The application of traditional creativity enlargement methods for instructing marketing students: an exploration.

Peterson, Robin T.

ABSTRACT

To date, educators in marketing have devoted much of their effort to improving student analytical skills and knowledge of the business setting. They have largely neglected the development of creativity in the classroom. One of the reasons for this inattention may be the notion that creativity is innate and cannot be instilled. To shed light on that issue and to provide guidance for marketing educators who desire to generate creative capabilities, the present study was designed to assess the degree to which four creativity-enhancement techniques emanating from the behavioral sciences can be effective. The inquiry produced results that strongly reinforce the position that they can be of value.

BACKGROUND

In the majority of marketing management positions today, creativity is an important attribute (Slater, 1995; Edwards & Simerly, 2001). The most important reason for this may be that firms have discovered that creativity is a critical factor in determining company success or failure (Bhatt, 2002).In turn, creativity denotes a capability which is marked by sensitivity to problems, originality, ingenuity, usefulness and appropriateness of thought patterns, and unusual responses to stimuli (Johnson, 1972).

Industry is in need of individuals who are able to conjure novel ideas for new products, advertising campaigns, packages, training programs, competitive strategies and tactics, and enumerable other elements (Gilbert & Bower, 2002). In an increasingly volatile environment, companies require a steady stream of new conceptions, in order to survive and prosper (Hogg, 1989; Firth & Narayanan, 1996).

Education in business has come under appreciable attack in recent periods (Karr, 2002; Brown & Gobeli, 1993). One of the leading charges is that undergraduate. and MBA. programs stress analytical and classification skills and neglect focus on creativity (Class of >96, 1996; Ramocki, 1994). Numerous business spokespersons have reported that graduates are capable of performing break even, return on investment, and other analyses but lack capability in more subjective areas, such as creativity (Gilbert, Prenshaw, & Ivy, 1996).

Marketing educators have expended some efforts at creativity training. At the university level there are only a limited number of reported applications in marketing education, however. This paper examines the effectiveness of four redefining methods in a university setting.. All of these involve group effort. This appears to be in accordance with experience in industry where much of the current effort involves networks of creative people collaborating in the steps from developing new ideas to introducing the finished product, in contrast to the idea of the lone scientist or entrepreneur or divine inspiration producing useful ideas (Cushing & Gates, 2002).

PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS

A number of companies have employed creativity training techniques (Brown & Hyer, 2002; Arild-Johannessen, Olsen, & Olaisen, 1997). These are extensive in number and only a sample is examined here. Many do not look at all like rational management, in that they appear to be counterintuitive and may seem strange, but many companies are using them with great results (Sutton, 2001; Livingstone, Palich & Carini, 2002).

In Japan a widely-used methodology is to group manufacturing, sales, and marketing employees for new product development. The members of the group deliver their ideas to a creativity circle, where they are analyzed by the members. One variation is the "Lotus Blossom" technique, where a moderator writes a central theme in the center of a lotus blossom diagram and group members are encouraged to think of related ideas or applications of the idea (Tatsuno, 1990).

Experience to date suggests that industry training programs can be effective in nurturing creativity (Wang & Horng, 2002; Kuriloff & Hemphill, 1988; McAdam & McClelland, 2002; Willings & Bruce, 1984; Buckler & Zien, 1996). A number of Fortune 500 firms have implemented creativity training programs centered on the notion that virtually any employee has the ability to think innovatively (Schwartz & Nandhakumar, 2002). Executives in these companies generally appear to be satisfied with the programs (Hills, 2002; Olivero, 1990). Further, training in creativity has been shown to be of value to expatriate managers operating in foreign countries (Harvey & Novicevic, 2002). A number of authorities report that the best-managed firms in the United States are capable of taking advantage of employee creativity and nurturing their ideas. (Mitchell, 1989; Wagner & Hayashi, 1994).

