If we dare to challenge traditional notions of creative ideation what might be the implications for entrepreneurship?

! 1!

If we dare to challenge traditional notions of creative ideation what might be the implications for entrepreneurship?

Ali Sumner

Copyright 2012

Sumner A, 2012. Proceedings of the Australian Centre for Entrepreneurship Research and Diana Conference (ACERE DIANA) January 31-February 3, 2012, University of Notre

Dame, Fremantle, Australia.

ISBN 978046572673 (CD-ROM)

! 2!

If we dare to challenge traditional notions of creative ideation what might be the implications for entrepreneurship?

Ali Sumner

Abstract It is undeniable that the creation of ideas underpins entrepreneurial behaviour.

Despite general agreement that creativity is essential however, a major challenge still remains for entrepreneurial researchers to understand the actual process of creativity. It is not surprising therefore, that entrepreneurial cognition studies draw heavily on creativity research per se. Unfortunately, even creativity researchers have not yet resolved fundamental questions about the nature of creative ideation. In contrast to this dilemma, this paper presents a model for Creativity-on-Demand that emerged from a grounded theory study involving nascent entrepreneurs trained in, and actively using, authentic lateral thinking. Creativity-on-Demand challenges traditional notions of how both unique and valuable ideas can be productively generated. Implications arising from this challenge for Australian entrepreneurship are discussed in this paper.

Introduction While it can be argued that the creation of an idea is not the same as recognising an

entrepreneurial opportunity, without some kind of idea being generated in the first instance, it is questionable as to whether an opportunity could ever start to exist in the mind of the entrepreneur (Hayton and Cholakova 2011, Zhou 2008). It is therefore possible to view opportunity recognition as a ‘product’ of an entrepreneur’s personal creativity (Baldacchino 2009, Mazzarol et al 2009, Monllor and Attraran 2008, Moroz and Hindle 2011, Walton 2003, Mitchell et al 2005, Lessem 1980). Acknowledging the role of creativity

It is undeniable creative ideation underpins entrepreneurial behaviour. Entrepreneurship studies that focus on creativity are eclectically nested however, within many contexts. Dyer et al (2008, 334) place the cognitive process to generate novel ideas as a key component of their model of opportunity recognition; Lessem (1980, 21) places creativity at the centre of his circle of entrepreneurship attributes and Haynie et al (2010, 4) explore creativity as a component of the cognitive adaptability of entrepreneurs. When Zhou (2008, 4) claims creativity is indispensable in the entire entrepreneurial process he is referring to the generation of ideas relating to new opportunities through to commercialisation of new ventures. Sohn and Jung (2010, 321) propose personal creativity combined with experience, provides the entrepreneur with a competitive advantage. Focusing on the role of social and human capital within the context of nascent entrepreneurs, Davidsson and Honig (2003, 311) refer to “the business creation process”, “creating a viable business entity” and “creating profitable nascent enterprises”.

While there is general consensus that creative ideation is fundamentally connected with entrepreneurship, Mitchell et al (2007, 18) propose a major challenge for entrepreneurial research is to understand the actual process of creativity. Little is known about the pathways of entrepreneurial thought and confusion still remains regarding creativity as the central concept of entrepreneurial research (Auoni and Surlemont 2009, Mitchell et al 2007). Therefore, it is not surprising that entrepreneurial studies frequently rely on creativity research per se, with its long tradition of core assumptions regarding creative ideation (Baron and Ward 2004, Monllor and Attaran 2008, Sarasvathy 2004).

! 3!

Creative ideation One of the core assumptions associated with creativity research is the belief that

finding creative solutions is an intuitive process of sudden insight, not easily controlled or regulated by an individual (Claxton 2006, Clapham 2003, Klausen 2010). The notion that creative ideation is an intuitive cognitive process was first formularised in 1926 when the socialist economist Graham Wallas devised a four-stage model for creative problem solving: preparation where the problem is identified, followed by incubation, then illumination, sometimes called insight and finally by verification, which is the conscious evaluation of the idea (Lubart 2001, Welling 2007). The illumination stage is the ‘eureka’ moment, the unpredictable ‘ah-ha’ associated with sudden insight (Lubart 2001, Lumpkin and Lichentstein 2005, Perkins 2001, Welling 2007). The Wallas model proposes an idea or concept suddenly comes to mind after a period of unconscious incubation that could last for weeks or months, during which time the problem has not consciously been considered (Horan 2009, Horng and Hu 2009, Lumpkin and Lichenstein 2005).

This model has become the theoretical foundation for Western studies on the nature of creative problem solving, with many sub-processes of the model emerging since 1926 (Lubart 2001, Orlet 2008, Ross 2006, Vidal 2009, Welling 2007).

The Creative Problem Solving (CPS) framework for example, originally developed by the advertising executive Alex Osborne, generally follows the Wallas model (Rossiter and Lillien 1994, 68). CPS also includes brainstorming, Osborne’s technique to ‘find’ ideas (Basadur 2004, Isaksen 1995, Puccio et al 2010, Rossiter and Lillien 1994).

Within the entrepreneurial cognition research stream several theories for entrepreneurial creativity have been based on the Wallas model. The Creativity Model of Opportunity Recognition developed by Lumpkin et al (2011, 14), adheres closely to the traditional construct of incubation, as does the Creativity-based Experiential Learning Model of Opportunity Recognition devised by Corbett (2005, 483). The Cycle of Learning and Creativity, the entrepreneurial cognition model developed by Gemmell et al (2011, 5) that is superimposed with Kolb’s learning styles, also includes entrepreneurial ideation as a sub-phase of incubation.

