S

Simplexity Thinking and the uncertainty about global warming, transitioning

Basadur Innovation Profile to new energy sources, and a restructuring of the
Assessment world economy. It is not surprising that organiza-
tions whose main virtues during previous times
Min Basadur1, Tim Basadur2 and Gordana Licina1 were predictability and reliability should find it
1
Michael G. DeGroote School of Business, difficult to adapt to this increasingly dynamic
McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada environment. Their employees, too, are struggling
2
College of Business, Krauss Hall 215, Concordia to deal with these changing times as the vast scale
University Chicago, River Forest, IL, USA of change has resulted in an unprecedented need
for information processing and problem-solving
skills. There has been a dramatic increase in psy-
Introduction chological research aimed at better understanding
the cognitive capabilities of employees, in order to
Rapidly accelerating societal and economic improve employee productivity and well-being
change is posing new, more complex challenges (Hodgkinson and Healey 2008).
for management researchers seeking to improve This chapter addresses the need for organiza-
organizations. Many organizations that prospered tions to develop more innovative ways of thinking
during more stable times – times that rewarded and behaving in order to succeed in a turbulent
routinized efficiency – now find themselves world. While many organizations possess ample
poorly adapted to today’s new economic and efficiency and analytical capability, successful
social realities. In every direction, traditional organizations must also learn to integrate effective
structures are abruptly being reshaped or falling adaptability and creative capability into their rep-
down. Once successful companies are finding that ertoire. Creativity attitudes, behaviors, and cogni-
their sure-hit formulas no longer work. Long tive skills, embedded into a specific organization-
revered icons of organizational excellence have wide problem-solving process, must be learned
been humbled and even bailed out of bankruptcy and developed such that they are second nature
and imminent demise by government interven- if organizations are to survive and thrive. Innova-
tion. Individuals, families, and entire communi- tive thinking ability must be made a way of orga-
ties are finding the world shifting beneath their nizational life, side by side with analytical
feet as traditional markets, industries, and sources thinking ability, not as a “sometimes thing” or
of employment disappear under the impact of new “once in a while thing.” Research has established
information technologies, global competition, that efficiency and adaptability are both necessary
lack of regulation of financial institutions, for organizational effectiveness (Mott 1972).
© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019
E. G. Carayannis (ed.), Encyclopedia of Creativity, Invention, Innovation and Entrepreneurship,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6616-1_427-2
2 Simplexity Thinking and the Basadur Innovation Profile Assessment

Operationalizing adaptability can be achieved post-9/11 period while most US airlines went into
through Simplexity Thinking, a system comprised near or full bankruptcy.
of a number of attitudinal, behavioral, and cogni-
tive skills embedded within a multistage problem
finding, defining, solving, and implementing cre- Organizational Effectiveness,
ative process. This system does not exclude ana- Adaptability, and Creativity
lytical thinking and analytical tools; on the
contrary, it is clear that organizational creativity Research has shown that effective organizations
competency enhances and complements incum- have two major but very different characteristics:
bent analytical capabilities. One of our goals is efficiency and adaptability. Efficiency means
to help the field of creativity become better under- perfecting routines in order to attain the highest
stood in its applicability to real-world work, rather quantity and quality for the lowest possible cost.
than a discretionary, once in a while add-on. High efficiency means mastery of routine, or stan-
In management research up until the late twenti- dard, prescribed methods by which the organiza-
eth century, the primary determinant of a firm’s tional unit carries out its main tasks. The efficient
performance was perceived to lie outside the firm, organization follows well-structured, stable rou-
that is, in its external environment. This was the tines to deliver its products or services in high
standard industrial organizational (IO) neo-classical quantities with high quality and at low cost. On
economics viewpoint (Porter 1980a, b; Caves and the other hand, adaptability means continually
Porter 1977; Caves 1980). In other words, according and intentionally changing routines and finding
to the IO perspective, the source of a firm’s profits new things to do and better ways to do current
was ultimately determined by its market position work. Adaptability means scanning the environ-
and the structure of the industry to which it belonged ment to anticipate new opportunities and prob-
and protected by barriers to entry into the market. lems and deliberately changing methods in order
This perspective led to the notion that leaders need to attain new levels of quantity, quality, and cost.
only to design appropriate organizational structures Adaptability yields both new methods and new
and continue to make well-reasoned decisions products and services. High adaptability means a
(Edmondson 1996) in order to achieve continued high rate of positive change of routine.
economic success. An opposing point of view per- In a stable world, efficient organizations may
ceives that the source of superior profitability lies be successful. But in today’s changing world,
inside the firm. Known as the resource-based view, organizations need adaptability. While efficiency
this perspective regards the firm as a bundle of implies mastering routine, adaptability means
resources not dependent on external market and mastering the process of deliberately changing
industry structures (Ambrosini 2003; Rumelt 1984; internal and external environments. Adaptable
Amit and Shoemaker 1993). It suggests that these organizations anticipate problems and opportuni-
resources – primarily the people of the firm – are ties and develop timely solutions and new rou-
responsible for a firm’s sustainable competitive tines. The people in such organizations accept
advantage, as they are capable of adapting to chang- new solutions promptly, and the acceptance is
ing external circumstances. The resource-based prevalent across the whole organization. While
approach of Simplexity Thinking focuses specifi- adaptability is a proactive process of looking for
cally on the capability of the people inside the firm ways to change, efficiency includes reacting
to use their creativity to deliberately and proactively quickly to unexpected turns of events and
make valuable changes internally or externally and maintaining routines with minimal disruption
adapt to new situations that arise, in order to contin- and without getting mired in organizational
uously develop and sustain healthy profitability. bureaucracy. According to Mott’s research
One well-cited example of this is how Southwest (1972), the most effective organizations are both
Airlines, which is famous for its people-centered efficient and adaptable simultaneously, while the
management style, continued to be profitable in the least effective organizations lack the right amount
Simplexity Thinking and the Basadur Innovation Profile Assessment 3

of either or both attributes. The following equa-

tion summarizes the findings:
High

Organizational Effectiveness = High Efficiency

Skill in Efficiency + High Skill in
Adaptability

High skill in adaptability (or efficiency) means the Low

ability to implement higher or lower levels of Low High
adaptability (or efficiency) performance as Adaptability
desired (Fig. 1).
Through the years, many organizations whose Simplexity Thinking and the Basadur Innovation
Profile Assessment, Fig. 2 Balance of efficiency and
success was built on predictable technologies, mar- adaptability appropriate for a predictable, stable
kets, or other environmental factors learned to environment
become highly efficient but neglected to build
capacity for adaptability (Fig. 2). For example,
prior to the 1970s, North American consumers High
bought almost all of their cars from one of the Big
Three domestic automakers. American automakers
became accustomed to building large, fuel-
inefficient vehicles suitable for a stable environment Efficiency
in which fuel was plentiful and inexpensive. Indus-
try innovation was largely limited to cosmetic style
changes each model year (low adaptability). As a
result, when Japanese automakers began introduc- Low
ing more reliable cars, better options, and smaller Low High
vehicles that addressed new problems such as the Adaptability
1970s oil crisis, they were quickly able to take
advantage of the lack of attention the Big Three Simplexity Thinking and the Basadur Innovation
Profile Assessment, Fig. 3 Balance of efficiency and
had paid to both efficiency and adaptability (Fig. 3). adaptability inappropriate for any environment