One report on academic endeavor outlines computer-aided modifications for introducing the principles of creative problem-solving skills in an established project for a Master of Business Administration program. (Rickards, 1987). Students were able to overcome the complexities of the new technology, and it was possible to offer a large amount of interaction, monitoring, and feedback with each project group. Evidence was uncovered for the enhancement of the principles of creative problem solving associated with innovation in new technology.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

The research effort described herein was undertaken to determine if several well-known techniques constructed by psychologists could be constructive in marketing student creation of new package ideas. A second goal was to compare the effectiveness of the several techniques examined, as a means of determining which of these would be superior pedagogical methodologies.

If the techniques are in fact advantageous in elevating creativity, then they may have potential value for courses in marketing and other business administration disciplines. Packaging was selected because it is a difficult field within which to be creative. In industry, much of the package development function is delegated to highly-trained and skilled specialists. If students can be taught to be creative in this complex setting, they should be able to do at least as well in most other business functions.

The research assessed a number of hypotheses. Basically, the hypotheses were based upon the premises that sound creativity training will produce: (a) large numbers of new packaging ideas, (b) large numbers of good new packaging ideas, (c) substantial satisfaction among package development group members, and (d) divergence of ideas among group members. These criteria have been used by other researchers to assess creativity training efforts(Peterson, 1993).

The hypotheses which the study examined are:

1. The four techniques under examination will be effective in producing
large numbers of new package ideas, compared to a context where the
techniques are not used, i.e. a control group setting.

2. The techniques will be effective in producing large numbers of good
new package ideas, compared to a control group setting.

3. Some of the tested techniques will be more effective in producing
large numbers of new package ideas than will others, i.e., some of the
techniques are superior to others in this regard.

4. Some of the techniques will be more effective in producing large
numbers of good new package ideas than will others, i.e., some of the
techniques are superior to others in this regard.

5. Some of the techniques will be effective in producing more
satisfaction among group members who use these techniques, compared to
groups that do not use the techniques, i.e. a control group setting.

6. Some of the techniques will be effective in producing more
satisfaction among group members who use these techniques than will
techniques used by other groups, i.e. some techniques are superior to
others in this regard.

7. Some of the techniques will be effective in producing more divergent
package ideas among group members who use these techniques, compared to
groups that do not use the techniques, i.e., a control group setting.

8. Some of the techniques will be effective in producing more divergent
package ideas among group members who use these techniques than will
techniques used by other groups, i.e., some techniques are superior to
others in this regard.

THE INQUIRY

The subjects of the experiment were 115 undergraduate students enrolled in a principles of marketing class taught by the writer. In this group, 94 were business administration majors (38 of these were marketing majors) while the remainder were primarily arts and science and engineering majors. Since the respondents were mainly business administration students, the results of the study cannot necessarily be generalized to college students at large. The members of the class were randomly assigned to five groups, each of which consisted of 23 individuals. The experiment embraced four experimental groups and one control group. Each of the experimental groups received written directions and oral instructions on the utilization of a specific creativity-enhancing method. Conversely, the control group received only a written message and a lecture on the importance of creativity in new package design. The members were not informed that they were assigned to a control group, as this might serve as a demotivator of their efforts.

The four creativity-enhancement techniques which the study examined are all frequently mentioned, tested, and in broad use in the literature and research of psychologists who deal with creativity. All make use of team or group effort. Research has indicated that assembling personnel into groups, for purposes of generating creative ideas, is a highly-effective method (Taggar, 2002). The techniques were the "Gordon Method", "Attribute Listing", "Forced Relationships", and "Morphological Analysis".[See (Osborn, 1979). for a detailed description of the methods]. These techniques were selected for inclusion in the study due to their demonstrated effectiveness in enhancing creativity that other studies have uncovered (Peterson, 1993).

The written descriptions of the techniques which the members of the experimental groups received follow. The descriptions emanated from Osborne's classic book on creativity (Osborn, 1979) with added inputs from another well-researched source (Higgins, 1996). After the subjects read the written directions, they received comprehensive verbal directions from the researcher.

