creative but may demonstrate our ability differently.

Shelaine Rigby, Graduate Student

References

Amabile, T. (2001, April). Beyond Talent. American Psychologist, 56(4), 333-336. Retrieved February 10, 2008, from Academic Search Premier database.

Conti, R., Coon, H., & Amabile, T. (1996). Evidence to Support the Componential Model of Creativity: Secondary Analyses of Three Studies. Creativity Research Journal, 9(4), 385. Retrieved February 27, 2008, from Academic Search Premier database.

Parnes, S.(Ed.) 1992. Sourcebook for creative problem solving: A fifty year digest of proven innovation processes. (pp. 164-200). Creative Education Foundation Press. Hadley, MA.

Runco, M. (2007). Creativity theories and themes: research, development and practice. Burlington, MA. Elsevier Academic Press.

Enhancement and the Fulfillment of Potential

Throughout this chapter the question of what is considered to be creative and what is not is brought up numerous times, leaving this debate alive for the readers own interpretation. This is a question that plagues many people studying this topic. What is considered creative, and what is not?

According to Mark Runco (2007), “Creative results are the most likely if the experiments focus on new and unconventional things. That is the most likely to lead to originality and creative insight.” (p330). The focus of this discussion can look at television. Runco talked about many television shows that were made into movies, but for the majority added a little spin to the story line, such as Charlie’s Angles. I am sure the first person to make a television show into a movie probably thought that is was creative; however, the storyline has the same characters that another person made up. In my opinion, yes the characters are the same, but some creativity has to be implied in order to actually produce a movie script.

Over the past ten years reality television has been on the rise. It is cheaper to make a reality show then to pay writers and actors and annual salary. When Survivor debuted to prime time in 2000, it was seen as almost a phenomenon to television. There was a buzz about the show all over the media. What is interesting to note, is that MTV had come out with a similar show many years before that was called Road Rules. However, Survior was praised as an original hit to television, but was it? Maybe the act of having a show on a prime time network, that was such a hit and cost nothing to produce, made it seem creative for a network station. They pay nothing to make it, and in return get a massive amount of money back for its success. This is where creativity could have played a part, since a network at prime time had never aired anything like this before. This is where the ‘unconventional’ part of Runco’s definition comes into play.

The many concepts that were presented in this chapter all used an example and then critiqued that example as to whether it was creative or not, but took both angles. There is in my opinion, no definite way yet to be able to judge creativity. That may be because the term is interpreted many different ways by many people. This blogger does believe that we all have the potential to exude creativity. It is just up to the person as to whether they are open enough to use it with their talent.

Runco, M. A (2007). Creativity theories and themes: Research, development and practice.

-- April Margarella, Graduate Student

History and Historiometry-Chapter 7

As you can tell from the title, this chapter dealt with the history of creativity and things that are considered to be creative. There are many people mentioned that we all are familiar with and there are many others who fly under the radar. Nevertheless, there have been countless contributions to the field of creativity and there are many things that have taken place that were very interesting to me.

The chapter starts out by talking about the Wright brothers and their invention of the airplane. By all accounts I am sure we have all heard about this. What I found interesting about what the author says is that the Wright brothers were working in a time and place that was perfect for invention. The author believes that the time and the environment in which you work has a lot to do with creativity and I agree with that. He goes on to say that because of the enormous popularity of bicycles (which the Wrights were first famous for), the idea of an airplane was embraced by people because they trusted the work of the Wright brothers. This is where the author introduced two theories that are basically the crux of his arguments throughout the chapter. One theory is called the Zeitgeist and the other is known as the Great Person theory. The Zeitgeist is German for “spirit of the times” and the Great Person theory is the idea that Zeitgeist only contributes so much to creativity and that extraordinary achievements require extraordinary individuals. I agree that a Zeitgeist can be present in creativity (creativity and invention occur due to what is needed at that specific time), but I also agree with the Great Person theory because I think there are many individuals who have a lot to contribute to the field.

One quote I thought was interesting (probably because I totally agree with it!) is as follows…Zeitgeist is “the total sum of social interaction as it is common to a particular period and particular locale. One can say it is thought being affected by culture.” As I stated earlier, I agree with the notion of Zeitgeist, but I also agree that extraordinary individuals make significant contributions to creativity. But I love what was said about thought being affected by culture. I totally agree with the idea that our thoughts and the ways we do things is affected daily by culture, our environment, and our society.

There is also talk about the United States and how we may be on a downswing in terms of being creative. The author notes how the American public puts a huge emphasis on social conformity and I couldn’t agree more! Because of the need to conform to what society deems “normal,” I think many people hold back and do not express themselves freely. A reason deferring judgment is so important for us.

Finally, there is a section on serendipity that struck me because it made me think about our facilitation courses. The section talked about creativity happening by chance and lists a number of “accidental discoveries.” For example, the use of the cannon in wars led to defensive architectural developments that became basic tools of mapmaking and cartography. The author says the key word to look at is connections. It made me think about piggybacking and taking one idea and building on it. I found that to be quite interesting seeing how it’s something we’ve talked about a lot for facilitations.

There is much, much more information on the history of creativity in this chapter so if you’re interested I definitely recommend taking the time to absorb the information.

-- Frank Palisano, Graduate Student