A similar story can be told about the North

High
American tire industry during the same time
period. The radial tire introduced by France’s
Michelin in 1945 was displacing the bias-ply tire
Efficiency everywhere but in North America. Until about
1975, North America’s automotive tire industry
enjoyed a predictable environment. Consumers
Low bought their tires every 20,000 miles or so from
Low High Goodyear, Firestone, or any of their well-known
competitors. With the tires basically of the same
Adaptability quality, consumers shopped for the best price and
friendly service ~ and suppliers concentrated on
Simplexity Thinking and the Basadur Innovation
Profile Assessment, Fig. 1 Balance of efficiency and providing these efficiency factors (Fig. 2). How-
adaptability appropriate for a rapidly changing, unstable ever, by failing to adapt to the radial tire innova-
environment tion, due to management resistance, much of the
4 Simplexity Thinking and the Basadur Innovation Profile Assessment

North American market was lost virtually over- Japanese, and German – stress both high effi-
night to Michelin and Japan’s Bridgestone, which ciency and high adaptability. Their consumers
found a public receptive to the advantages of the demand high levels of both quality and innova-
new tires. For the North American suppliers, what tion. In a rapidly changing, unstable environment,
had appeared to be a predictable environment both high efficiency and high adaptability are
became anything but. They should have been necessary (Fig. 1).
operating according to Fig. 1; instead they were While all organizations need skills in both effi-
operating according to Fig. 2 (efficient enough but ciency and adaptability in order to be effective,
not adaptable enough). Adaptability deficiencies most organizations understand the concept of effi-
have become more frequent in our times of rapidly ciency and find it easier to mainstream than that of
accelerating rate of change. Famous names like adaptability. One of the most important factors in
Polaroid, Kodak, Blockbuster, Blackberry, and determining the appropriate ratio between effi-
Sears come to mind. ciency and adaptability is the volatility of an orga-
It is also possible for an organization to be too nization’s environment.
adaptable but not efficient enough (Fig. 4). Some Early approaches to improving organizational
highly successful organizations – such as 3 M, effectiveness by researchers and practitioners cen-
which is famous for continuously creating new tered on embedding humanistic ideals and values,
products – carefully monitor their own activities including personal development, interpersonal
so as not to overemphasize adaptability at the competency, participation, commitment, satisfac-
expense of efficiency (which would be an appro- tion, and work democracy (French and Bell 1999;
priate balance only in the most extremely turbu- Mirvis 1998), into the workplace. These
lent environment). Microsoft has been criticized approaches became part of a field known as “orga-
for introducing new products too hastily, before nizational development,” which has evolved
ensuring they have been optimized and are error adding interventions almost too numerous to
free. Mediocre organizations compromise unnec- mention.
essarily, trading off efficiency against adaptability Many of these interventions have been useful
in a zero-sum fashion. However, the most effec- in improving organizations in the short run. But
tive organizations ensure they have the right many seemingly successful and permanent
amount of both efficiency and adaptability. In changes regress or disappear within a relatively
today’s highly competitive North American car short time after their implementation. This is
market, many companies – North American, sometimes called the fade-out effect (Hinrichs
1978). The specific intervention called total qual-
ity management (TQM) has often failed to live up
High
to expectations (Spector and Beer 1994), partly
because it has often been introduced as a grab bag
of tools (and management rhetoric) without any
Efficiency change-making skills or process (Basadur and
Robinson 1993). However, TQM has succeeded
when installed not only as a tool (intervention) but
as part of a continuous process of change-making
Low supported by a comprehensive, well-planned sys-
Low High tem of skill training, additional tools, manage-
Adaptability ment leadership, and employee engagement
toward well understood, specific, strategic goals
Simplexity Thinking and the Basadur Innovation
Profile Assessment, Fig. 4 Balance of efficiency and
(Basadur and Robinson 1993). Top managers
adaptability overemphasizing adaptability at the expense must look at what they practice versus what they
of efficiency (inappropriate except in the most extremely preach (Beer et al. 1990). If they truly want
unstable, unpredictable environments) change, they must become proficient in change
Simplexity Thinking and the Basadur Innovation Profile Assessment 5

Simplexity Thinking and the Basadur Innovation synonymous with the Simplexity Thinking pro-
Profile Assessment, Table 1 Examples of inconsis- cess. Without a precise change-making process
tencies between desired behaviors and reward systems
that people can follow, and the necessary attitudi-
We hope for. . . But we reward. . . nal, behavioral, and cognitive skills needed to
Long-term growth, Quarterly earnings make the process work, organizations cannot
environmental
responsibility mainstream adaptability, that is, make it an ongo-
Setting challenging Achieving goals: ing routine way of organizational life.
“stretch” objectives “making the numbers”
Commitment to total Shipping on schedule,
quality even with defects
Teamwork and The best team members Simplexity Thinking: A Specific Method
collaboration of Operationalizing Adaptability
Innovative thinking and Proven methods and not
risk taking making mistakes Simplexity Thinking can be defined as a system of
Development of people Technical achievements knowledge, process, and skills needed to make the
skills and accomplishments
process work, tools (e.g., creativity techniques
Employee involvement Tight control over
and empowerment operations and resources such as brainstorming), and appreciation of pro-
High achievement Another year’s effort cess style differences (Basadur and Gelade 2006).
Unlike traditional OD approaches, which lack a
strategic perspective and rely on single or multiple
making. One of the most obvious examples of the interventions to change making, Simplexity
lack of understanding of change making among Thinking is comprised of employees at all levels,
managers is the inconsistency between organiza- highly skilled in constantly executing a process of
tional rewards and desired behaviors (Kerr 1995). finding relevant internal and external problems,
Table 1 details these examples. strategic and tactical, solving them, and
While creative strategies abound, many orga- implementing the solutions for organizational
nizations struggle to effectively translate those adaptability. In effect, this defines Simplexity
strategies into action because employees aren’t Thinking as “implemented change.” The most
sufficiently equipped to respond in ways that effective organizations know that creative atti-
yield positive individual and collective outcomes tudes, behaviors, and cognitive skills and a crea-
(Hodgkinson and Healey 2008). Discrete inter- tive process are necessary for successful sustained
ventions and tools continue to be the mainstay of implemented change (Kriegesmann et al. 2005;
organizational development work, with interven- Stein 1975). Real sustained organizational change
tions perceived as the activities “through which comes as a result of a structured process of applied
changes in elements of an organizational work creativity and attitudinal, behavioral, and cogni-
setting are implemented” (Robertson et al. 1993). tive skills employed by organizational members
Simplexity Thinking, a process of organiza- and modeled by leadership.
tional creativity with embedded creativity skills Studying and discussing creativity can be quite
at all levels and across all disciplines, can be used difficult and complex, because no single, agreed-
to effect ongoing change making as an everyday upon definition of this quality exists and because
way of life. Very importantly, it requires equip- researchers have taken vastly different approaches
ping internal organizational members with the to its understanding. We focus on demonstrating a
ability to apply the process and skills for self- circular process of creativity as part of a continu-
sufficiency, that is, without interventionist help ous system of adaptability (Fig. 5). We have cho-
from the outside. In this approach, change making sen to describe creativity in organizations as a
is a continuous process of finding and solving continuous process of deliberate problem finding,
problems and implementing solutions, which is problem solving, and solution implementation
6 Simplexity Thinking and the Basadur Innovation Profile Assessment

