What happens to creativity when those who use a particular thinking style tried a different approach? Getty Images

Creativity is an essential ingredient in problem-solving, and the importance of "thinking outside the box" has been stressed in nearly every context imaginable, business or otherwise. But that mantra assumes — wrongly — that we all start off thinking inside the same sort of cognitive box.

Instead, each person has a distinctive cognitive style: some of us, for example, are more intuitive, and others approach the world more rationally. What happens to creativity when those who use a particular thinking style tried a different approach?

Rice Business Professor Erik Dane decided to investigate. Along with colleagues Markus Baer of Washington University in St. Louis, Michael Pratt of Boston College, and Greg Oldham of Tulane University Dane studied typical thinking styles, rational versus and intuitive, and how resisting the most familiar one can affect creativity.

Rational thinkers, the professors noted, learn information deliberately and engage in thoughtful analysis. They depend on a linear, or sequential, way of processing information. Intuitive thinking, meanwhile, is an unconscious way of processing information. It's essentially the opposite of rational thinking: quick and holistic, rather than deliberate and comprehensive.

When a rational thinker faces a problem, her mind goes through multiple stages, tapping relevant mental data bases and coming up with alternative solutions. Her mind evaluates and refines these scenarios to choose the best possible solution to the problem.

An intuitive thinker, on the other hand, goes with his gut. Many researchers believe this type of thinking sparks creativity because it integrates so many different pieces of experience.

To explore what happens when one type of thinker follows a different approach, Dane and his fellow researchers colleagues gave test subjects a scenario. How could they get more students to come into a gift shop? Participants first had to come up with ideas using either an intuitive or a rational problem-solving approach. Then they filled out a short questionnaire. Afterward, the professors evaluated the ideas as creative or not creative, based on originality and usefulness.

When a participant wasn't used to rational thinking and had to problem-solve using a more rational approach, he or she came up with more creative ideas, the researchers found. This, the researchers said, suggests it's worth encouraging intuitive thinkers to change up their problem-solving style to come up with new ideas.

Curiously, it's relatively easy to influence a person's cognitive approach to a problem, the researchers found. At the same time, the research didn't suggest that either approach — rational or intuitive thinking — was inherently better than the other. In fact, they wrote, future research on the topic ought to analyze what happens when subjects are encourage to take a hybrid rational-intuitive approach.

In the meantime, whether you're trying to lure customers to your new coffee shop, or figuring out the best ending to your crime novel, try attacking the problem with the thinking style that's least familiar to you. To truly think outside the box, the first thing to do is peer over the side to see what style of thinking most often boxes you in.

------

This article originally appeared on Rice Business Wisdom.

Erik Dane is an associate professor of management at the Jones Graduate School of Business at Rice University.

Researchers found that there's still very little conceptual explanation for how individual creative attempts become organizational innovation. Getty Images

Researchers find there's not much data on how creativity becomes change in the workplace

Houston Voices

Innovation and creativity are crucial tools that all businesses need in order to prosper. Research into how these tools work covers a broad area and crosses various disciplines. In the past, much of this research has been divided: One side looked at innovation, which focuses on how ideas are implemented, while the other examined creativity, which focuses on coming up with new ideas. Rice Business Professor Jing Zhou and colleagues addressed this divide by reviewing research going back a little more than a decade, looking for key measures that could be used as guidelines for future research.

Zhou and her colleagues began their work by reviewing the practical and theoretical perspectives of innovation and creativity in the workplace. They then created a framework for future research after identifying prominent theories.

Before getting started, however, they needed clear definitions for both innovation and creativity. Creativity, Zhou proposed, centers on idea generation. It's the first step toward innovation. Innovation, she concluded, stresses the implementation of ideas. This happens at different levels: individual, team, organization, or across multiple levels.

At the team level of innovation, research has progressed significantly, the authors found. They suggest that researchers now focus on other aspects of team-level research, such as team environment, leadership and facilitators of workgroups.

At the organizational level, Zhou and her colleagues found that numerous studies looked at the factors that influence innovation. But, they concluded, there's still very little conceptual explanation for how individual creative attempts become organizational innovation.

The team's review reveals the enormous strides that researchers have made in the field of creativity and innovation in recent years, and clarifies how their studies have been used by different organizations.

Despite advances in the field, however, there are still shortcomings. Many studies, for example, are hampered by problematic research approaches. Some lack theoretical groundwork and few take an inclusive approach to multi-level studies.

Zhou and her colleagues argue that addressing these limitations would be a tremendous leap forward in understanding creativity and innovation in the workplace. Without innovation, companies can't prosper and progress. The same holds true for academic research into these lifelines of business success: It will need to expand and dig deeper or cease to be relevant in practice.

------

This article originally appeared on Rice Business Wisdom.