In contrast to these models that are underpinned by traditional assumptions about how creative ideation occurs, Groves et al (2011, 239) propose that the unpredictable nature of the 21st Century global business environment requires entrepreneurs to be non-linear thinkers, and that entrepreneurs should be using lateral thinking to deal more effectively with increasing uncertainty.

While lateral thinking is not based on traditional creativity research concepts devised by Wallas in the 1920s, this paper proposes it is worthy of consideration as an alternative approach for enabling entrepreneurial creativity in the 21st Century. Lateral thinking for deliberate creative ideation

In the 1960s the physician/physiologist Edward de Bono (1969, 36) devised a series of models to explain his proposition that the human brain is a non-linear, dynamic self-organising information system and therefore, because of the nature of such systems, cannot be naturally creative. To deal with this problem de Bono firstly invented the term ‘lateral thinking’, to describe the type of thinking that is required for deliberate creative ideation, then invented the tools and processes of lateral thinking for the systematic generation of both novel and useful ideas (Braunstein 1999, de Angelo 2005, McCormack 2005). Subsequently de Bono’s special memory surface model of the brain, as the rationale for inventing lateral thinking, has been described as a ‘heresy’, because it “challenges the orthodox paradigm of Western theories of creativity” (Rickards 1999,

! 4!

97). Nevertheless, in the 1980’s the term ‘lateral thinking’ entered the Oxford dictionary and since then it has become common vernacular, with 1,860,000 entries for ‘lateral thinking’ listed on the Internet in December 2011 (Google 2011). It has therefore become loosely associated with any thinking that is out of the ordinary, for example an Australian Chef being described in the popular press as, using lateral thinking because he has “mastered the art of gels/foam/airs/soils” and general “dicking around” with food (The Weekend Australian Magazine 11 July. 2009, 21). Authentic lateral thinking and entrepreneurship

This paper uses the term authentic lateral thinking to distinguish between the popular use of the term and the deliberate application of specific tools and processes invented by Edward de Bono and detailed in the lateral thinking training manual authorised by de Bono (de Bono Thinking Systems 2006).

Despite the popularisation of the term ‘lateral thinking’, no studies have yet emerged from the domain of creativity research that specifically focus on what happens when people use authentic lateral thinking. The possible value of authentic lateral thinking within the context of entrepreneurship has therefore never been explored.

In comparison to this lack of knowledge this paper presents the results of an empirical study that explored what happens when authentic lateral thinking is used. The study involved 31 Western Australian business owners and managers trained in and actively using authentic lateral thinking. Twenty-five of these study participants were undertaking rethink, a 15 month small business training and mentoring programme funded by the Australian Government’s AusIndustry Building Entrepreneurship in Small Business (BESB) Programme. The Programme’s specific objective was to increase the entrepreneurial capability of Australian small businesses; therefore the target cohort for BESB was nascent entrepreneurs.

Applicants for rethink were screened using selection criteria that conformed to the definition of a start-up enterprise, that being: new, active and independent (Luger and Koo 2005, 18). Programme participants had to be owners or managers of an enterprise that did not previously exist two years prior to rethink (new), which hired at least one paid employee for at least two years (active) and which was neither a subsidiary nor a branch of an existing enterprise (independent). All rethink applicants were also interviewed to ascertain their entrepreneurial disposition.

rethink participants involved in the study had successfully completed a two day de Bono Lateral Thinking proprietary training programme delivered by an accredited de Bono Thinking Systems Instructor. During the study they also attended fortnightly rethink coaching sessions where they were mentored in the correct application of authentic lateral thinking tools within the context of their business. The six study participants not involved with rethink had also been trained by a de Bono Thinking Systems Instructor and had actively used authentic lateral thinking tools and processes for periods ranging from six months to 10 years.

Method Research was conducted using Classic Grounded Theory (GT), also known as

Glaserian GT, a research method devised for generating original theory (Glaser and Holton 2004, Glaser and Strauss 1967). The overall objective of the study was to explain what happens when authentic lateral thinking is used and research commenced with no preconceived hypothesis, as required by Classic GT (Egan 2002, Glaser 1978).

! 5!

Data collection and analysis Data was collected several times from study participants over a period of 12 months

and the primary source of data was provided by participants in the form of written stream of consciousness base lists, constructed into flowscapes by the researcher for data analysis. The flowscape technique was devised as a method to capture personal perceptions about an issue or topic (de Bono 1993, xii). The six steps prescribed for the construction of a flowscape (de Bono 1993, 66) were followed with all stream of consciousness base lists collected for the study. These steps are listed in Table 1 for the first stream of consciousness base list collected from study Participant 3-11. This participant’s stream of consciousness base list, shown in Table 2 and flowscapes constructed from this list, shown in Figure 1, illustrate the construction of a flowscape.

Table 1: Six steps for the construction of a Flowscape from a Stream of Consciousness Base List (de Bono 1993, 66).

Data analysis adhered to the Classic GT practice of fracturing data into analytic units for analysis. The ‘chains’, ‘collectors’ and ‘loops’ of each flowscape (de Bono 1993, 68)!"#$#! %&#'(%)%#&! *+! *'*,-(%.! /'%(+! 0)! 1#*'%'23! 4ranscribed data from interviews was analysed line-by-line and then fractured into analytic units.