Gordon Method

"Your group discussion should first explore every conceivable aspect of the broadest possible approach to the problem. For example, if the group is devising an easy to open cereal package for senior citizens, the group will discuss "easy to open". The groups will first discuss all possible meanings of the word and all possible examples of "easy to open" in physical things, in nature, etc." "If your goal is to develop a new cereal package that would please children, the group would discuss the idea of "pleasing" in the same manner. Your approach should be to explore the idea in much more depth than would be the case when you are usually thinking about or discussing it. Later in the session your group will explore and develop approaches that have been uncovered."

Attribute Listing

"First you are to list the various attributes of the packages you are dealing with. Then turn your attention specifically to each one of these attributes, using them as a checklist to force you to look at all aspects of the problem. For example, if we were to consider the attributes of a cereal package we might list such items as (1) height, (2) width, (3) depth, (4) thickness (5) overall size (6) weight, (7) shape, (8) color, (9) material, (10) aperature, and (11) biodegradability."

"To devise a better package, you could focus on each of these attributes separately. For example, for a standard cereal package it could be made wider; it could be cast in a square form; it could be made of recycled paper. You could bring up many variations for each of the attributes."

Forced Relationships

"Your job is to induce original ideas by creating forced relationships between two or more normally unrelated packages or ideas as the starting point for idea generation. For example, you could consider each idea on a list as associated with each other idea on the list."

"In producing new package ideas for a cereal producer, for instance, you might list the following packaged goods the company already produces: cookies, bread, crackers, potato chips, and cereal. The first relationship might be between cereal and bread. From this starting point you would start a chain of free association leading to packaging ideas, such as enclosing cereal in soft plastic see-through bags. You could also forced relationships between cereal and other product packages."

Morphological Analysis

"Your job is to analyze structures and then use forced relationship techniques to produce idea possibilities. In developing a new cereal package, for instance, the major appeals might be assumed to fall under three headings: (1) physical appearance, (2) convenience, and (3) product protection. You can think up about 10 ideas under each of these three headings. It is possible, of course, that you would develop more than three headings for particular packages. Relate each idea under "physical appearance" to each "convenience" ideal. Continue with this process as you produce a succession of novel combinations."

Each experimental and control group experienced five one-hour sessions. Their assigned task was to produce new package ideas by utilizing the technique (in the case of the control group no assigned technique) that they were instructed to employ. During each one-hour session the group furnished new product ideas for a separate manufacturer. Executives employed by the manufacturers were used as judges to evaluate the creative work of the students.

The researcher utilized judgment in selecting the sample of companies. It was believed that these were firms with a strong track record in new package creation. The managers of these enterprises had provided brief outlines of their objectives, business operations, and product lines, permitting the students to develop package ideas that might be germane to the companies. Each experimental and control group created package ideas for each of the firms in the sample. Hence all of the groups were exposed to all five firms.

The packaging managers evaluated a written description of the package ideas on four measures. One (for hypotheses one and three) was the total number of new package ideas which might be considered to be possible new package candidates. A second measure (for hypotheses two and four) was the total number of "good" new package ideas, defined as those which the manager would estimate as having a better than 50% probability of generating a satisfactory level of profit. The third measure (for hypotheses five and six) was a written description by the students of the amount of satisfaction that group members experienced in the process of creating new ideas. The last measure (for hypotheses seven and eight) was the divergence of ideas created by the various groups. Each group produced package ideas for all of the businesses and each manager/judge evaluated the new package idea creation process for all five groups.

RESEARCH FINDINGS

The research findings are reported in this section. The analysis follows the order of hypotheses that correspond to each dependent variable that was considered.

Table One is directed to hypotheses one and three. It considers the mean number of new ideas which each group produced. All four of the experimental groups generated significantly larger scores than did the control group, according to a Tukey K test at the .05 level. This finding supports hypothesis one. The ranking of the methods was: (1) Morphological Analysis, (2) Gordon Method, (3) Attribute Listing, (4) Forced Relationships, and (5) The Control Group setting. The table labels with an asterisk the methods which produced scores that were significantly greater than the next largest score, according to Tukey K tests. The value for the Gordon Method, for instance, is significantly larger than the value for the Attribute Listing method. The data in the table support hypothesis three. Interestingly, the rank order of the methods is the same as that resulting from another study which tested the four methods and a control group for their ability to generate large numbers of new product ideas for small businesses (Peterson, 1993).

