A website dealing with creativity needs to offer a definition; but despite over 150 years of research there is still disagreement regarding what constitutes something creative. Researchers in organizational creativity tend to offer a definition such as: “A product or idea that is both novel and useful.” There are several problems with this definition. First, it is not always easy to tell if an idea is novel. Many new ideas have been generated almost simultaneously in different parts of the world. Typically, only one inventor is credited with the invention and that is generally the first person to secure a patent or publish the idea, not necessarily the first person to actually think of the idea.  Second, there are not too many things that are totally, and inarguably, ‘novel’. Many ‘new’ products, ideas, music and art have evolved from something else. This makes the test of ‘novelty’ difficult to apply, partly because things tend to look obvious when examined retrospectively, and also because it is impossible to know whether an apparently ‘novel’ idea was obvious to everyone in the field but never explored, perhaps because it was simply taken for granted.
     This definition has problems in another area also, regarding ‘usefulness’.  First, ‘useful’ is a highly subjective concept; and, second, why should something not immediately deemed ‘useful’ fall outside the definition of being creative?  The laser, for instance, was not invented to solve a specific problem, it was the product of some scientists who wondered what would happen if you generated coherent light. With no immediate application the laser would not have been considered ‘creative’ under this definition. However, half a century later, most homes in the developed world owning several lasers (in their cd and dvd players), hospitals performing operations with lasers, every known material from steel to fabric was being cut with lasers, so there can be no doubt regarding its usefulness. It seems unsatisfactory for a definition to apply to an idea or product in such a way that it can go from non-creative to creative without ever changing its basic form!
    

I prefer to define creativity as: “Something that a person has not done or thought before.” Simple as that. Even if the idea never sees the light of day it can still be creative (as opposed to being innovative, which is when it takes practical form). Also, it does not matter if several people think the same, or similar, thoughts. They are all being creative.
     An interesting consequence of this definition is that the process of growing up is inherently creative. In other words, before we were, say, 8 0r 9 years old, we woke up each day to the prospect of experiencing something new, thinking a new thought, and seeing the world in a slightly new way. That’s what growing up is. So, we have always been creative. Every one of us!
     Some people don't lose that ability to think new thoughts regularly. Often those people are part of a family who are all regarded as creative and mutually support each other with the notion that 'it's alright to be creative'. In other words there are influential others who think act and say that it is OK to have new ideas and express them. This is not the case for all of us. For many the processes of 'socialization' stifle the generation of new ideas and replace it with the notion that it is 'not OK to think creatively'.
     Think about it. Many of the things that society takes offence at can be viewed in a different way as thinking and acting creatively (according to my subjective definition). From taking the stereo system apart to see how it works, to experimenting with sex and drugs as a teen, these are all creative actions; but ..... they are frequently considered asocial and are not condoned or even tolerated. Contemporary society has simply not managed the process of socialization in a way that, for most people, the creative aspects of individual thought processes survive very well.
     That said, creativity is alive and well, but somewhat dormant in many. How do we awaken those thought processes? Well, first we have to decide: Is creativity a function of individual processes? In other words, are there specific attributes that creative people have that make them creative; or, is it a function of what was discussed above: Social forces: some stifling creativity and others supporting it?  Other social influences are described in the Group Affiliation Model™.
 

Ever since scientists started researching creativity it has been examined on a microscale. In other words, researchers have been looking for individual level factors that seem to be associated with creativity. Looking at creativity from a Microcreativity™ perspecitive is to ask questions such as: "If we look at famous writers, what do they have in common?" or, "If we examine respected architects, what is it about them that makes them creative?"
     Weeding out the obvious: they mostly have parents, they tend to wear clothes most of the time, and they developed considerable craft skills - painting, writing, draftsmanship etc., what do we have left that distinguishes them from other folk? Well, not a great deal that is consistent. They tended to have someone who was important in their lives: a mentor (i.e., who reinforced the idea that it is O.K. to have novel ideas), but other than that ....... not much. Common traits for, say, renound architects, do not seem to translate over to writers, painters, or creative scientists and mathematicians. In other words micro-level creativity research has produced little in the way of information regarding the question: 'What is it that makes individuals creative?' (Which is something we would be interested in knowing, right?)
 

Looking at creativity from a macrocreativity perspective is to say: "I am not interested in individual-level differences in people right now, I am interested in things that exist in societies that influence whether people tend to be creative or not, and in what way they may shape creativity."  In other words, “why is it that North America seems to be more innovative than many other parts of the world?”
     So, what kinds of things are there in societies or other groups that might influence individuals' motivations to be creative?
     Going from the most overarching or highest level down, some of the influences my stem from the following:
1. How much a society tries to control individual thought and action. This control may be without individual consent, which was true for some people living in the Soviet Union before the wall came down; or, it may be consensual, with individuals agreeing to submit to the opinions and leadership of the group. This might be the case in collectivist societies, where the good of the group is generally deemed to presidece over individual goals.

2. Of relevance to smaller groups such as organizations, leadership style has the potential to influence the motivation to create. Authoritarian leadership style may tend to suppress individual-level creativity. At the level of the organization, research does suggest that this is the case. There is also some evidence that this also occurred in the Soviet Union.

For an expansion of these ideas pick up a copy of “Embracing the New Era”