Analysis of these units of meaning as ‘incidents’ in the data adhered to the Classic GT Constant-Comparative Method to generate and induct theory (Glaser 1992, Glaser 2003). Incidents were constantly compared, incident-to-incident, for the generation of substantive categories (concepts) that fitted the latent pattern of meaning in the data. Incidents were initially analysed with open coding then theoretical coding commenced with the emergence of creating on-demand as a core category, and therefore the core variable to which all other robust categories were related in some way.

The researcher’s consistent memo writing over the period of the study adhered to Classic GT principles (Glaser 1978, 74) and focused on building categories and their properties relating to the core variable, into a causal-consequence theoretical model.

Step 1 Define focus for thinking. Focus for Participant 3-11 was: My thoughts about using lateral thinking. Step 2 Produce stream of consciousness base list. Participant was asked to ‘brain dump’ all thoughts about the focus in a list, letting all thoughts flow out from one to another, with no analysis or reflection until they have no other thoughts about the focus. Step 3 Label each item on stream of consciousness base list. Participant asked to label each thought on their list with a letter of the alphabet starting at A and following the alphabet until the last thought on their list, or designating A1, B1, etc., if there are more thoughts listed. Step 4 For each item on stream of consciousness base list make the most natural connection to another item. Participant asked to consider each item on their list one at a time. starting at A and then nominate which item on the list they think it naturally flowed to next, down or up the list as they proceed from one thought to the next (Table 2). Step 5 Draw the Flowscape. After collecting stream of consciousness base list from study participant, the researcher, using arrows to denote the flow from one thought to another thought, drew up a flowscape as per the participant’s labelling in Step 4. Step 6 Re-draw the Flowscape. Researcher re-drew flowscape from participant 3-11 so it could be analysed (Figure 1). NB drawing can result in a tangle of lines).

Six Steps for Constructing a Flowscape – Study Participant 3-11.

! 6!

Table 2: Flowscape Construction Steps 2.4. Figure 1: Flowscapes constructed from the stream of consciousness

base list provided by Study Participant 3-11.

Participant 3-11

Stream of Consciousness

Base List Labelling

!thinking outside the square tools to push your thinking further becoming aware of my own thinking and thinking of others an elevated perception – seeing things from a different space being creative and heading off in various directions thinking up new and innovative solutions random word – breaking the normal habitual ways thinking and planning my thinking confident about using the tools to come up with the best possible answers/solutions able to show others how my thinking has progressed timing my thinking and following systems and tools to push my thinking further thinking of outcomes I’d never have expected being aware of where I am in my business and where I want to get to new ideas from lateral thinking to add more value to my customers and society impacting the community and the world thinking of all aspects – a holistic approach … looking at the big picture teaching others – the ripple effect coming up with many ideas & solutions to a problem or challenge – not just one choosing the best way for everyone people working together & thinking together – rather than arguing & ego getting in the way

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T

AE BH CD DF EG FI GE HP IR JQ KB LB MH NO ON PN QJ RP SO TQ!

3 Flowscapes constructed from Stream of

Consciousness Base List provided by Participant 3-11

thinking outside the square

being creative and heading off in

various directions

random word – breaking the normal

habitual ways

able to show others how my

thinking has progressed

teaching others –the ripple effect

timing my thinking following systems and tools to push

my thinking further

tools to use to push your thinking further

thinking and planning my

thinking

thinking of all aspects – a holistic approach … looking

at the big issue

coming up with many ideas & solutions to a problem or challenge

– not just one …

confident about using the tools to come up with the

best possible answers/solutions

thinking up new and innovative solutions

being aware of where I am in my business & where I want to get to

thinking of outcomes

I would never have expected

new ideas from lateral thinking to add more

value to my customers & society

Impacting the community and

the world

choosing the best way for everyone

an elevated perception –

seeing things from a different space

becoming aware of my own thinking

and the thinking of others

! 7!

Results A model for Creativity-on-Demand (Figure 2) emerged from the study and is

presented in this paper as an explanation for what happens when authentic lateral thinking is used. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Figure 2: Creativity-on-Demand: a proposed model for what happens when authentic lateral thinking is used for creative ideation.

Creating on-demand

As the core variable, the concept creating on-demand re-occurred frequently in the study data as a stable pattern reflecting participants’ concern for achieving deliberate, pro-active creativity. With creating on-demand the generation of both novel and useful ideas, can be achieved deliberately whenever they are required. Even when the thinker is not feeling creative they can deliberately go, in the words of one participant: “outside the square” at anytime. This is creative ideation with a purpose; it is streamlined and directional not rambling, ad hoc or haphazard.

Anytime I can get new ideas by just using lateral thinking tools, this is very powerful, I am in control…. I can always create a new idea at anytime its only motivation that stops me … I’m satisfied, feel relieved that I’ve come up with something I would never have thought about normally.

Specifically, creating on-demand is characterised by mental focus and mental control. With mental focus the ideas that are deliberately generated with the use of authentic lateral thinking tools are in-line with what the thinker needs to achieve with their thinking. A study participant who had regularly used authentic lateral thinking for five years commented:

I get positive creative results when I use lateral thinking tools because it is the nature of my Focus. Focus drives the direction of what you want, what you want ideas for, and their impact.

The tools of Focus, to which this participant is referring, were devised by de Bono (1992, 94) on the basis that defining a creative focus is an essential skill for productive

v

emotional downer

cognitive tension

cognitive breakthrough

creating on-demand

realised value

emotional upper

autopoietic looping

Model for Creativity-on-Demand !!

