Business Horizons (2015) 58, 3—4
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
EDITOR’S PERSPECTIVE
Creativity: What do you want and where do
you want it?
Marc J. Dollinger
Kelley School of Business, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405, U.S.A.
Not too long ago I attended a dissertation defense in
the School of Education here at Indiana University. I
served as the outside committee member and my
job was to ensure that the research bore some level
of external validity; that is, did the results make
sense in the world outside academia? I always use
creativity exercises in the classes I teach, and did a
bit of work myself in the area of creativity more than
a decade ago (Danis & Dollinger, 1998; Dollinger &
Danis, 1998). This work investigated two dimensions
of the creative individual: people who are creative
in doing things better and those who do things
differently. Doing things better can be character-
ized as incremental creativity and doing things dif-
ferently can be characterized as more radical and
inventive.
The doctoral candidate presented a well-
rehearsed overview of her study, which also focused
on creativity. Going into the dissertation defense, I
hoped to learn a little something. This is the give
and take of being a professor, and one of its perks. Lo
and behold, I did learn something–—and it has ev-
erything to do with creativity in business. Allow me
to pass it on, pay it forward, and tip you off.
There is a controversy in the world of creativity
research regarding whether creativity itself is do-
main specific or domain general. If creativity is
domain specific then people are creative in a par-
ticular area, and one that they know well. For
example, domains like music, art, cooking, crafts,
E-mail address: dollinge@indiana.edu
0007-6813/$ — see front matter # 2014 Kelley School of Business, Indiana University. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2014.08.003
www.elsevier.com/locate/bushor
math, language acquisition, and sports represent
areas in which an individual can be creative.
‘Creative’ in this sense is defined as producing an
output (work) that is useful, novel, and socially
accepted by experts in the relevant area–—that last
part is so you cannot simply be weird, per se, and
just call yourself creative. People who are creative
within a domain may not show signs of creativity in
other domains; their creativity is manifested and
concentrated in that one area.
If, on the other hand, creativity is domain general
rather than domain specific, there exists a set of
people who are simply creative in everything they
do, no matter the context or situation. They are
always in the mode of producing novel, useful, and
socially acceptable products and thought. These
folks think outside the box and look at the world
in its many dimensions, in new and innovative ways.
It turns out that–—depending on how you do the
study and what variables and domains you choose,
as well as how you measure them–—both domain-
specific creativity and domain-general creativity
exist simultaneously. People are creative in specific
domains and also creative in general. While some
individuals have big creative engines and others
experience less powerful creative urges, everyone
can be creative at something. No definitive study
has been performed to date, and academics on both
sides of the argument must grudgingly admit that
evidence exists on each.
During the dissertation defense I learned one more
creativity concept: there is ‘little c’ creativity and
‘big C’ creativity. Little c produces small incremental
4 EDITOR’S PERSPECTIVE
changes in existing products, processes, and systems.
Little c is a form of innovation that works to improve
the status quo. Big C is about big change that results in
revolutionary products, processes, and systems. Big C
is a form of invention that destroys the status quo and
introduces a new set of assumptions and thinking.
Putting two and two together (this is right at the
boundary of my own creativity) we get:
1. domain specific, little c creativity;
2. domain general, little c creativity;
3. domain specific, big C creativity; and
4. domain general, big C creativity.
The question business decision makers need to ask
themselves is: What kind of creativity do you want
and where do you want it?
Every organization and every organizational pun-
dit claims that we need more creativity, not less.
Even whole nations (e.g., China, Japan) are over-
hauling their educational systems in attempt to
produce more creative individuals. But they are
not asking which kind and where.
I think one key to figuring this out involves match-
ing the type of creativity with the level you are
staffing in the organization. Because part of the
creativity concept demands social acceptance, it
is difficult to place big C people in lower-level
positions as these allow scant outlet for big C crea-
tivity. These folks need some visibility and legitima-
cy in the organization in order to be effective. Little
c individuals are probably best positioned in areas
where attention to detail is important.
Similarly, domain-specific creative people should
be matched to the domain most relevant to them
within the organization. Domain-general creative
people might be a good match for non-technical
areas, as well as positions at the boundary of an
organization. Boundary positions are frequently
quite volatile because of interaction with the outside
environment. A domain-general creative would have
the flexibility to deal with these varied situations.
When placing employees, be sure to consider
these differences in creativity. A good match will
enable an individual to reach their creative poten-
tial while concurrently helping the organization
solve its problems.
References
Danis, W., & Dollinger, M. (1998). A provisional comparison of
factor structures using English, Japanese, and Chinese ver-
sions of the Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory. Psychologi-
cal Reports, 83(3), 1095—1103.
Dollinger, M., & Danis, W. (1998). Preferred decision-making
styles: A cross-cultural comparison. Psychological Reports,
82(3), 755—761.