Therefore, organizational creativity can be under-

stood as the fundamental driver of, and virtually
synonymous with, adaptability, including a circu-
lar process of continuously finding, defining, and
solving important problems and implementing
new solutions which represent valuable changes
that enable the organization to succeed (Fig. 5).
This approach also removes any distinction
between creativity and innovation (despite views
of some researchers who distinguish between cre-
ativity as the generation of an idea and innovation
as its implementation). Here, creativity is defined
as a multistage complete and continuous process
driven by attitudinal, behavioral, and cognitive
creativity skills in each stage, including problem
generation and formulation, idea (solution) gener-
ation, and solution implementation. This inclusive
Simplexity Thinking and the Basadur Innovation
process is described as Simplexity Thinking.
Profile Assessment, Fig. 5 Creative activity in an
organization In addition, there are various creativity tools
which can be applied in the various stages. How-
ever such tools are of little value, and may even be
(Kabanoff and Rossiter 1994) and attitudes,
harmful, without the prerequisite creativity skills
behaviors, and cognitive skills that enable the
to apply them. An example of such a tool is
process to work (Basadur et al. 1982; Basadur
“brainstorming” which is frequently misused due
1994). Problem finding means continuously find-
to lack of skill and misunderstanding by
ing new problems to address. This includes
researchers who lack experience in real-world
addressing things that are going wrong but also
situations (Basadur and Basadur 2009).
anticipating and seeking out current or future
Effective organizations know how to establish
changes, trends, challenges, and opportunities.
a well-understood process and set of skills for
Problem finding also includes taking the time to
adaptability. They do not expect adaptability to
explore problems in depth rather than merely
be achieved without effort. For example, 3 M sets
finding quick solutions or “fixes” (Senge et al.
a corporate objective that every 5 years, 30% of
1994). This permits the discovery of not only
their products must be new. Effective organiza-
underlying issues but also new opportunities and
tions also create a positive climate toward prob-
recognition of the interconnectedness of decisions
lems and seek them out as opportunities for
within the organization. This recognition is the
disruptive change (Mott 1972). As solutions are
essence of systems thinking and the starting
implemented, new problems (or opportunities for
point for making long-term, permanent improve-
innovation and improvement) are discovered. For
ments. Problem solving means developing new
example, Basadur (1982) reported that top Japa-
and useful solutions to identified problems. Solu-
nese corporations place newly-hired R&D scien-
tion implementation means making new solutions
tists and engineers into sales departments to begin
succeed. Implementation usually leads the orga-
their careers. The intent is for them to learn expe-
nization to find new problems to solve. As Runco
rientially the problems of the customer and recog-
(2004) noted, creativity is not only reactive – a
nize that such learning is the beginning of
response to problems and challenges – but also
innovation. Thus, a positive mindset toward crea-
proactive, as a contributor to change. Thus new
tivity begins with a positive attitude toward prob-
problems arise as the system and its environment
lem finding, meaning the behavior of continuously
react to each newly implemented solution.
Simplexity Thinking and the Basadur Innovation Profile Assessment 7

and deliberately discovering and formulating new of the creative process more than others. Effective
and useful problems to be solved. leaders must learn to synchronize these different
creativity preferences or styles (Basadur 2004,
2005). In teams, for example, the members must
The Four Distinct Stages of the learn to combine their individual preferences in
Simplexity Thinking Process complementary ways. Basadur and Head (2001)
showed that heterogeneous teams composed of
The evolution of models of multistage creative people with different styles outperformed homo-
thinking and problem-solving processes began geneous teams whose members had similar
with Wallas’s (1926) four main stages: prepara- preferences.
tion, incubation, illumination, and verification. Creative problem-solving process styles are
Later process models incorporated additional measured using the Creative Problem Solving
stages, but all include, as a first step, a process in Profile (CPSP) which was first published by
which a problem is recognized, identified, and Basadur et al. (1990) and subsequently further
constructed (Reiter-Palmon and Robinson 2009). developed and established through ongoing
This is where the problem is formulated. How- research and application experience. This
ever, all the pre-existing models tend to assume includes scale consistency and reliability psycho-
that a problem, task, or goal requiring creativity metrics by Basadur et al. (2016) and by Basadur
already exists or has been presented and that a et al. (2014); predictive validity by Basadur et al.
creative process is subsequently applied. This (2009); and occupational, vocation, and work
reduces these models to mere tools or problem- demands content validity by Basadur et al.
solving interventions or episodes which start with (2008) and Basadur and Gelade (2009).
a problem and end with a solution. A more com-
plete process of creativity begins before a problem Apprehension of Knowledge by Experiencing
is available to be formulated (Basadur et al. 1982, (X)

1990). Figure 5 outlines a continuous circular

process that begins with the deliberate seeking Stage IV Stage III
Implementation Generation
out (generating) of new problems and opportuni- Utilizing Knowledge Utilizing Knowledge
for Evaluation for Ideation
ties. The second stage of the process is conceptu- (E) (I)
Stage III Stage II
alizing, or formulating, defining, and constructing Optimization Conceptualization

a newly generated problem. In the third stage,

problem solving, evaluation, and selection of Apprehension of Knowledge by Thinking
(T)
solution ideas takes place, while the fourth stage
results in solution implementation. The process As shown, the CPSP measures two bipolar,
then begins anew, as every implemented solution
(action) results in the opportunity to discover orthogonal, dimensions of cognitive activity
(generate) new problems and opportunities. For underlying the Simplexity process. The first
example, the automobile’s invention provided not dimension, shown on the vertical axis, represents
only a new solution to an old problem (improving the apprehension of knowledge and measures two
transportation) but created many brand-new prob- opposing ways of apprehending knowledge
lems (e.g., pollution, energy, and accidents). Each (experiencing vs. thinking). Experiencing is a
stage of the process requires specific attitudinal, more open, nonrational, experiential, and diver-
behavioral, and cognitive skills in order to be gent form of gaining understanding. It is learning
successfully completed. by doing or by “physical processing.” In contrast,
While effective innovation requires strong per- thinking is more closed, rational, theoretical, and
formance in each of the four stages of the creativ- convergent. It is a method of gaining knowledge
ity process, research has found that individuals, through detached, abstract thinking (pondering),
teams, and organizations may prefer some stages or by “mental processing.” All individuals and
8 Simplexity Thinking and the Basadur Innovation Profile Assessment