!cognitive tension unresolved

cognitive tension resolved

mental shifting

mental freedom

mental focus

mental control

personal value

ideation value

perceived value

Creativity-on-Demand Paradox

! 8!

creative thinking. Mental focus as experienced by participants is: “targeting your thoughts so you can achieve an outcome” … “clarity of purpose”. There is clarity about what needs to be achieved when ideas are being created; “you don’t drift”, there is “a sense of purpose”…“I’m always clear about what I want to achieve with my thinking”.

Mental control means creating on-demand is controlled and organised, not freewheeling or serendipitous; it is highly structured and systematic, not sprawling, fuzzy or left to chance: “I have better control over what I am creating”; it is “a disciplined approach”…“I am in control”…“controls my thinking”. Realised value

Realised value is a direct consequence of creating on-demand. There is an emergent realisation that creating on-demand is empowering. However, there are different dimensions of realised value: personal, ideation and perceived. Personal value such as gaining “confidence as a creativity thinker” or “gaining confidence in problem solving abilities” and “personal empowerment” is a direct value for the individual thinker; it includes the value of gaining positive feelings, attitudes and beliefs about their own cognitive abilities when they achieve creating-on-demand. Personal value also increases the more creating on-demand is experienced:

I now have an absolute and utter belief in the knowledge that I can create my own reality. I didn’t have this before using lateral thinking tools … I just use lateral thinking tools now, I really really believe now that you can totally create your own reality.

Ideation value is the direct value gained from successfully generating “new ideas not thought of before”…“tangible and useable ideas” … “producing new results/solutions for problem” … “ideas that wouldn’t normally come up” … “generating new solutions” …”thinking up new and innovative ways and solutions”.

Perceived value is the value of authentic lateral thinking that the thinker perceives for others in the broader context of community and society such as: “necessary to advance society”… “will drive the thought revolution”. Emotional upper

A consequence of realised value is an emotional upper. There are positive feelings of achievement and satisfaction, as explained by a Study participant:

I quite honestly feel an absolute rush because I have complete and utter belief in the outcome – there is going to be an outcome even tho’ I don’t know what it will be – an adrenalin rush – like sky diving … it’s anticipation and excitement.

Cognitive breakthrough

Creating on-demand is a direct consequence of cognitive breakthrough, perceived by study participants as a “deliberate breaking out” of normal thinking; “pattern busting” and “breaking habits”. Cognitive breakthrough is specifically characterised by mental shifting and mental freedom. With mental shifting the breakthrough “moves” across patterns of normal thought. This movement in thinking is experienced in a variety of ways. It can be, in the words of study participants, like a “journey”, going from “one world to another world” or alternatively:

It’s not like travelling and going on a journey, it can be much sharper than going on a journey, it’s like a spotlight going on – there’s a shift, a sense of difference when the spotlight goes on.

! 9!

Mental shifting is perceived to happen very quickly with swift and sudden change, it is not a slow process and was perceived analogically by one study participant as:

Like I am busting it down with a hammer, smashing through it – like the Truman Show when he suddenly breaks through into another world, busting it down with a hammer – not a journey as such, an epiphany – it’s very instant.

The swiftness of the breakthrough and movement across patterns of normal thought when authentic lateral thinking is used, was expressed kinaesthetically by another study participant:

A change, a swap from one kind of thinking to another, you don’t waft into it. It’s like that! (clicking fingers).

This moving ‘across’ patterns of thinking was particularly evident when study participants used PO, a term invented by de Bono (1969, 246) to function as a new operative word for lateral thinking in the same way that ‘no’ is an operative word for logical thinking. A statement starting with PO is established by using one of several techniques designed by de Bono (1969, 1992) to disrupt the natural functioning of the human brain as a self-organising information system. Using PO deliberately establishes a ‘provocation’, the discontinuity of reasonableness that is required for authentic lateral thinking and creativity in general (de Bono 1992, 145). When they successfully used PO study participants perceived the change in their patterns of thought:

With a good PO you know it’s going to happen, you’re already with ideas – a new pattern is already forming.

With mental freedom there is the sense of being free from old thoughts and old patterns of thinking when the sudden shift in one’s thinking occurs with cognitive breakthrough; perceived by one study participant as “a world of thinking with – no limits, no-conditions, no-boundaries. The freedom that comes with cognitive breakthrough is also clearly intelligible when using PO, as perceived by another study participant:

PO just busts everything I’ve taken for granted then I’m free to let other ideas emerge from nowhere.

Autopoietic looping

Autopoietic looping is proposed as a recursive process of motivation, self-produced from the experience of creating on-demand; realised value and an emotional upper as a consequence of breakthrough cognition. This concept is derived from the term “autopoiesis” meaning ‘self-production’, a theory for living systems as closed-systems that recursively generate the same processes from which they are produced (Maturana 1980, 53). Autopoietic looping is a covariant with the emotional upper that emerges with the realised value of creating on-demand, after cognitive breakthrough has been successfully achieved. Cognitive tension and emotional downer

Cognitive tension occurs when authentic lateral thinking techniques are used to set up a provocation, perceived by one study participant as:

It’s almost like a large piece of elastic, pull it really tight – there is tension there – before you can cut it, there are a lot of things going on there – it’s like there’s indecision before perturbation.

