This post is drawn on Annamaria Testa’s article about the issue Theories and Practices of the Creativity published on the following website http://www.nuovoeutile.it/ita-creativita-innovazione.htm
The differences between creativity and innovation
If an idea is to be considered creative, it must not only break an existing rule but come up with a new, improved one. Indeed, creativity creates new rules. It is not just the first stage of innovation, but something unto itself. On the other hand, creativity and innovation are not simply two separate, important stages that follow on from each other in the development process but belong to different logical levels. Innovation is an economic and social phenomenon that involves groups. It requires investment, infrastructures and policies. It is the courage to take risks. It has a strong planning component and is the result of a specific business strategy. Creativity, on the other hand, is a mental, individual entity. It involves individuals or groups or individuals who work together and requires flexibility, skills, talent and focus as well as extraordinary staying power. It is often uncontrollable and relies on chance. It can be encouraged but it cannot be planned. A good businessman can understand the dynamics of innovation and control it by planning timeframes and investments. The dynamics of creativity, on the other hand, cannot be controlled and this can at times be very irritating. Groups of creative people can be complicated to manage and guide and objectives must be reached without getting lost in originality of thought. There is therefore a tendency to skate over the problem by incorporating creative development in a somewhat arbitrary way into processes of innovation that are equally complex but more manageable. However, the creative process cannot be rigidly scheduled and planned. This is evident if we look at companies that consider creativity to be a genuine strategic key for development. These companies, which include the Italian company Diesel and the American company Google, seem to share certain characteristics: an informal, pleasant and relaxed environment that is also highly challenging for individuals, incentive programmes that are not based on pay alone and bosses who have plenty of time to listen to someone with a good idea. Creative people do not need to be pushed into work - if anything, they tend to work too hard, be perfectionists and set themselves unreasonable standards. They value the fact that they have respect, reputation and opportunity and belong to an organisation that also has an excellent reputation far more than a purely financial incentive. They should not feel that they are being forced into rigid, inflexible ways of thinking and procedures but do need clear objectives and quality standards. They often have a strong social conscience and feel gratified to know that their work and devotion may help to change the world for the better irrespective of the field they work in.
Commentary
The article successfully highlights the difference between the concepts of innovation and creativity. Innovation is a social phenomenon which can be planned as part of specific business strategies whereas creativity is a mental concept that cannot be planned. Consequently, we can create work environments that foster creativity but we cannot expect to control it by imposing strict procedures or preconceptions, in fact the analysis of creative people and creative objects has demonstrated that most scientific and artistic innovations emerge from joint thinking, passionate conversations, and shared struggles among different people, emphasizing the importance of the social dimension of creativity (Bennis & Biederman, 1997; John-Steiner, 2000). On the one hand, interactions of humans with other humans and with artifacts and tools is not only needed but central to social creativity. On the other hand, people participate in such collaborative inquiry and creation as individuals, and individuals need time to think and reflect about their contributions to social inquiry or creativity (Fischer et al., 2005).
