Image by Hugh MacLeod
Hugh MacLeod recently published an interesting take on the difference between creativity and innovation:
One of the buzzwords you hear a lot in the business world these days, is “Innovation”. Yes, it’s a genuinely worthy thing to aspire to. Genuine innovation creates lots of genuine value, every young intern knows this. Which is why people like to throw it around like confetti. It’s one of those words that sound good in meetings, regardless of how serious one is about ACTUALLY innovating ANYTHING.
Here’s some friendly advice for all you Innovation-buzzword fanboys: You don’t get to be more innovative, until you make yourself more creative FIRST.
“Innovative” is an “external” word. It can be measured. It generally talks about things that have been tested properly and found to have worked in the real world.
“Creative”, however, is more of an “internal” word. It’s subjective, it’s murkier. It’s far harder to measure, it’s far harder to define. It’s an inward journey, not outward. Which is why a lot of people in business try to keep the word out of their official lexicon, preferring instead more neutral, more externally-focused language like “Value”, “Excellence”, “Quality” and yes, “Innovation”.
Creative Dreamers vs Productive Innovators?
Hugh’s put his finger on an important distinction that I haven’t seen articulated quite like this before. He’s put me in mind of Theodore Levitt’s classic definition of creativity and innovation:
Creativity is thinking up new things. Innovation is doing new things.
In other words, it’s no use sitting around dreaming up fantastic ideas unless you’re prepared to do the hard work of making things happen. Levitt expands on this theme in an entertaining tirade in the Harvard Business Review:
‘Creativity’ is not the miraculous road to business growth and affluence that is so abundantly claimed these days… Those who extol the liberating virtues of corporate creativity… tend to confuse the getting of ideas with their implementation – that is, confuse creativity in the abstract with practical innovation.
(Theodore Levitt, ‘Creativity Is Not Enough’ (1963))
Levitt doesn’t pull any punches when it comes to creative daydreamers:
Since business is a uniquely ‘get things done’ institution, creativity without action-oriented follow-through is a uniquely barren form of individual behaviour. Actually, in a sense, it is even irresponsible. This is because: (1) The creative man who tosses out ideas and does nothing to help them get implemented is shirking any responsibility for one of the prime requisites of the business, namely, action; and (2) by avoiding follow-through, he is behaving in an organizationally intolerable – or, at best, sloppy – fashion.
So for Levitt:
Creativity = Ideas
but
Innovation = Ideas + Action
Levitt highlights another important distinction between creativity and innovation:
the ideas are often judged more by their novelty than by their potential usefulness, either to consumers or to the company.
So:
Creativity = Novelty
but
Innovation = Novelty + Value
Levitt’s article was written over 40 years ago, but it’s still commonplace for writers to distinguish between creativity and innovation on grounds of ideas and action, novelty and value:
Often, in common parlance, the words creativity and innovation are used interchangeably. They shouldn’t be, because while creativity implies coming up with ideas, ‘it’s the bringing ideas to life’ . . . that makes innovation the distinct undertaking it is.
(Tony Davila, Marc J. Epstein and Robert Shelton, Making Innovation Work: How to Manage It, Measure It, and Profit from It (2006))Creativity: the generation of new ideas by approaching problems or existing practices in innovative or imaginative ways… Creativity is linked to innovation, which is the process of taking a new idea and turning it into a market offering.
(Business: The Ultimate Resource, Bloomsbury, 2002)
The distinction is alive and well on the internet, in cut-and-dried definitions of creativity vs innovation and Innovation vs Creativity, and among bloggers keen to confront us with ‘the ugly truth’ that creativity is merely ‘a way of thinking’ and therefore ‘a subset of innovation’.
The message is clear: creativity is all very well for intellectuals and bohemians sitting around on bean bags, but it takes an innovator to get things done.
It’s hard to argue with the logic. No reasonable person would claim ideas are more valuable than action – but then creative people are notoriously unreasonable.
Or are they?
Creativity Strikes Back
Most of the examples I’ve quoted so far are from business authors. But if we look at the psychological literature on creativity and innovation, it’s like going through the looking glass. (I’ve added bold to the following quotations to highlight the key terms.)
Psychological definitions of creativity generally contain two separate components. In the first place, creativity requires that we make or think something new, or a new combination of existing elements. This is the element of novelty or innovation… However, mere novelty is not enough. To be creative, the idea must also be useful, or valuable.
(Chris Bilton, Management and Creativity (2006))
Bilton is not just talking about ideas – note that he refers to ‘making’ as well as ‘thinking’. So on this side of the looking glass, the terms of the equations are reversed:
Innovation = ‘mere novelty’
but
Creativity = Novelty + Value
and
Creativity = Ideas + Action
He’s not alone in this view of creativity:
Like most creativity researchers, we rely on a product definition: A product is viewed as creative to the extent that it is both a novel response and an appropriate, useful, correct, or valuable response to an open-ended task.7
A ‘product definition’ means that a mere idea is not enough to qualify as creativity – action is needed to transform the idea into a product.