The resolution of cognitive tension depends on learning how to use the specific authentic lateral thinking tools designed to successfully set up a provocation in the first instance and then to successfully achieve ‘movement’, the cognitive skill required to “move forward from a provocation to arrive at practical, useful and valid ideas” (de Bono

! 10!

1992, 153). When cognitive tension is resolved movement is successful, tension has dissipated and cognitive breakthrough is possible. When cognitive tension is not resolved, thinking is stuck, new ideas are not emerging, and a gap exists between wanting to achieve creating-on-demand, perceiving the value of creating on-demand and actually achieving it. The consequence of not resolving cognitive tension is an emotional downer:

Cant get radical enough yet with my POs so I don’t feel I am getting the shift I want with my thinking … feel frustrated ‘cos I know they’ll really help me.

The paradox of Creativity-on-Demand

While the Creativity-on-Demand model separates the mental shifting and mental freedom of cognitive breakthrough from the mental focus and mental control of creating-on-demand into a causal-consequences framework, the temporal space between each of these cognitive states is functionally extraordinarily short, perceived by study participants as: “instantaneous”…“immediate”…“very fast”, when they discuss what happens when they use authentic lateral thinking. Paradoxically these instantaneous mental states are also simultaneous, described by one Study participant as being “… like a box that you are in but it’s a vast boundless universe within the box” and experienced by another Study participant as:

It’s structured – very controlled, in the sense that I’m blasted through to a new space and it’s vast but it’s a specific thought space that I go to as determined by my skill with focusing – using the Focus tool. It’s not a slow cognition it’s a blast through and quick emergence of new ideas – thoughts – any thoughts get bounded within the reality of what I’m focused on – so they are not random ad hoc thoughts. It’s because I have busted through this space very quickly and immediately – particularly when I use PO – this just ‘jettisons’ me from normal to new open vast space that my mind becomes then it’s ready for the new ideas to pop into the space immediately. And it’s very fast I don’t ruminate or wait around for an ah-ha moment, it’s all flashing out – the ideas that is – very fast, very immediate. It breaks the patterns I have in my mind about the thinking I am doing. When the pattern of my thinking is completely broken I’m in another space and it’s not normal. So it’s totally free and un-free at the same time.

Summary

The model for Creativity-on-Demand explains that when authentic lateral thinking tools are used: cognitive tension occurs with the use of authentic lateral thinking tools designed to set up a deliberate provocation that blocks normal thinking. Cognitive tension is resolved with the successful use of authentic lateral thinking tools designed to move thinking away from the provocation. The mental shifting and mental freedom that comes with the cognitive breakthrough that results from the resolution of cognitive tension, is paradoxically simultaneous with the mental focus and mental control of creating on-demand. This paradox makes it possible for both an original and useful idea to emerge on-demand, within seconds.

Discussion A model for Creativity-on-Demand has been presented as the result of original

empirical research involving nascent entrepreneurs using authentic lateral thinking. With

! 11!

the presentation of this model it has been proposed that using authentic lateral thinking results in the productive generation of both original and useful ideas on-demand, almost instantaneously. This proposition distinguishes authentic lateral thinking from the traditional assumption that creative ideation is a result of unconscious incubation. Further to this, the model for Creativity-on-Demand evokes comparison between the use of authentic lateral thinking and brainstorming for productive creative ideation. The following discussion therefore challenges both the traditional notion of incubation and the long-held belief that brainstorming is a productive technique for finding new and useful ideas, and then closes with an exploration of implications arising from this challenge for Australian entrepreneurship. Challenging the traditional notion of incubation

Entrepreneurship and creativity researchers commonly accept the definition of creativity as the generation of ideas that are both original and useful (Amabile 1993, Runco 1995, Hayton and Cholakawa 2011, Monllor and Attaran, 2008). Also, within the realm of entrepreneurship research incubation is commonly accepted as the cognitive process that underpins creativity, and that this process unconsciously takes place over an extended period of time (Auoni and Surlemont 2009, Baron and Ward 2004, Corbett 2005, Groves et al 2011, Mitchell et al 2007, Lumpkin and Lichenstein 2005, Monllor and Attaran 2008, Sarasvathy 2004, Zhou 2008).

This paper proposes however, that both original and unique ideas can be deliberately generated very quickly with the use of authentic lateral thinking, within an entirely different time frame than the one generally accepted for incubation.

In addition to the time it takes for a new idea to incubate, creativity researchers also refer to the incubation ‘gap’, or break between the preparation phase and the emergence of new ideas in the illumination phase (Ellwood et al 2009, Orlet 2008). The temporal difference between incubation and authentic lateral thinking is therefore, not only in how long an actual idea takes to emerge but neither is there an incubation gap between problem definition and idea generation.

This paper proposes that waiting around for a creative solution to ‘incubate’ is unproductive, when authentic lateral thinking can result in the generation of both novel and useful ideas on-demand at any time, whether one feels creative or not. Therefore, the following question is put forward for consideration: Why should those engaged in entrepreneurial activities, either entrepreneurs themselves or those involved with entrepreneurship education, accept the traditional notion of incubation and assume one has to wait around for a brilliant idea to unpredictably pop into one’s head, when using authentic lateral thinking produces unique and valuable ideas on-demand, within seconds? Challenging the traditional technique of brainstorming.