Table 2 sets forth data which address hypotheses two and four. It presents the mean number of ideas which the managers identified as "good" and the percentage of good to total ideas (mean number of "good" ideas divided by the mean number of ideas produced).

The Gordon Method yielded the largest number of "good" ideas. It was followed by Morphological Analysis, Attribute Listing, Forced Relationships, and the Control Group. As in Table 1, asterisks identify means that are significantly greater than the next smaller mean value, according to Tukey K tests at the .05 level. The rank order of these methods was the same as that yielded in the study of new product ideas mentioned earlier (Peterson, 1993).

Both the Gordon Method and Morphological Analysis showed higher means than the remaining groups. They did not differ significantly from each other, however. Another cluster is formed by Attribute Listing and Forced Relationships. They do not differ significantly from one another but are significantly larger than the control group. Overall, the Gordon Method and Morphological Analysis present the most favorable results, and the Control Group yields the smallest number of "Good" ideas. The analysis, then, provides support for hypotheses two and four.

Another gauge which researchers employ in evaluating creativity improvement methods is to ask those who used the methods how satisfied they were with the process. Researchers in management and psychology often employ this technique (Van-de-Ven & Delbecq, 1974). It is assumed that if the group members are very satisfied with the process, it is probable that they have been very productive, in their own judgment. On the other hand, if the group members manifest dissatisfaction with the process, they probably have not developed large numbers of potentially good ideas and will not be so motivated in the future.

Satisfaction with the methods was measured by asking group members to respond to the following scales immediately after finishing each creativity enhancement technique:

In using this technique, our group:

Produced Excellent Ideas Produced Very Poor Ideas
Did Not Work Well Together Worked Well Together
Used Technique Correctly Used Technique Incorrectly

The researcher calculated an overall satisfaction mean scale value, consisting of the mean scale values for the three sets of bipolar adjectives. Higher scale values signified larger magnitudes of satisfaction on the scales. Table 3 sets forth the overall mean scale satisfaction values for the experimental groups and the control group.

Tukey K tests indicated that Morphological Analysis, Attribute Listing, and Forced Relationships all produced larger means that the next largest mean. As in the previous tables the Gordon Method and Morphological Analysis produced results superior to the other techniques. In turn, all of the experimental groups yielded larger means than did the control group.

The results of the satisfaction measures were consistent with the measures of the numbers of new product ideas and good new product ideas. The product moment coefficient of correlation between the data in Table 1 and that in Table 3 was .80, which is significant at the .05 level. The correlation coefficient for the data in tables 2 and 3 was .84, which is significant at the .05 level. Overall, the findings on satisfaction provide support for hypotheses five and six.

The last creativity measure used in the study was the divergence of ideas that participants using the various techniques brought into play. The business manager/judges evaluated divergence through the following measure:

 Please evaluate, on the following five-point scale, the divergence
 of the product ideas created by the group when they used this
 technique. By divergence, we mean the extent to which the ideas
 vary from one another, rather than following a common norm. If they
 deviate or branch off considerably from one another, rank them as
 "High Divergence." If, on the other hand, they are very similar,
 mark them as "Low Divergence." If your evaluation is in between
 these two extremes, mark the appropriate scale accordingly.

High Divergence

Low Divergence

Table 4 sets forth the mean divergence scores for subjects utilizing the various techniques. In the table, higher values identify larger divergence. As in the previous tables, asterisks signify significant Tukey K differences.

According to the Tukey test, all four of the experimental group means are significantly larger than the mean for the control group. The one significant difference in the experimental group set was that Forced Relationships was significantly smaller than Attribute Listing. The ranking of the methods was identical to that identified in the new product idea creation study cited earlier (Peterson, 1993).