Jing Zhou is the Houston Endowment Professor of Management and Director for Asian Management Research and Education at Jones Graduate School of Business at Rice University.

Ad Placement 300x100
Ad Placement 300x600

CultureMap Emails are Awesome

Texas lands top 10 spot in new future of tech study

report

Texas is among the top 10 states making the biggest investments in digital innovation, according to a new study.

The study, conducted by web-hosting company Hostinger, puts Texas in eighth place among the states when it comes to these key metrics:

  • Financial impact of the digital economy
  • Amount of venture capital and grants received by digital startups
  • Number of government-run tech hubs
  • Presence of top-rated business incubators

“To many, the Texas story is one of oil magnates and real estate tycoons. But in recent decades, the state has emerged as an innovation and high-tech hub,” according to a report from the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.

On a scale of 1 to 100, Texas received a score of 79. California nabbed the top spot with a score of 100. Appearing behind California and ahead of Texas in the ranking are:

  • No. 2: New York
  • No. 3: Washington
  • No. 4: Illinois
  • No. 5: Massachusetts
  • No. 6: Missouri
  • No. 7: Wisconsin

In terms of ranking factors, Texas benefited the most from landing at No. 2 among the states for its impact on the digital economy. The study pegged Texas’ digital economic impact at $141.7 billion, well below California’s impact of $492.8 billion.

Hostinger relied primarily on government data on 31 states to come up with the ranking. “The research provides a detailed ranking based on a composite score that reflects each state's overall investment and capacity for digital innovation,” the company says.

More than 30,000 businesses in Texas participate in the digital economy, according to the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA). Those businesses employ more than 633,000 people and account for over six percent of the state’s GDP, a key measure of economic strength.

“As technology companies face increasing scrutiny through state and national legislation and litigation, it’s crucial to recognize the significant positive impacts of the digital economy that resonate across the United States,” says the CCIA.

TMC names 2025 cohort of cancer treatment innovators

ready to grow

Texas Medical Center Innovation has named more than 50 health care innovators to the fifth cohort of its Accelerator for Cancer Therapeutics (ACT).

The group specializes in immunotherapy, precision drug discovery, monoclonal antibodies, and diagnostic and therapeutic technologies, according to a statement from TMC.

During the nine-month ACT program, participants will enjoy access to a network of mentors, grant-writing support, chemistry resources, and the entrepreneur-in-residence program. The program is designed to equip participants with the ability to secure investments, develop partnerships, and advance the commercialization of cancer therapeutics in Texas.

“With over 35 million new cancer cases predicted by 2050, the urgency to develop safer, more effective, and personalized treatments cannot be overstated,” Tom Luby, chief innovation officer at Texas Medical Center, said in a news release.

Members of the new cohort are:

  • Alexandre Reuben, Kunal Rai, Dr. Cassian Yee, Dr. Wantong Yao, Dr. Haoqiang Ying, Xiling Shen, and Zhao Chen, all of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center
  • Dr. Andre Catic and Dr. Martin M. Matzuk, both of the Baylor College of Medicine
  • Cynthia Hu and Zhiqiang An, both of UTHealth Houston
  • Christopher Powala, Aaron Sato, and Mark de Souza, all of ARespo Biopharma
  • Daniel Romo, Dr. Susan Bates, and Ken Hull, all of Baylor University
  • Eugene Sa & Minseok Kim, both of CTCELLS
  • Gomika Udugamasooriya and Nathaniel Dawkins, both of the University of Houston
  • Dr. Hector Alila of Remunity Therapeutics
  • Iosif Gershteyn and Victor Goldmacher, both of ImmuVia
  • João Seixas, Pedro Cal, and Gonçalo Bernardes, all of TargTex
  • Ken Hsu and Yelena Wetherill, both of the University of Texas at Austin
  • Luis Martin and Dr. Alberto Ocaña, both of C-Therapeutics
  • Dr. Lynda Chin, Dr. Keith Flaherty, Dr. Padmanee Sharma, James Allison, and Ronan O’Hagan, all of Project Crest/Apricity Health
  • Michael Coleman and Shaker Reddy, both of Metaclipse Therapeutics
  • Robert Skiff and Norman Packard, both of 3582.ai
  • Rolf Brekken, Uttam Tambar, Ping Mu, Su Deng, Melanie Rodriguez, and Alexander Busse, all of UT Southwestern Medical Center
  • Ryan Swoboda and Maria Teresa Sabrina Bertilaccio, both of NAVAN Technologies
  • Shu-Hsia Chen and Ping-Ying Pan, both of Houston Methodist
  • Thomas Kim, Philipp Mews, and Eyal Gottlieb, all of ReEngage Therapeutics
The ACT launched in 2021 and has had 77 researchers and companies participate. The group has collectively secured more than $202 million in funding from the NIH, CPRIT and venture capital, according to TMC.