Since the 1950’s ‘brainstorming’ has been widely accepted as a primary technique for finding ideas (Lubart 2001, Puccio et al 2010, Rossiter and Lillien 1994). Subsequently entrepreneurship studies have also accepted the convention that brainstorming is a primary technique for creative ideation (Gemmell et al 2011, Hansin et al 2010, Loughnane 2009, Monllor and Attaran 2008, O’Shea and Buckley, 2010). Osborne (1949, 19) developed brainstorming because he believed that when effort is made to use the creative imagination, which he maintained is inherent in every human being, then ideas come naturally when we:

Merely let our imagination join hands with our memories and run here and there and everywhere – without design and without

! 12!

direction, except as set by our prejudices, our desires, our fears. (Osborne 1949, 44)

This paper proposes the serendipitous ‘free-wheeling’ of brainstorming for wild ideas, in order to find by chance quality ideas, is a weak technique for generating original and useful ideas. The reason being, it lacks the paradox of Creativity-on-Demand inherent in the use of authentic lateral thinking. This paradox ensures both original and useful ideas can be generated within seconds with the successful use of authentic lateral thinking. Therefore the following question is put forward for consideration: Why should those engaged in entrepreneurial activities, either as entrepreneurs themselves or those involved with entrepreneurship education, continue to use or promote brainstorming when the use of authentic lateral thinking may be much more productive for entrepreneurial creativity? Implications for Australian Entrepreneurship

Entrepreneurship is recognised by both government policy makers and those concerned with entrepreneurship education as a driving force for national economic growth (Mitchelmore and Rowley 2010, Lourenço and Jayawarna 2011). However, it is individuals operating at a regional or local level who will stimulate Australian innovation through entrepreneurship (O’Connor et al 2007, 657). Furthermore research confirms the profitability and growth of new entrepreneurial ventures is intrinsically dependent on the quality of the entrepreneurial competencies of the individuals who begin new ventures or transform their existing businesses (Dyer et al 2008, Lourenço and Jayawarna 2011, Mitchell et al 2007).

There is considerable debate however, as to which skill sets; specific competencies and behaviours, constitute entrepreneurialism (Hasse and Lautenschläger 2011, Haynie 2010). Entrepreneurial tasks are dynamic and quite unique; the individual entrepreneur deals with changing contexts and demanding tasks associated firstly with the recognition of an opportunity, then implementing it within the marketplace and then having to manage the sustainable development of their new venture (Dyer et al 2008, Haynie et al 2010, Mitchelmore and Rowley 2010).

It is recognised therefore, that there are a wide range of competencies that change as the entrepreneur deals with these disparate contexts. However, as already posited in this paper, fundamental to the success of both the entrepreneur and their venture at any stage are the competencies associated with creativity (Dyer et al 2008, Haynie et al 2010, Zhou 2008, Mitchelmore and Rowley 2010, Lourenço and Jayawarna 2011).

With the presentation of a model for Creativity-on-Demand in this paper, empirical research has demonstrated that if entrepreneurs or nascent entrepreneurs successfully learn and use authentic lateral thinking in preference to brainstorming or waiting around for a new idea to incubate, they can create unique and valuable ideas on-demand, at anytime; within a few minutes.

It is proposed therefore that Australian entrepreneurship in the 21st Century, and by implication national economic growth, would greatly benefit from a concerted effort by entrepreneurship scholars generally, and those involved with entrepreneurship education specifically to explore the value of authentic lateral thinking within the context of entrepreneurial competencies that directly relate to venture outcomes.

This call for a different approach to entrepreneurial creativity research and education in Australia is based on two salient issues. Firstly, while creativity researchers have been debating for decades as to whether creativity is learnable or an innate characteristic associated with a particular personality (Aldrich 2006, Lessem 1980, Runco and Chand

! 13!

1995), this ‘nature over nurture’ debate has not had the stultifying effect on entrepreneurship research as it has had with research in the area of creativity per se.

It is mostly accepted within the domain of entrepreneurial research generally, and in the areas of entrepreneurial cognition and education specifically, that there are severe limitations to trait approaches and that entrepreneurial competencies, including those associated with creative thinking, are definitely learnable (Corbett 2005, Hansen et al 2010, Hasse and Lautenschläger 2011, Lourenço and Jayawarna 2011, Lumpkin and Lichenstein 2005, Mitchell et al 2005, Mitchelmore and Rowley 2010, Zhou 2008). With this more enlightened approach entrepreneurship researchers and educators may have more disposition to explore alternative concepts and approaches to entrepreneurial creativity and in particular, the learnable competencies of authentic lateral thinking for creative ideation on-demand, than those scholars working within the tradition-bound area of creativity research.

Secondly, for at least a decade there has been new perspectives developing on entrepreneurship scholarship as a distinct discipline that is capable of forging a new scientific paradigm, and on how a stronger contribution can be made from entrepreneurship specific scholars back to their ‘sister disciplines’, for a more balanced scholastic relationship (Davidsson and Honig 2003, Gartner et al 2006, Mitchell et al 2005, Mitchell 2002).

Given that the empirical research presented in this paper was the first to be conducted in the area of what happens when authentic lateral thinking is used and that it involved Australian nascent entrepreneurs, the possibility is now open for Australian entrepreneurship scholars and educators to explore entrepreneurial creativity in ways that are different from the old paradigm of creativity research. Therefore to close this paper the following question is put forward for consideration: Could a new contribution to entrepreneurship scholarship and education be instigated in Australia by, not just adopting the traditional assumptions of creativity research about creative ideation, but also exploring the skills and competencies of authentic lateral thinking for the growth of entrepreneurial creativity in the 21st Century?