The divergence values were closely correlated with the satisfaction values, with a product moment correlation of .84, suggesting a tight relationship between the two variables. The correlation between divergence and number of new ideas was .80 and with divergence and number of good new ideas .86. All of the coefficients were statistically significant at the .05 level, suggesting internal consistency between the variables. The analysis of divergence scores furnishes support for hypotheses seven and eight.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This inquiry produced evidence which supported all eight of the hypotheses which were raised. Several conclusions follow. One is that all of the groups employing the creativity-enhancement methods created significantly larger numbers of ideas and numbers of "good" new ideas, more satisfaction with the process, and more divergent ideas than did the control group. This provides support for the supposition that the methods are potentially effective agents for building creativity and have potential value to instructors of marketing and other business administration courses and to managers of business firms who are motivated to enhance employee creativity.

This inquiry concentrated on employing the methods for developing new packaging ideas, but they could also be useful creativity generators for producing innovations in product development, promotion offers, advertising themes and appeals, and channel of distribution patterns. The creative process is sufficiently broad to support broad applications of effective methods. Hence, these methods can be utilized to enhance creativity in a broad spectrum of courses, beyond those which focus on packaging.

The Gordon Method and Morphological Analysis created the largest number of significant results. This suggests that instructors should grant them high consideration as creativity-enhancement devices. The other two methods produced significantly higher results than did the control group, however, indicating that they have potential.

It is recommended that further research be undertaken to study the effectiveness of the creativity-enhancement methods evaluated in this study, as well as other methods that educators, managers, psychologists, and others have constructed. The research could be conducted among other groups, such students in other classes, students in foreign universities, and participants in executive development programs, using the research methods employed in this paper. Also, the research could consider the usefulness of the techniques when applied to other decision areas, such as selecting promotion themes (Varadarajan, 1985).

REFERENCES

Amabile, T. M.., C. N. Hadley & S. J. Kramer. (2002). Creativity under the gun. Harvard Business Review, 80(8), 52-61.

Arild-Johannessen, J., B. Olsen & J. Olaisen. (1997). Organizing for innovation. Long Range Planning, 30(1), 96-109.

Bhatt, N. A. (2002). What is your competitive advantage? Pharmaceutical Executive, 22(8), 106-108.

Brown, D.J. & D.H. Gobeli. (1993). Improving the quality of business education. 1993 Proceedings of the American Marketing Association, 36.

Brown, K. A. & N. L. Hyer. (2002). Whole-brain thinking for project management. Business Horizons, 45(3), 47-57.

Buckler, S.A. & K.A. Zien. (1995). The spirituality of innovation: learning from stories. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 13(3), 391-405.

Class of '96 (1996). Journal of Business Strategy, 17(2), 26-36.

Cushing, R. & G. Gates. (2002). When social capital stifles innovation. Harvard Business Review, 80(8), 20-27.

Edwards, J. & R. L. Simerly. (2001). A theory for explaining variations among organizational cultures, International Journal of Management, 18(4), 533-538.

Ensman, R.G., Jr. (1990). Brainstorming: A key to innovative ideas. Credit, 21(3), 30-31.

Firth, R.W. & V.K. Narayanan. (1996) .New product strategies of large, dominant product manufacturing firms: An exploratory analysis. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 13(2), 334-337.

Gilbert, C. & J. L. Bower. (2002). Disruptive Change: When trying harder is part of the problem. Harvard Business Review, 80(5), 94-101.

Gilbert, F.W., P.J. Prenshaw & T.T. Ivy. (1996). A preliminary assessment of the effectiveness of creativity training in marketing. Journal of Marketing Education, 18(3), 46-56.

Harvey, M. & M.. M. Novicevic. (2002). The hypercompetitive global marketplace: The importance of intuition and creativity in expatriate managers. Journal of World Business, 37(2), 127-138.

Higgins, J.M. (1996). Innovate or evaporate: creative techniques for strategists. Long Range Planning, 29(2), 370-380.

Hills, D. (2002). Stumbling into brilliance. Harvard Business Review, 80(8), 152-161.

Hogg, C. (1989). The act of creation. Director, 42(13), 80-82.

Johnson, D. M. (1972). Systematic Introduction to the Psychology of Thinking. New York: Harper & Row, 276-278.

Karr, S. S. (2002). Striving for excellence. Financial Executive, 18(2), 69-71.