organizations gain knowledge in both ways but Generating ideas for new products, services, and
the relative amounts (ratios) differ from those of methods must start somewhere. Individuals
others. Following is a description of each of the inclined toward generating are continually
stages (Basadur and Gelade 2005). experiencing and scanning the environment, pick-
The Quadrant I stage is called generation and ing up data and cues from customers, suppliers,
involves apprehension by experience and utiliza- and others, and suggesting possible opportunities
tion for ideation. Here, physical contact with, and for change and improvement. Thus, the genera-
involvement in, real-world activities (X) alerts the tion stage is where new information and possibil-
individual to inconsistencies and difficulties. This ities are raised – usually not fully developed but in
knowledge is then used to suggest new problem the form of starting points for new projects. Peo-
areas, to identify opportunities for improvement, ple with dominant conceptualizer styles lead in
and to propose projects that might be worth under- compiling facts and idea fragments from the gen-
taking (I). At this stage, problems and opportuni- erator stage into well-defined, insightful problems
ties are recognized but are not yet clearly and challenges, and more clearly developed ideas
articulated or understood. and projects worth further evaluation. Skilled con-
The Quadrant II stage is called conceptuali- ceptualizers give sound structure to fledgling
zation and involves apprehension by thinking and ideas and opportunities. People inclined toward
utilization for ideation. Here, a proposal, problem, optimization usually lead in taking these well-
or opportunity identified in the previous stage is defined ideas and finding a practical best solution
systematically thought through (T) to create a and detailing efficient plans for proceeding.
sound conceptualization or model of the problem Finally, implementers lead in carrying forward
domain. Here, understanding of the problem area the practical solutions and plans, including con-
is gained not by direct experience but by abstract vincing colleagues or customers of the worth of
analysis. This conceptual knowledge is then used the changes and adapting the solutions and plans
as the basis for ideation whereby one or more to make them fit real-life situations and condi-
plausible solutions are developed (I). tions. Basadur and Basadur (2011) provided evi-
The Quadrant III stage is called optimization dence that Generators are in short supply in
and involves apprehension by thinking and utili- corporations at all levels and suggested that
zation for evaluation. In this stage the conceptu- leaders desiring more innovation should consider
alizations of stage II are critiqued (T) against real- strengthening the generation capability of their
world constraints in order to identify practical organization.
difficulties. Alternatives are systematically exam-
ined in order to select (E) an optimal plan for
implementing the solution that can be executed How Organizations Can Become Skilled
with existing resources. in Simplexity Thinking
The Quadrant IV stage, implementation,
completes the creative process and involves Many shortcomings in attitudinal, behavioral, and
apprehension by experiencing and utilization for cognitive creativity skills plague individuals,
evaluation. Creative activity in this stage consists teams, and organizations. As detailed in Basadur
of experimenting with the new solution (X), eval- (2004), for many individuals, problem finding is a
uating the outcomes (E), and making adjustments foreign concept. Many people wait for others to
if necessary to successfully implement them. find problems to solve rather than actively seeking
out problems or avoid important problems that
Stages I to IV in Organizations cross departmental lines (“that’s not our prob-
Individuals in organizations have varying prefer- lem”). Conceptual skills in defining problems are
ences for each of the stages in the creative process lacking, and much time is wasted “working on the
because they have varying preferences for the wrong problem.” Even after finding and defining
bipolar modes of apprehension and utilization. problems, some people find it difficult to solve
Simplexity Thinking and the Basadur Innovation Profile Assessment 9

them creatively and imaginatively. Some individ- short-term quick fixes during emergencies. For
uals are also critical of new ideas, which can organizations without a positive mindset toward
prevent productive thinking. While many people creativity, problems and changes stemming from
may be able to implement routine solutions to new technology, customer tastes, and foreign
routine problems, few can implement creative competition are viewed as irritants that disrupt
solutions to new, non-programmed problems. well-functioning, established routines, despite
Teamwork is also often uncreative. Group mem- the fact that the essence of adaptability and the
bers are unable to communicate clearly in simple first phase of the creative process is problem find-
terms, for example. Unaware of variations in indi- ing. Basadur et al. (1982) demonstrated that many
vidual thinking styles, groups fail to synchronize of these shortcomings can be overcome by devel-
these differences, jump into “solving the prob- oping specific skills. Training to build these skills
lem” without first considering what the real prob- is based on two central concepts.
lem is, and then flounder. Inter-functional teams
become stalled arguing about territorial issues. 1. Change making is a process with distinctly
Meeting leaders steer toward their own points of different stages.
view rather than facilitating the group to work In practice, it is useful to break the four-
open-mindedly and cohesively. The design of stage change process shown in Fig. 5 into a
many organizations remains along bureaucratic, circular process of eight smaller steps as shown
functional lines – a design that itself minimizes in Fig. 6. These steps include problem finding
creativity. Jobs are programmed for maximum and fact finding, which collectively make up
control, highest quality, and lowest cost per unit. “problem generation” or stage 1, problem def-
Creativity skills and change making are limited to inition and idea finding (“problem

Simplexity Thinking and

the Basadur Innovation
Environment
Profile Assessment, STAGE IV STAGE I
Fig. 6 The organizational SOLUTION PROBLEM
change-making process IMPLEMENTING GENERATING
1.

8.
problem
action finding 2.
“fuzzy”
situation

acceptance fact
“sell idea” finding
7.
3.
problem
plan
definition

evaluate idea
6. & select finding
4.

5.
STAGE III STAGE II

SOLUTION PROBLEM
DEVELOPING FORMULATING
(OPTIMIZING) (CONCEPTUALIZING)
Environment
10 Simplexity Thinking and the Basadur Innovation Profile Assessment

STEP 1 STEP 2
DIVERGE CONVERGE
EV
TE
Options ALU
A AT
IDE Points of View
Possibilities
E
Facts
Opinions
Items
Ideas
Things
Criteria
NO Problems NT
JUD E
GM Solutions GM
EN Actions S JUD
T YE
Quantity Quality
Imaginative Judgmental
Free Disciplined
Gut Intellect
Child Adult

Simplexity Thinking and the Basadur Innovation Profile Assessment, Fig. 7 Ideation-evaluation: A sequential
creative thinking mini-process

formulation” or stage 2), idea evaluation and judging or analyzing them. Active convergence,
selection, and planning for implementation which resists the tendency to linger in divergent
(“problem solving” or stage 3), and gaining thinking, then selects and acts on the options that
acceptance and taking action (“solution imple- ultimately lead to implementation of change.
mentation” or stage 4). These three skills all have attitudinal, behavioral,
2. An ideation-evaluation process occurs in each and cognitive components.
stage.
It is vital to use an ideation-evaluation mini-
process within each of the eight smaller steps
Becoming Competent
across all four stages as shown in Fig. 7. The
mini-process is shown in Fig. 7.
It is much easier to understand the need for a
systematic process to achieve organizational cre-
Three distinct skills are needed to execute this
ativity and adaptability (as modeled in Fig. 6) than
two-step mini-process effectively (Basadur and
it is to become skilled in using such a process.
Finkbeiner 1985): deferral of judgment, active
Learning how to use the process involves devel-
divergence, and active convergence. By separat-
oping skills in finding, defining, solving, and
ing divergent thinking from convergent thinking,
implementing new opportunities. Most managers
deferral of judgment resists the tendency to pre-
have undergone rigorous training in analytical,
maturely evaluate and select options and encour-
optimizing, and efficiency thinking processes in
ages active divergence. Deferral of judgment also
high school and college and on the job training.
prevents people from leaping to solutions before
Creativity requires a different set of skills in which
properly formulating problems and helps them
competency must now be built belatedly. Building
separate assumptions from facts. Active diver-
competency has three main components:
gence enables generation of many options without
Simplexity Thinking and the Basadur Innovation Profile Assessment 11