References Aldrich, H., E. 2006. Organizations Evolving. 2nd ed. London: Sage Publications. Aouni, Z. and Surlemont B. 2009. Towards a model of the learning needs of the effective

entrepreneur. International Journal Entrepreneurship and Small Business 8 (3). Baldachinno l. 2009. Entrepreneurial Creativity and Innovation. Proceedings of

International Conference on Strategic Innovation and Future Creation, 23-24 March: University of Malta.

Baron, R., A. and Ward T., B. 2004. Expanding Entrepreneurial Cognition’s Toolbox: Potential Contributions from the Field of Cognitive Science. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 28 (6): 553-557.

Basadur, M. 2004. Leading others to thinking innovatively together – Creative Leadership. Leadership Quarterly 15: 103-121.

Braunstein, P. 1999. The Case for Lateral Thinking: Discerning New Patterns of Thought on the Contemporary Info-Sphere. Convergence 5 (10): 1-8.

Clapham, M., M. 2003. The Development of Innovative Ideas Through Creativity. In The International Handbook on Innovation, ed. Shavinina L., V. Oxford: Elsevier Science.

Claxton, G. 2006. Thinking at the Edge: developing soft creativity. Cambridge Journal of Education 36 (3): 351-362.

! 14!

Corbett, A., C. 2005. Experiential learning within the process of opportunity identification and exploration . Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 29 (4): 473-491.

D’Angelo, L. 2006. Rethink. The Story of Edward de Bono in Australia. Australia: John Wiley & Sons.

Davidsson P. and Honig B. 2003. The role of social and human capital among nascent entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing 18: 301-331.

Davidsson P. 2004. The domain of entrepreneurial research: some suggestions. In Advantages in Entrepreneurship Firm Engagement Growth, ed. J., A. Katz and D. Shepard, 315-372. London: Elsevier JAI Press.

Dyer, J., H. H., B. Gregerson and C. Christensen 2008. Entrepreneurial Behaviours Opportunity Recognition, And The Origins Of Innovative Ventures. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal 2: 317-338.

de Bono, E. 1969. The Mechanism of The Mind. England: Penguin Books Ltd. de Bono, E. 1992. Serious Creativity – Using the Power of Lateral Thinking to Create

New Ideas. London: HarperCollinsPublishers. de Bono, E. 1993. Water Logic - The Alternative to I am Right You are Wrong. Great

Britain: the Penguin Group. Edward de Bono’s Lateral Thinking, The Power of Provocation. 2006. de Bono Thinking

Systems, United States of America. Egan, T., M. 2002. Grounded Theory Research and Theory Building, Advances in

Developing Human Resources. 4 (3): 277-295. Egan, T., M. 2002. Grounded Theory Research and Theory Building, Advances in

Developing Human Resources. 4 (3): 277-295. Ellwood, S., G. Pallier, A. Snyder and J. Gallate 2009. The Incubation Effect: Hatching A

Solution? Creativity Research Journal. 21(1): 6-14. Gartner, W. B., P. Davidsson and S. A. Zahra 2006. Are You Talking To Me? The Nature

of Communities in Entrepreneurship Scholarship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 30 (3): 321-331.

Gemmell, R. M., R. J. Boland and D. A. Kolb 2011. The Socio-Cognitive Dynamics of Entrepreneurial Ideation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice September.

Glaser, B., G. 1978. Theoretical Sensitivity – Advances in the Methodology of Grounded Theory. Mill Valley California: Sociology Press.

Glaser, B., G. 1992. Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis, Mill Valley CA.: Sociology Press.

Glaser, B., G. 2003. The Grounded Theory Perspective II: Description’s Remodelling of Grounded Theory Methodology. Mill Valley California: Sociology Press.

Glaser, B., G. and Holton J. 2004, Remodelling Grounded Theory. Forum: Qualitative Social Research 5 (2): 1-3.

Glaser, B., G. and Strauss A., L. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies of Qualitative Research, New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

Google 2011. http://www.google:com/au/seasrch?q=%22lateral+thinking%22$hl=cn&num=107lr=&ft=i&cr=cr=&safe=images

Groves, K., C. Vance and D. Choi 2011. Examining Entrepreneurial Cognition: An Occupational Analysis of Balanced Linear and Nonlinear Thinking and Entrepreneurship Success Journal of Small Business Management 49 (3): 438-466.

Hansin, D. J., G. T. Lumpkin and G. E. Hills 2010. A multidimensional examination of a creativity-based opportunity recognition model. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research 17 (5): 515-533

! 15!

Hasse, H. and Lautenschläger A. 2011. The ‘Teachability Dilemma’ of entrepreneurship. International Entrepreneurship Management Journal 49:3, 438-466.

Haynie, J. M., D. A. Shepherd and H. Patzelt 2010. Cognitive Ability and an Entrepreneurial Task: The Role of Metacognitive Ability and Feedback. Entrepreneurial Theory and Practice September.

Hayton, J., C. and Cholakova M. 2011. The Role of Affect in the Creation and Intentional Pursuit of Entrepreneurial Ideas . Entrepreneurial Theory and Practice May.

Horan, R. 2009. The Neuropsychological Connection Between Creativity and Meditation. Creativity Research Journal 21 (2-3): 199-222.

Horng, J-S. and Hu M-L. 2009. The Creativity Culinary Process: Constructing and Extending a Four Component Model. Creativity Research Journal 21 (4): 376-383.