Sound familiar? Here are a few more definitions of creativity:
the concept of creativity is value-laden. A creative idea must be useful, illuminating or challenging in some way.’
(Margaret Boden, The Creative Mind (1990))In business, originality isn’t enough. To be creative, an idea must also be appropriate – useful and actionable. It must somehow influence the way business gets done – by improving a product, for instance, or by opening up a new way to approach a process.
(Teresa Amabile, ‘How to Kill Creativity’ (1998))The study of creativity has generated a wide-ranging variety of definitions… However, most contemporary researchers and theorists have adopted a definition that focuses on the product or outcome of a product development process… in the current study we defined creative performance as products, ideas or procedures that satisfy two conditions: (1) they are novel or original and (2) they are potentially relevant for, or useful to, an organization.
(G. R. Oldham and A. Cummings, ‘Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at work’ (1996))
I don’t know about you, but I’m starting to get a sense of déjà vu.
Chris Bilton confronts the discrepancy between the two worlds head on:
In the management literature on innovation, some authors reverse my distinction between ‘creativity’ and ‘innovation’, with creativity equating to ‘mere novelty’ and innovation encompassing the dualism of novelty and fitness for purpose
Semantic differences aside, it should be noted that the argument – that two elements (novelty and fitness) are necessary to qualify as innovation / creativity is fundamentally the same.
(Management and Creativity)
So when you look carefully at the definitions, there is in fact no essential difference between creativity and innovation. Not for anyone who takes either of them seriously. Everyone basically agrees on the importance of ideas + action and novelty + value. From this angle, arguments about the superiority of innovation to creativity start to look like macho one-upmanship.
And this is why I like Hugh’s post so much – logically, the two concepts may be the same, but emotionally they have very different connotations:
‘Innovation’ has the feel of an external process, which corporate types are comfortable measuring and tabulating. But Hugh reminds us that you can’t have any of this without a creative fire in your belly.
Which means not being afraid to go to that messy, subjective, risky place where the difference between success and failure, praise and ridicule is balanced on a razor’s edge.
What’s the Difference between Creativity and Innovation?
What do the words ‘creativity’ and ‘innovation’ mean to you?
Do you think they are basically the same or are there important differences?
Are you more comfortable describing yourself as ‘creative’ or ‘innovative’?
About the Author: Mark McGuinness is a poet and creative coach.
View Comments (43)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
« Previous 1 2 3 4 … 6 Next »In some ways there is much cross-over between definitions.
If there wasn't then Leonardo Da Vinci would probably fall more into the "Creative" camp than the "Innovative" as he really didn't bring as much stuff to fruition as came forth from his mind. But I think that would be wrong.
I still like the Innovation=Creativity x Risk definition that I build upon here: http://zenstorming.wordpress.com/2008/12/18/the-mathematics-of-innovation/
Nonetheless, I have a tendency to lean more towards creativity as being that which is more in the realm of ideas and innovation as acting on them. Value has nothing to do with it in my book.
People at home and at work are innovating all the time and being creative. Just depends on when and who's watching to label it after the fact. ;-)
Great Insight, this is a conversation that needs to be shared as the word innovation has become an empty marketing slogan that's denigrated its meaning. I'm personally going to start calling people for clarification.
We call ourselves a "creative" company (in fact its part of our name) and at one point considered rechristening ourselves as an "innovation" company but felt the word had been too abused. we also use the word ingenuity to describe what we do.
examples at http://www.jarcreative.com
I think of the difference this way - The Rubik's cube came along because of very creative thinking - drawing from the parts of the brain which can reach far past anything conventional. (It took innovation to make it materialize, however.)
The part of the brain that can SOLVE the Rubik's cube is innovative. It is working within a structure. It draws on creativity in order to innovate the solution.
The above can be flipped to the opposite and debated that way too. So.
No matter how blurry the lines between creativity and innovation, we can make good use of our own distinctions. When we want to be creative, the brain can be more relaxed, spontaneous, even ridiculous. When we want to innovate, it's time to get out the graph paper, so to speak. You can induce activity in the brain areas that accomplish innovation by supplying practical tools at that point. At least some people can.
I'm with Hugh - more innovation comes after more creativity. Innovation is at the mercy of our creative ability. Our world is limited only by our imagination.
Keep playing,
Suzanna Stinnett
This is a really fascinating topic. Although over the years I've read many different definitions of what creativity and what innovation mean I've still struggled to try and get clear in my mind what the difference is.
Your post has really made me sit back and once again try and get clarity around what I believe it is. So here goes..