(1) competency in executing the process as a Guilford (1967), and Parnes et al. (1977), these
whole, (2) competency in respecting and helping skills in the mini-process have been more deeply
synchronize different styles in the process, and explored in more recent empirical research which
(3) competency in executing each step and stage has described them more completely and identi-
of the process. Competency in executing the pro- fied their attitudinal, behavioral, and cognitive
cess as a whole includes being able to distinguish components. For example, in a multi-method,
the different steps from each other, for example, multi-measure field experiment, Basadur et al.
executing, communicating, and separating (1982) identified attitudinal, behavioral, and cog-
(1) problem-finding activity from (2) problem- nitive effects of training which were readily
defining activity and from (3) solution develop- observable back on the job (along with perfor-
ment activity and from (4) implementing activity. mance effects). The effects included:
It also includes avoiding unconsciously leapfrog-
ging the process steps, such as jumping backward • Attitudinal: More openness to new ideas and
from discovering a fresh new problem (step 1) more positive reaction when confronted with
into immediate action (step 8) only to discover new unusual ideas
later that the problem was not what it seemed to be • Behavioral: More likely to pause to try new,
at all and regretting the time wasted by not per- unusual approaches to solving problems, less
mitting the process unfold naturally from time spent in negative evaluation while creat-
1 through 8. ing options, and less likely to jump to conclu-
Competency in respecting and synchronizing sions as to the nature of the real problem
different process styles includes understanding • Cognitive: Increased quantity and quality of
how the creative process depends upon different options created, more time spent in divergent
ways of apprehending knowledge and under- thought prior to evaluating, and more options
standing and utilizing knowledge, however, created prior to selecting one as best
apprehended. Not only are both necessary for
creative performance but frustration and ineffi- Additional examples of the attitudinal, behav-
ciency in working together can be avoided. For ioral, and cognitive components of each of the
example, if some individuals on a team prefer three-process skills throughout the complete
stage 2, conceptualization, while others on the eight-step process are provided in Tables 2, 3,
same team prefer stage 4, implementation, it is
important that these individuals understand and Simplexity Thinking and the Basadur Innovation
respect each other’s opposite preferred ways of Profile Assessment, Table 2 Examples of deferral of
apprehending knowledge (experientially and con- judgment skill
cretely vs. theoretically and analytically) and of Attitudinal
utilizing knowledge (to create options divergently Tackle problems with an optimistic “can do” attitude
vs. evaluate options convergently). Enter meetings open to ideas that might disrupt one’s own
Competency in executing each step of the pro- department’s routine
Behavioral
cess includes competency in executing the
Visibly value, appreciate, and welcome other points of
ideation-evaluation mini-process described previ-
view
ously which combines the three necessary crea- Avoid making premature, negative judgments of
tivity thinking skills within each step: (1) creating fledgling thoughts
options within the step (divergent thinking), Cognitive
(2) evaluating and selecting the most important Recognize hidden, unconscious, unwarranted
options within the step (convergent thinking), and assumptions
(3) skill in separating divergent from convergent Maintain an awareness that some facts are more difficult
to perceive than others
thinking within each step (deferral of judgment).
Understand that some problems require a longer time to
Integrated into early creative problem-solving solve and do not expect immediate results
theories and models, including Osborn (1953),
12 Simplexity Thinking and the Basadur Innovation Profile Assessment

Simplexity Thinking and the Basadur Innovation Pro- Simplexity Thinking and the Basadur Innovation
file Assessment, Table 3 Examples of active divergence Profile Assessment, Table 4 Examples of active con-
skill vergence skill
Attitudinal Attitudinal
Deliberately push oneself to create unusual, thought- Be willing to accept and participate in consensus
provoking ideas decisions and move on in the change-making process
Turn premature, negative evaluations of ideas into Accept ownership of measures of success of new ideas
positive challenges to keep the creative process flowing; being implemented
when others say “We can’t because. . .” counter with, Take the risk of failing or being criticized for
“How might we. . .?” implementing new ideas
Behavioral Behavioral
Show leadership in pinpointing changes, trends, Take reasonable risks to get action taken within time
problems, and opportunities for improvement throughout limits rather than waiting for the “perfect” option to
the organization emerge
Share information and ideas freely with other people and Follow-up on implementation; do whatever it takes to
departments ensure successful installation of a chosen solution
Share “bad news” as quickly as “good news” to aid Cognitive
organizational problem solving Select, clarify, and focus on the most significant facts
Facilitate teams to formulate problems in ways that available prior to attempting to define a problem
transcend departmental considerations Develop unbiased criteria for selecting from among
Cognitive options rather than letting preconceptions or hidden
Search out many different facts and points of view before motives sway decisions
attempting to define a problem Understand how clear, simple, and specific
Define problems in multiple and novel ways to get a implementation plans motivate action and overcome
variety of insights inertia
Understand the importance of including both long- and
short-term decision-making criteria
and 4 (Basadur and Robinson 1993; Basadur et al.
2000a). It should be noted that the examples
below overlap a great deal across attitudinal/ training effects in creativity process and skills as
behavioral/cognitive distinctions and also across shown in Fig. 7 on manufacturing engineers
the three-process skills distinctions. persisted back on the job were more permanent
The field research by Basadur et al. (1982) when they were trained together in intact teams.
provided evidence that unless creativity training Team members learn to accept and share their
was sufficiently impactful to successfully members’ diverse experience more completely,
unfreeze and change participants, no improve- support differing viewpoints, and risk
ment in creativity skills and performance would implementing novel ideas (Basadur et al. 1982).
be achieved. In other words, to achieve meaning- This helps to avoid “group think,” the tendency
ful increases in problem finding, defining, and for members to follow the crowd into inadequate
solving and solution implementation perfor- solutions instead of offering possibly controver-
mance, the impact of training must be sufficient sial, superior viewpoints. Applying the process
to increase acceptance and practice of the attitu- makes participation in problem solving safe and
dinal, behavioral, and cognitive creativity skills fun because people no longer fear advancing
within the multistage creativity process. However, fledgling points of view and do not feel they
their research also suggested that to refreeze the must be constantly on guard.
acceptance and application of the new skills built
in training to on-the-job creativity performance,
specific strategic structural organizational factors Getting Two for the Price of One
must be developed and put into place to reinforce
and motivate their on-the-job practice (Basadur Organizations, which provide the right skill train-
1994). Basadur et al. (1986) found that the ing, create the right infrastructure, and participate
Simplexity Thinking and the Basadur Innovation Profile Assessment 13