Kahl, C., H. 2009. Revisiting Creativity Research. An Investigation of Contemporary Approaches. Creativity Research Journal 21 (1): 1-5.

Klausen, S., H. 2010. The Notion of Creativity Revisited: a Philosophical Perspective of Creativity Research. Creativity Research Journal 22 (4): 347-360.

Lessem R. 1980. Creativity and Entrepreneurship. Management Learning 11 (2). Loghnane, J., L. 2009. Strategy and innovation: making the right strategic decision and

developing the right innovative capabilities. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business 7 (4): 446-456.

Lubart, T., I. 2001. Models of the Corrective Process, Past, Present, Future. Creativity Research Journal 13 (3): 295-308.

Luger, M., I. and Koo J. 2005. Defining and Tracking Business Start-ups. Small Business Economics 24: 17-28.

Lumpkin, G., I. and Lichenstein B., B. 2005. The role of organizational learning in the opportunity recognition process. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 29 (4): 451-472.

Lourenço, F. and Jayawarna D. 2010. Enterprise education: the of creativity on training outcomes. International Journal Entrepreneurial Behaviour 17 (3): 224-244.

Maturana, H., R. 1980. Autopoiesis: Reproduction, Heredity and Evolution. In Autopoiesis; dissipative structures and spontaneous social order, ed M. Zeleny, 46-79. AAS Selected Symposium55. Boulder: Westview Press.

Mazzarol, T., S. Reboud and J. N. Soutar 2006. Strategic Planning in growth orientated small firms. International Journal Entrepreneurial Behaviour 15 (4): 320-345.

McCormack, J. 2005. Maltese Physician Takes on The Greek Gang of Three: a Review of Edward de Bono’s Theories and Publications. The Journal of Advancing Technology 12: Spring.

Mitchelmore, S. and Rowley J. 2010. Entrepreneurial competencies: a literature review and development agenda. International Journal Entrepreneurial Behaviour 16 (2): 92-101.

Mitchell, J. R., P. N. Friga and R. K. Mitchell 2005. Untangling the Intuition Mess: Intuition as a Construct in Entrepreneurship Research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 29 (6) : 653 - 679.

Mitchell, R. K., L. W. Busenitz, B. Bird, C. M. Gaglio, J. S. McMullen, E. A. Morse and J.B Smith. 2007. The Central Question in Entrepreneurial Cognition Research 2007. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 31 (1) : 1-27.

Monllor, J. and Attaran S. 2008. Opportunity recognition of social entrepreneurs: an application of the creativity model. International Journal Entrepreneurship and Small Business 6 (1): 54-67.

Moroz P., W. and Hindle K. 2011. Entrepreneurship as a Process: Toward Harmonizing Multiple Perspectives. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice May.

! 16!

Mumford, M., D. and Whetzel 1996. Insight, Creativity and Cognition: On Steinberg and The Nature of Insight. Creativity Research Journal 9 (1): 103-107.

Nu, S. and Rudowicz E. 2007. The Role of an Incubation Period in Creative Problem Solving. Creativity Research Journal 19: 2-3, 307-318.

O’Connor, A., N. Cherry and P. Buckley. 2007. Defining Entrepreneurship As a Domain of Practice: Implications for theory and research for policy and education. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business 5: 654-678.

Orlet, S. 2008. Expanding View of Incubation. Creativity Research Journal 20 (3): 297-308.

Osborne, A. 1949. Your Creative Power and How to Use Imagination. London: Reed Books.

O’Shea, D. and Buckley F. 2010. Modelling self-regulated learning strategies in early-stage entrepreneurs: the role of intentionality and interaction. International Journal Entrepreneurship and Small Business 1 (10): 83-107.

Perkins, D. 2001. The Eureka Effect. The Art and Logic of Breakthrough Thinking, United States of America: W.W. Norton Company.

Puccio, G., J. F. Cabra, M. Fox and H. Cahen 2010. Creativity on Demand approaches and future trends. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design and Manufacturing 24: 153-159.

Ricards, T. 1999. Creativity and the Management of Change. UK: Blackwell. Ross, V., E. 2006. A Model of Inventive Ideation, Thinking Skills and Creativity 1: 20-29. Rossiter, J., R. and Lilien G., L. 1994. New “Brainstorming” Principles. Australian

Journal of Management 19 (1): 61-72. Runco, M., A. and Chand I. 1995. Cognition and Creativity. Educational Psychology

Review 7 (3): 243-267. Runco, M., A. 2004. Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology 55: 657-687. Sarasvathy, S., D. 2004. Making It Happen: Beyond Theories of the Firm to Theories of

Firm Design. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 28 (6): 519 - 531. Sohn S., Y. and Jung C., S. 2010. Effect of Creativity on Innovation: Do Creativity

Initiatives Have Significant Impact on Innovative Performance in Korean Firms? Creativity Research Journal 22(3): 320-328.

Vidal, R., V., V. 2009. Creativity for Problem Solvers. AI and Society. 23: 409 - 432. Walton, A., P. 2006. The impact of interpersonal factors on creativity. International

Journal Entrepreneurial Behaviour 9 (4): 146-162. Welling, H. 2007. The Four Mental Operations of Creativity. Creativity Research Journal 19 (2): 163-177. Zhou, J. 2008. Moderator Comments. New Look At Creativity In The Entrepreneurial

Process. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal 2: 1-5.