Search

There is broad agreement among executives on the importance of innovation and creativity in organizations. The paper aimed to provide information on the effectiveness of a new cognitive style inventory, the Productive‐Reproductive Thinking Inventory (P‐R), in identifying people with creative problem‐solving potential. Participants completed the P‐R Inventory, Kirton's Adaption‐Innovation Inventory (KAI), the Assimilator‐Explorer Inventory, self‐rating of insight problem‐solving, and a battery of insight problem‐solving tasks under controlled conditions. The P‐R scale was a significant predictor of problem‐solving performance and insight self‐ratings and correlated significantly with KAI and AE scores. In addition, the results supported distinguishing two types of reproductive thinking which are differentially associated with insight performance. The distinction was supported by confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation models. Using controlled conditions may limit the generality of the findings and further research should be carried out in applied settings. The P‐R inventory is short and easily administered and may provide HR professionals with a useful screening tool for assessing creative problem‐solving potential. The measure differs from the KAI in several ways that may offer advantages for creativity researchers in that it is non‐proprietary, based on well‐established psychological constructs, and is more particularly applicable to insight problem‐solving. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite significant scholarly attention, the literature on the existence and direction of gender differences in creativity has produced inconsistent findings. In the present paper, we argue that this lack of consensus may be attributable, at least in part, to gender-specific inconsistencies in the measurement of creative problem-solving. To explore this possibility, we empirically tested assumptions of multiple-group measurement invariance using samples borrowed from four recent studies that assessed creative problem-solving (J.D. Barrett et al., 2013; K.S. Hester et al., 2012; D.R. Peterson et al., 2013; I.C. Robledo et al., 2012). Across the four samples, apparent gender differences emerged on all three components of S.P. Besemer & K. O' Quin's (1999) three-facet model of creativity (i.e., quality, originality, and elegance) such that, on average, females appeared to exhibit higher baseline levels of creativity. However, in light of violations of measurement invariance assumptions across genders found in these samples, comparisons such as these may not ultimately be appropriate. Although the underlying factor structure and factor loadings on a unitary creativity factor were consistent across gender (i.e., weak factorial invariance), measurement in-equivalence assumptions were violated at the subfacet level (i.e., strong factorial invariance). Implications of these findings for understanding gender differences in creative problem-solving are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This conceptual paper serves to create a model of creativity and innovation at different organizational levels. It draws on John Holland's Theory of Vocational Choice (1973) as the basis for its structure by incorporating the six different personality types from his theory: conventional, enterprising, realistic, social, investigative, and artistic, as working together with each other within and between teams in organizations. The model begins with opposite personalities working together in two-person groups to generate creative ideas and then expands to all six personalities working together as one team to implement innovative products and services. It is the underlying contrast of personalities in Holland's (1973) theory, where each personality contributes diverse ideas and skills, that when combined, produce new products and services that are financially beneficial, useful, and enhancing of well-being for organizations and society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

On May 12, 2005, the inaugural meeting of the American Dental Education Association Commission on Change and Innovation in Dental Education (ADEA CCI) was convened. Comprised of thought leaders representative of dental education and practice, the ADEA CCI published groundbreaking white papers that effectively helped bring dental education across the threshold of the 21st century. Twelve years later, a new ADEA CCI has been convened-ADEA CCI 2.0. The ADEA CCI 2.0 is a broad-ranging, strategically interconnected, flexible, and multifarious community of stakeholders situated within and across all facets of oral health education and practice. Whereas the first iteration of the ADEA CCI made the case for change regarding revisions of the dental curriculum and learning environment, the ADEA CCI 2.0 will focus on external domains that are having a global impact on the content and delivery of health care and health professions education and, ultimately, how health care benefits people. The principal work of the ADEA CCI 2.0 will be to create educational and implementation resources and opportunities for dental educators to contemplate, investigate, and ultimately define the future needs of their academic dental institutions in this constantly changing world. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Building upon previously developed and more general dual-process models, this paper provides empirical support for a multidimensional thinking style construct comprised of linear thinking and multiple dimensions of nonlinear thinking. A self-report assessment instrument (Linear/Nonlinear Thinking Style Profile; LNTSP) is presented and preliminarily tested across three studies with an overall sample of 778 respondents comprised of business students and managers. The results indicate that nonlinear thinking style consists of seven distinct, yet interrelated dimensions: intuition, creativity, values, imagination, flexibility, insights, and emotions. Convergent and discriminant validity estimates vis-à-vis a multidimensional creative thinking index and an emotional intelligence measure provide support for further development of the instrument. The implications of these results for future managerial cognition research are discussed, as well as potential practical applications of the LNTSP for management education and business practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]