Kick-starting discussions at this national conference was the observation that it is customary to consider creativity as an expression of individual genius, or to associate it with an extravagance and fancifulness far removed from the workings of the economy and corporate business. Moreover, the concepts of artistic or aesthetic creativity and economic or productive creativity are often perceived as antithetical.
In reality, however, creativity is today recognized as a form of intelligence, if not as an outlook on life: it implies being ready to solve problems, finding alternative solutions, and interspersing flashes of imagination and inventiveness with mindfulness of the prevailing realities and the potential of both the means and environment that one has to work with. It also signifies contending with the limits and constraints of a given context and with the absence of freedom from rules often associated with creativity. This entails a collective and not an individual process.
It was stressed that while, on the one hand, individual creativity is to be prized, on the other, it is equally pivotal to ensure an organizational milieu that favors individual expression, but, above all, fosters conditions which enable diverse talents to come together and engender ideas that then translate into concrete actions and that also take into account their social and economic impact.
There was a perceived need, in today’s conditions, to be ready to create a more open working environment in which the individual’s freedom to act is integrated into an organizational structure that is modern and visionary, but at the same time focused on reality.
In this regard, it was felt that leadership assumes a crucial role, not only in terms of conveying instructions, but also and above all as a means to getting the best out of one’s team. It was emphasized that, in this process, creativity and innovation draw impetus and support from expertise, curiosity, intelligence, imagination, ethics, responsibility, a productive market, technology, a multidisciplinary approach, and a readiness to engage with “difference” (including as manifested between generations).
The participants were at pains to stress that modern-day organizations need to know how to exploit – rather than, as often occurs, suppress – this propensity of individuals to think and act outside the box.
The way in which the relationship between creativity and innovation plays out was thus seen as still up for debate: seeking new solutions and innovating existing products and services could become synonymous with achieving the kind of progress that forms part of what might be described as a “virtuous cycle of creativity”, that is, a paradigm for improving social standards. While being of the view that the pursuit of creativity does not constitute an end in itself, the participants highlighted that its fruits become part of the lives of many individuals and of the community.
Another aspect deemed significant was the sensitivity demonstrated on this front by academic and university institutions in educating young people.
It was conceded that investing in creativity can seem risky when a well-trodden path exists that has been tried and tested over the years. Nevertheless, it was urged that while the risk of making mistakes and incurring failures definitely has to be reckoned with, this is counterweighed by the need to acknowledge that from failure can spring new understanding, as well as new insights and ideas that can lead the way to positive change. After all, although Christopher Columbus was mistaken in thinking he had found a new route to the Indies, he did – in his failure – discover America.