To me, creativity is about the person, the way they go about solving problems or come up with ideas - their thought processes. Innovation on the other hand is more around how they put their ideas together - the practical processes.
Take the classic invention of Velcro. The creativity was in the curiosity of de Mestral about why the burrs stuck to the dog and his trousers and then thinking about what it meant. The innovation was doing something about it by putting the two together - the loops in the trouser fabric and the hooks in the burr to create a fastener.
That's Hugh's method, tautological wordplay, semantics. His distillation is the value he adds, not the words. I think most people read his work for the words, not the content.
It's funny that this whole post talks about talking and doing and nothing about doing and letting others do the talking. It's all words. His cartoon is "create or DIE", not "create or innovate".
Peace.
@vinylart
Funny thing, when I read that post of Hugh's, my first thought had been, "Hmm, I always think of 'creative' as a buzzword first." Oh, semantics. I love how you unraveled one side of the story and then turned around to show up the completely flipped story.
Semantically, it's hard to argue a deep difference. But the connotations are definitely strong, as you've illustrated here. Interesting, though, if we actually look at a dictionary, it makes a distinction b/w innovative products and ideas, and innovative people. When talking about a person, it sounds no different than creative:
innovative |ˈinəˌvātiv|
adjective
(of a product, idea, etc.) featuring new methods; advanced and original : innovative designs | innovative ways to help unemployed people.
• (of a person) introducing new ideas; original and creative in thinking : an innovative thinker.
In the end, I guess the value of this semantic back-and-forth is just a big reminder that it's all well and good to be original, but you've gotta CREATE something with it.
Thanks for the though-provoking post, as always.
Thanks everyone, great discussion as usual. And interesting to be reminded that 'creativity' can have negative connotations in some contexts.
Several of you mention the distinction between people and the process, which could be the theme of another article...
@Rosanne - Re the word innovation being 'tossed around like confetti', it reminded me of this, quoted by Chris Bilton at the start of Management and Creativity:
@Jonathan - I think I'll have to return this compliment. :-)
Seriously - thanks for sharing your conclusions and the link to your research. I can't go along with such hard-and-fast distinctions as you make, but I think we'd probably agree on what constituted effective thinking and action.
And sorry for the delay in your comment appearing, it got caught in our spam filter.
I think of creativity as a prerequisite to innovation. In Personal Brilliance and for audiences I attempt to simplify the semantic wanderings we've indulged in here by defining the terms this way:
Creativity is generating something new. Innovation however, is the practical application of creativity.
One not better than the other, rather a symbiotic relationship. There is value in not reaching a practical application and certainly value in something that results in what we call innovation.
The Difference between Creativity and Innovation.
A closer look at the Latin origins of the two words would help to throw some more lights on the differences. Creative comes from the Latin creâre (to cause to exist) the ability to make something exist. On the other hand Innovate comes from the latin word innovare (to renew, alter) from novus 'new'.
Both words have to do with novelty. However, with respect to principle of causality, creative is more radical in the sense that it's primary focus is the fact of bringing into existence what did not exist before. The less the material cause, the more perfect it is as a creative act. Hence, creative act per excellence is that which brings something new into existence out of nothing (i.e. zero material cause) which we normally attribute to God only. Conceptually, creative tends to be blind towards other existence but focuses on the substance and accidents (qualities, etc) of the new “being”. Creativity in man has to do with his ability to bring into existence new ideas from within his spiritual (immaterial) self. The less the reference to other realities as material causes, the more perfect it is as creativity. It's good to note at this point that, less reference to other things in existence does not mean that the latter cannot be source of inspiration for the new idea. Inspiration however does not imply share copying as new ideas are just that, new.
Innovation tends to have a reference to what already exists (way of doing things, what is done, etc). Often times, products of creative acts find their true 'meaning' in the context of association or interaction with other realities (created man finds it's meaning in relation to God. Eve finds her meaning in relation to Adam and vice-versa). In the context of an organization, one can argue that it is more appropriate to talk of innovation as a corporate goal rather than creativity in the sense that, every new idea (creative) generated must find its 'meaning' in the context of the organization. Thanks to the new idea, the organization through an act of innovation can 'alter' the way it does somethings, 'modify' some products, 'add' some new products to the catalog (analogously, the addition of Eve to the human society is an innovation in the human society, while the fact of existence of Eve is a creative act), etc.
In summary, one can conclude that following the chain of causality, creativity gives rise to innovation. Innovative organizations are those that know how to make good use of creative minds to achieve it's organizational goals in a more efficient and effective way. Creative minds alone will not take the organization anywhere.
Conclusion:
Innovation = creativity + appropriation of creativity output
True words of an entrepreneural philosopher that goes the required steps to go beyond creativity and innovation. Bravo!