in and reward continuous problem finding and Reducing Turnover, Absenteeism, and
solution implementing, achieve several outcomes. Increasing Personal Development
Some creativity outcomes are directly economi-
cally oriented and others are not. Creativity leads The link between inducing creativity on the job
directly to new and improved products and and increasing job satisfaction and commitment is
methods; these are economic outcomes associated important not only from the perspective of having
with adaptability. However, creativity also leads happier and more motivated people at work but in
to specific people outcomes, including motivation other ways as well. Industrial and organizational
and commitment, which serve as intermediate psychology research has identified substantial
steps leading to economic outcomes associated correlations between job satisfaction and commit-
with efficiency (Basadur 1993). ment and direct economic variables such as lower
turnover and lower absenteeism (Locke and
Latham 1990; Organ 1988). Other outcomes
which are both people and economically oriented
Motivation and Commitment Are
include better selection, placement, career plan-
Outcomes of Creative Activity
ning, and personal development for organiza-
tional members. For example, if we understand
Workplaces that establish adaptability as a daily,
peoples’ unique individual thinking and creative
continuous process of problem finding and defin-
problem-solving process styles better, we can
ing, problem solving, and solution implementation
match them with jobs better (Basadur and Gelade
may experience increased employee commitment
2003).
and motivation. Numerous research studies have
shown that curiosity, activity, and exploration are
intrinsically enjoyable and motivating. People
Setting Up the Internal Environment to
develop negative attitudes toward repetitive tasks
Encourage Creative Work
and experience fatigue and boredom. Permitted to
engage in finding and solving problems, workers
While the commitment of an individual is the
become motivated and desire even more participa-
prerequisite for the development of expertise, the
tion in creative activity. They also work harder at
study of expert performance acknowledges the
perfecting their routine jobs to increase quality and
support structure surrounding individuals as cru-
quantity and reduce costs, thus increasing organi-
cial to facilitating eventual success. In developing
zational efficiency and short-term organizational
of the creative competency of employees, the
effectiveness. Workplace accomplishments
internal environment of an organization and its
improve self-esteem and human need for achieve-
managers must act like the coaches, teachers,
ment, while creative activity stimulates team build-
and parents studied in athletic and artistic expert
ing as people help each other to solve problems.
performance. While the motivation and drive of
Some research has also suggested people are more
employees to develop creative thinking skills is
motivated to achieve goals that they have been
critical, management must structure the environ-
given a chance to choose, which supports the
ment so that it enables the continuous growth of
importance of problem finding as an employee
employees’ expertise, and leaders must monitor
motivator, as well as an organizational necessity.
the performance of employees and instruct them
By giving employees the encouragement and
using methods that challenge them to reach ever
opportunity to find and solve their own challeng-
higher levels of competence.
ing problems and implement their own solutions,
Despite research showing that most people at
organizations can provide intrinsically rewarding
work are multi-motivated, the majority of global
work and tap into the need for achievement for
business and industry is still organized and man-
motivation.
aged on the overly simplistic “scientific manage-
ment” concept made popular in the early twentieth
14 Simplexity Thinking and the Basadur Innovation Profile Assessment

century by Frederick Taylor (1967). Taylor and opportunities for change are “inhaled” into
believed that employees are motivated by one step 1 and then “spun around” the eight-step cir-
dominant factor – money. Fortunately, using cre- cular process (“the wheel”), the resulting
ativity as a formula for motivation can be almost implemented change (step 8) is projected out as
as simple as using money. There are many innovative output to be mixed in with the envi-
straightforward ways to encourage people to be ronment and cycled back through step 1. This
creative on the job and achieve a motivated orga- creative activity not only results in a continuous
nization. Top Japanese organizations manage supply of new and improved products and
their world-class employee suggestion systems methods, it also leads to intrinsically motivated,
to induce creative behavior and to drive creative committed, and job-satisfied people. The motiva-
output including cost savings and new products tion induced is the power that drives “spins” the
and procedures. The primary objective of these wheel from step 1 to step 8.
suggestion systems is not to improve economic In contrast, Fig. 9 models an organization
outcomes directly but to motivate people and unskilled in Simplexity Thinking. Unable to
increase their commitment (Basadur 1982). think problems through creatively, they instead
move them directly in from step 1 to step 8. With-
out the help of the creative process, the outputs are
Creativity for Job Enrichment not innovative and the people are not motivated.
Although adaptability skills are essential, it
Proactive creative activity, or adaptability, leads to would be naïve to believe that all that is needed
a continuous flow of new methods and new prod- is to train employees at all levels in the Simplexity
ucts. However, acceptance of change by Thinking process and the skills to make it work.
employees is assured because they are taking This would only be one third of the battle. In order
ownership of finding and solving their own prob- to make adaptability performance a normal way of
lems and implementing changes themselves. In life, an organization must integrate creativity
effect, they are redesigning their own jobs, thinking skills and process with a clear-cut busi-
which is consistent with a well-documented ness need and infrastructure to encourage
axiom of social psychology: people do not resist employees to experience success applying the
change; they do resist being changed (Coch and skills and process. Creativity skills and process
French 1948). Employees enrich their own jobs must be accompanied by communication and
by being creative. acceptance of a well-understood and motivating
organizational business need for adaptability.
People need to understand why they suddenly
Simplexity Thinking as the need to use their creativity on the job. The busi-
Transformational Engine ness need must be translated into a specific goal
(s) to pursue. Measurable adaptability goals must
Simplexity Thinking accelerates the identification be placed into the corporate strategy alongside
and solution of problems and opportunities across efficiency goals. As well, a complementing infra-
an organization. These problems and opportuni- structure must be created which makes it easy and
ties may originate in either the external or internal encourages people to routinely use their skills to
environments of the organization, and as they are pursue the goals. An ideal scenario, for example,
moved through fact finding, problem definition, might see employees receive creativity training
and then solution optimization and implementa- based on application of training to specific com-
tion, the organization is transformed into a state of pany real-world problems rather than non-work-
adaptability. related “practice” or theoretical problems. Thus,
Figure 8 illustrates how Simplexity Thinking progress is made against the goals during the
works to operationalize adaptability. As problems training itself. Of course the infrastructure must
Simplexity Thinking and the Basadur Innovation Profile Assessment 15

Simplexity Thinking and the Basadur Innovation Profile Assessment, Fig. 8 An organization skilled at using
Simplexity Thinking to operationalize adaptability and achieve innovative outputs

extend beyond the training. Figure 10 illustrates implanting new initiatives, organizations must
how these three components support each other. also avoid underestimating the effort required to
Many worthwhile interventions have floun- establish people’s change-making skills, attitudes,
dered because the organization lacked at least and behaviors and must provide adequate
one of these three components: business need, training.
infrastructure, and change-making process and
skills (Basadur and Robinson 1993). If senior
leaders wish to introduce an intervention, they Conclusion and Future Directions
must spell out what specific business need they
intend to address (such as lower costs, higher Simplexity Thinking offers a new approach to
sales, fewer defects or customer complaints, better organizational adaptability in which deep skill in
teamwork, shorter turnaround times or faster time executing creativity as a standard everyday pro-
to market, better products or services) to ensure cess is the key, equally important to traditional
that employees buy into the intervention and can deep skill in executing traditional efficiency pro-
measure success. The organization must also cesses. Most of today’s executives lack this crea-
ensure an effective infrastructure, such as perfor- tive skill, and many have turned out to be
mance appraisal systems or membership on inadequate leaders, especially in recent times of
interdepartmental teams, is in place so new phi- accelerating change and ambiguity. However,
losophies and tools are applied regularly. Along many organizations are not as effective as others
with clear business needs, and infrastructures for because they value short-term results above all
16 Simplexity Thinking and the Basadur Innovation Profile Assessment