Kuriloff, A.H. & Hemphill Jr., J.M. (1988). Starting and Managing the Small Business. New York: McGraw-Hill, 40-51.

Livingstone, L. P., L. E. Palich & G. R. Carini. (2002). Promoting creativity through the logic of contradiction. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(3), 321-326.

McAdam, R. & J. McClelland. (2002). Sources of new product ideas and creativity practices in the UK textile industry. Technovation ,22(2), 113-127.

Mitchell, R. (1989, June). Nurturing those ideas. Business Week, 106-118.

Olivero, M. (1990). ET crazy: How to have a breakthrough idea. Working Woman, 15(9), 144-147, 222.

Osborne, A.F. (1979). Applied imagination (4th Ed.), New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.

Peterson, R. (1993).An examination of the effectiveness of selected techniques for enhancing new product creativity in small business. Journal of Business & Entrepreneurship, 5(2), 7-22.

Ramocki, S.P.(1994). It is time to teach creativity throughout the marketing curriculum. Journal of Marketing Education, 16(2),15-25.

Richards, T. (1987). Can computers help simulate creativity? Training implications from a postgraduate MBA experience. Management Education and Development, 18(2), 129-139.

Schwartz M. & J. Nandhakumar. (2002).Conceptualizing the development of strategic ideas: A grounded theory analysis. British Journal of Management ,13(1), 67-82.

Slater, S. F. (1995). Learning to change. Business Horizons, 38(6), 13-20.

Sutton, R. I. (2001). The weird rules of creativity. Harvard Business Review, 79(8), 94-103.

Taggar, S. (2002). Individual creativity and group ability to utilize individual creative resources: A multilevel model. Academy of Management Journal, 45(2), 315-330.

Tatsuno, S.M. (1990). Creating breakthroughs the Japanese way. R & D, 32(2), 136-142.

Van-de-Ven, A.H. & A.L. Delbecq. (1974). The effectiveness of nominal, delphi, and interacting group decision making processes. Academy of Management Journal, 17(4), 605-621.

Varadarajan, P.R. (1985). The sales promotion planning process in small retail business: An exploratory investigation. American Journal of Small Business, 9(2), 25-33.

Wagner C. & A. Hayashi. (1994). A new way to create winning product ideas. Journal of Product Information Management, 11(2),146-155.

Wang, C.W. & R. Y. Horng. (2002). The effects of creative problem solving training on creativity, cognitive type, and R & D performance. R & D Management, 32(1), 35-46.

Willings, D. & C. Bruce. (1984). Meeting the creative mood half way. Gifted Education-International, 2(2), 88-91.

Robin T. Peterson, New Mexico State University

Table 1: Mean Number of New Package Ideas Produced by the Groups

Group Mean Number of New Package Ideas

Morphological Analysis 10.6
Gordon Method 9.2 *
Attribute Listing 7.6
Forced Relationships 6.6 *
Control Group 4.4

* Indicates a mean score that is significantly greater than the next
largest mean, according to a Tukey K test at the .05 level

Table 2: Mean Number of New Package Ideas Judged as "Good"

 Number of "Good" Percentage of "Good"
Group New Product Ideas To Total Ideas

Gordon Method 5.0 54.3%
Morphological Analysis 4.6 * 43.4%
Attribute Listing 3.3 43.4%
Forced Relationships 2.8 * 42.4%
Control Group 1.2 27.3%

* Indicates a mean that is significantly greater than the next largest
mean value, according to a Tukey K test at the .05 level.

Table 3: Mean Scale Satisfaction Values by Group

Group Mean Scale Value

Gordon Method 4.4
Morphological Analysis 4.1 *
Attribute Listing 3.2 *
Forced Relationships 2.6 *
Control Group 2.0

* Signifies a mean that is significantly larger than the next largest
mean, according to Tukey K tests at the .05 level.

Table 4: Group Divergence Scores

Group Divergence Score

Gordon Method 4.4
Morphological Analysis 4.0
Attribute Listing 3.9 *
Forced Relationships 3.1 *
Control Group 2.1

* Indicates that the mean is significantly larger than the next largest
mean, according to a Tukey K test at the .05 level.