Simplexity Thinking and the Basadur Innovation Profile Assessment, Fig. 9 An organization not skilled at using
Simplexity Thinking moves directly to action without benefit of creative process and achieves non-innovative outputs

and reward successful implementers of routines

disproportionately. Simply put, organizations
favor efficiency at the expense of adaptability.
Many companies still regard innovation as an
irritant, something that gets in the way of the “real
Business Need Infrastructure
work.” They are content to turn out standard
quantities of standard products and achieve the
sales, cost, and profit goals for this month, this
quarter, and this year. Their response to greater
Creative competition is to cut staff, reduce costs, lower
Process and Skills service levels, and, in some cases, lower quality.
Too few respond creatively. Sometimes this is
because they simply do not know how to go
about it. It may be that various concepts of crea-
tivity and innovation are demystified through inte-
Simplexity Thinking and the Basadur Innovation gration into a single simplified approach focused
Profile Assessment, Fig. 10 The three necessary com- specifically on improving organizational perfor-
ponents of a successful effort to institutionalize mance short and long term.
adaptability
Simplexity Thinking and the Basadur Innovation Profile Assessment 17

Perhaps, more managers would be willing to more creatively (assuming in each case that they
give this simplified approach a try, especially if know how to do so)? A clue may be found in
they could be shown how it helps them achieve several North American corporations that had
even short-term results more efficiently. Perhaps, the appropriate balance for an earlier era but had
future research could focus on strategies for help- to drastically change that balance during the
ing managers grasp and increase comfort with the 1980s in order to react to changes in their envi-
innovation process, skills, techniques, and styles ronment or circumstances. While suffering
described. through 13 consecutive quarters of huge losses
Simplexity Thinking is a deliberate and con- in the early 1980s, Ford made massive top-down
tinuous change-making system of attitudes, training interventions to become a less authoritar-
behaviors, and cognitive skills driving a process ian, more innovative, and more efficient organi-
of problem generation, conceptualization, prob- zation with higher employee involvement. In
lem solving, and solution implementation, which order to respond to new competition, Xerox
is virtually synonymous with adaptability. It reinvented itself from a copier company into a
requires attitudinal, behavioral, and cognitive document company and instituted a continuous
skills in deliberate change making and incorpo- process to fundamentally change how its
rates interventions into the process as tools. Under employees work and manage. More recently,
the new approach, organizations can learn to IBM reorganized itself after seeing its stock
mainstream adaptability by doing two things: price plummet when smaller competitors capital-
encouraging employees to master new skills, ized on the market shift to personal computers
which increase their creativity, motivation, and from mainframes. An excellent research question
engagement, and creating an infrastructure that would be how these organizations might have
ensures that these skills will be used regularly. recognized the need to shift their balance much
More research is needed to reassure innovating sooner than they did.
organizations that they are on the right track,
particularly when the results of emphasizing
adaptability may take considerably longer to Implications for Leadership
appear than the results of an emphasis on effi-
ciency. A clue may be found in Japan: whereas Today’s leaders must understand creativity as an
much North American decision-making is driven ongoing continuous change-making organiza-
by the next quarter’s results, Japanese organiza- tional process, not just a sometime occurrence or
tions favor long-term planning and reporting a program of discrete interventions and philo-
(Dertouzos et al. 1989). Well-thought-out strate- sophical values of “what’s good” for organiza-
gies that enable organizations to confidently shift tions. Effective leadership is really implanting
the balance between adaptability and efficiency and sustaining a system of organizational creativ-
will help them prosper over the long term and ity that can be learned and mainstreamed to pro-
prevent them from being surprised and damaged vide continuous and deliberate adaptability.
by a volatile environment. Leaders must learn and adopt the corresponding
An additional avenue for further research is to new skills and new ways of thinking and behav-
identify factors which enable an organization to ing. To provide effective leadership in the twenty-
effectively alter its “appropriate” balance of first century, managers must become effective
adaptability and efficiency rather than being change agents in their everyday work (rather
caught unaware by upcoming environmental than to leave this as a “sometime thing” to others).
changes. What are the signals that prompt senior In the future, managers, who may have been
management to request more creativity, that moti- accustomed to a command and control style
vate middle managers to act upon a top manage- which includes creating strategy and policy by
ment requirement for more creativity, and that themselves and then passing it down to a waiting
encourage individuals in the organization to act organization, will need to learn skills in engaging
18 Simplexity Thinking and the Basadur Innovation Profile Assessment

their subordinates in co-creating strategy. By Basadur MS. Managing the creative process in organiza-
engaging a wider range of people in the process tions. In: Runco MJ, editor. Problem finding, problem
solving and creativity. Norwood: Ablex; 1994.
of developing new strategies, ownership and suc- p. 237–68.
cessful implementation of the new strategy is Basadur MS. Leading others to think innovatively
more likely to occur (Coch and French 1948). together: creative leadership. Leadersh Q. 2004;15:
Porras and Robertson (1992) describe the charac- 103–21.
Basadur MS. Chapter 15, Management: synchronizing dif-
teristics of an effective change agent as (1) inter- ferent kinds of creativity. In: Kaufman JC, Baer J, edi-
personal competence (relational skills, ability to tors. Creativity across domains: faces of the muse.
support, nurture, and influence others); (2) theory- Lawrence Erlbaum; 2005. p. 261–79.
related problem-solving and change skill (the abil- Basadur MS, Basadur TM. Creativity skills and problem
solving style: impact on creativity social network posi-
ity to conceptualize and diagnose, to present tion. Presented at Academy of Management Annual
options to others), (3) skill as an educator (able Conference, Chicago; 2009.
to create learning experiences), and (4) self- Basadur TM, Basadur MS. The role of creative problem
awareness (ability to have a clear understanding solving style in advice network formation and subse-
quent creative performance. Presented at the Southern
of one’s own needs and motivations). These are all Management Association (SMA) annual meeting,
different from purely analytical thinking and October 28, 2010, St. Petersburg; 2010.
problem-solving characteristics. To supplement Basadur MS, Basadur TM. Where are the generators?
these analytical skills, today’s managers must J Psychol Aesthet Creat Arts. 2011;5(1):29–42.
Basadur MS, Finkbeiner CT. Measuring preference for
learn to think and behave in new ways and to ideation in creative problem solving training. J Appl
lead others to think and behave in new ways. Behav Sci. 1985;21(1):37–49.
Mintzberg (1973) documented that most man- Basadur MS, Gelade G. Using the creative problem solving
agers operate primarily as short-term implemen- profile (CPSP) for diagnosing and solving real-world
problems. Emergence J Complexity Issues Organ
tation doers. Other research (Basadur and Basadur Manag. 2003;5(3):22–47.
2010) supports this finding, suggesting many Basadur MS, Gelade G. Modeling applied creativity as a
managers are especially under-skilled in problem cognitive process: theoretical foundations. Int J Think
finding and problem definition, which represent Problem Solving. 2005;15(2):13–41.
Basadur MS, Gelade G. The role of knowledge manage-
the essence of strategic thinking and adaptability. ment in the innovation process. Creat Innov Manag.
Thus the training of managers to improve concep- 2006;15(1):45–62.
tual thinking skills to combine with optimizing Basadur MS, Gelade G. Creative problem solving style and
and implementation thinking must become an cognitive work demands. Presented at the Annual Con-
ference of the Society of Industrial and Organizational
important intervention to improve fundamental Psychology, New Orleans. April 2–4; 2009.
leadership skill. Basadur MS, Head MM. Team performance and satisfac-
tion: a link to cognitive style within a process frame-
work. J Creat Behav. 2001;35(3):227–45.
Basadur MS, Paton BR. Creativity boosts profits in reces-
References sionary times – broadening the playing field. Ind
Manag. 1993;35(1):14–9.
Ambrosini V. The resource-based view of the firm. In: Basadur MS, Robinson S. The new creative thinking skills
Ambrosini V, editor. Tacit and ambiguous resources needed for total quality management to become fact,
as sources of competitive advantage. New York: Pal- not just philosophy. Am Behav Sci. 1993;37(1):
grave Macmillan; 2003. p. 3–6. 121–38.
Amit R, Shoemaker P. Strategic assets and organizational Basadur MS, Graen GB, Green SG. Training in creative
rent. Strateg Manag J. 1993;14:33–46. problem solving: effects on ideation and problem find-
Basadur MS. Research in creative problem solving training ing in an applied research organization. Organ Behav
in business and industry. In: Proceedings of creativity Hum Perform. 1982;30:41–70.
week 4. Greensboro: Center for Creative Leadership; Basadur MS, Graen GB, Scandura TA. Training effects on
1982. attitudes toward divergent thinking among manufactur-
Basadur MS. Impacts and outcomes of creativity in orga- ing engineers. J Appl Psychol. 1986;71:612–7.
nizational settings. In: Isaksen SG, Murdock MC, Basadur MS, Graen GB, Wakabayashi M. Identifying indi-
Firestein RL, Treffinger DJ, editors. Nurturing and vidual differences in creative problem solving style.
developing creativity: the emergence of a discipline. J Creat Behav. 1990;24(2):111–31.
Norwood: Ablex; 1993. p. 278–313.
Simplexity Thinking and the Basadur Innovation Profile Assessment 19

Basadur MS, Ellspermann SJ, Evans GW. A new method- Kabanoff B, Rossiter JR. Recent developments in applied
ology for formulating ill-structured problems. OMEGA creativity. Int Rev Ind Organ Psychol. 1994;9:283–324.
Int J Manag Sci. 1994;22(6):627–45. Kerr S. More on the folly-executive fax poll results. Acad
Basadur M, Pringle P, Speranzini G, Bacot M. Collaborative Manag Exec. 1995;9(1):15–6.
problem solving through creativity in problem definition: Kriegesmann B, Kley TM, Schwering MG. Creative errors
expanding the pie. Creat Innov Manag. 2000a; and heroic failures: capturing their innovate potential.
9(1):54–76. J Bus Strateg. 2005;26:57–64.
Basadur MS, Runco MA, Vega L. Understanding how Locke EA, Latham GP. Work motivation and satisfaction:
creative thinking skills, attitudes and behaviors work light at the end of the tunnel. Psychol Sci.
together: a causal process model. J Creat Behav. 1990;1(4):240–6.
2000b;34(2):77–100. Mintzberg H. The nature of managerial work. New York:
Basadur TM, Basadur MS, Gelade G. Cognitive problem Harper Collins; 1973.
solving style as related to person-vocation fit and Mirvis PH. Practice improvisation. Organ Sci. 1998;
person-organizational hierarchy level of fit. Presented 9(5):586–92.
at the Southwest Academy of Management Confer- Mott PE. The characteristics of effective organizations.
ence, February 24–28, Houston; 2008. New York: Harper & Row; 1972.
Basadur MS, Gelade G, Basadur TM, Skorokhod Organ DW. Organizational citizenship behavior: the good
T. Testing the predictive validity of the Basadur crea- soldier syndrome. Lexington: Lexington Books; 1988.
tive problem solving profile (CPSP). Published in the Osborn AF. Applied imagination: principles and proce-
Proceedings of the Southwest Academy of Manage- dures of creative problem solving. New York: Charles
ment Annual Meeting, February 25–28, 2009, Okla- Scribner’s Sons; 1953.
homa City; 2009. Parnes SJ, Noller RB, Biondi AM. Guide to creative action.
Basadur MS, Gelade G, Basadur TM. Creative problem New York: Scribner’s Sons; 1977.
solving process styles, cognitive work demands and Porras JI, Robertson PJ. Organizational development: the-
organizational adaptability. J Appl Behav Sci. ory, practice, and research. In: Dunnette MD, Hough
2014;50(1):80–115. LM, editors. Handbook of industrial and organizational
Basadur MS, Gelade GA, Basadur TM, Perez R. Improved psychology, vol. 3. 2nd ed. Palo Alto: Consulting Psy-
reliability and research applications of the Basadur chologists Press; 1992. p. 719–822.
Creative Problem Solving Profile (CPSP). Kindai Porter M. Generic strategies and performance: an empirical
Manag Rev. 2016;4:101–12. examination with American data. New York: Sage
Beer M, Eisenstat RA, Spector B. Why change programs Publications; 1980a.
don’t produce change. Harv Bus Rev. 1990;68(6): Porter M. Competitive strategy. New York: Free Press;
158–66. 1980b.
Caves RE. Competition in an open economy: a model Reiter-Palmon R, Robinson EJ. Problem identification and
applied to Canada Cambridge. Boston: Harvard Uni- construction: what do we know, what is the future?
versity Press; 1980. Psychol Aesthet Creat Arts. 2009;3(1):43–7.
Caves RE, Porter M. From entry barriers to mobility bar- Robertson PJ, Roberts DR, Porras JI. Dynamics of planned
riers: conjectural decisions and contrived deterrence to organizational change: assessing empirical support for
new competitors. Q J Econ. 1977;91:241–62. a theoretical model. Acad Manag J. 1993;36(3):
Coch L, French J. Overcoming resistance to change. Hum 619–34.
Relat. 1948;1:512–32. Rumelt RP. Towards a strategic theory of the firm. In:
Dertouzos ML, Lester RK, Solow RM. Made in America. Lamb RB, editor. Competitive strategic management.
Cambridge: MIT Press; 1989. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall; 1984. p. 566–70.
Edmondson AC. Three faces of Eden: the persistence of Runco MA. Creativity. Annu Rev Psychol. 2004;55:
completing theories and multiple diagnoses in Organi- 657–87.
zational Intervention Research. Hum Relat. 1996; Senge P, Kleiner A, Roberts C, Ross R, Smith B. The fifth
49(5):571. discipline fieldbook. New York: Doubleday; 1994.
French WL, Bell CH. Organization development: behav- Spector B, Beer, M. Beyond TQM Programmes. J Organ
ioral science interventions for organization improve- Change Manag. 1994;7(2):63–70.
ment. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall; 1999. Stein MI. Stimulating creativity, vol. 2: group procedures.
Guilford JP. The nature of human intelligence. New York: New York: Academic Press; 1975.
McGraw-Hill; 1967. Taylor FW. The principles of scientific management.
Hinrichs JR. Practical management for productivity. New York: W.W. Norton & Company; 1967.
Unpublished manuscript; 1978. Wallas G. The art of thought. New York: Harcourt Brace;
Hodgkinson GP, Healey MP. Cognition in organizations. 1926.
Annu Rev Psychol. 2008;59:387–417.