Creativity and Problem Solving

Creativity and problem solving are prominent themes within the knowledge work literature. As this appears to be a common thread, and one which appears to be a key definitional feature of the rhetoric, it is assessed first. As with knowledge work itself there are issues around the definition of creativity and problem solving as these terms are often used interchangeably or the concepts themselves conflated. When asked about whether they considered themselves to be creative the software developers in the organisation generally answered in the affirmative as follows:

WD1: Yeah…maybe, maybe in terms of what I do in my job yeah – I’m not artistic but…yeah

WD3: Yes….because I do a lot of stuff because I can – not because I need to, or, not even because I can , erm…because I want to …I do a lot of things because I want to without actually having a need to do them. –

SDC 2: within limits yeah – creative…everything that can be done with the brain but not with the hands (laughs)

SDP: Erm…I am in a development sense…

AP1: Within it I’m just happy programming – that’s creative. I like being creative and I’m happy doing that. I have no aspirations to become a project manager or anything like that

SDP: ...you have to be a logical thinker. Have the ability to solve problems and ask for help it you’re not sure.

Given the responses in the above excerpts it is apparent that creativity is also linked with the freedom to be creative, that is, latitude in decision making regarding technologies and solutions and autonomy within the role to control the work. In considering the response of WD3 where creative activity may go beyond the scope of what is required to complete their work there may be a conflict in meeting the organisational targets for production and creative freedom. Employees having freedom to be creative out of interest, rather than necessity, may be problematic to organisations and may be symptomatic of organisations where managers do not necessarily understand software development work. In some cases the responses to the question were very direct and lacked much elaboration, with the subjects merely affirming that they thought they were creative. With AP1 there was a clear recognition that programming was creative, albeit it a different kind of creative from that which might be imagined from an artistic perspective. That said, the technical aspects of the work are, by SDC1, likened to the creativity which might be described by a writer or musician describing intrinsic beauty in the product and the creative process:

86

SDC1: Taken down to its pure level the actual logic of code I find well….stimulating – my first word - there’s a sort of a beauty to completely logical…if you do this, this happens type thing and that’s very, very stimulating.

Despite the rather succinct answers given by many of the developers with regards to creativity there was evidence in the transcripts of frequent reference to problem solving which pervaded responses to other questions. For example, this respondent attempted to examine the nature of the role and described it largely in terms of problem solving:

WD3: I always think IT’s a different thing – well it’s problem solving and it’s facilitating, it’s a bit like, it’s a bit like…just trying to think of a good way of putting it…you provide the glue for everyone else to do what they’ve got to do and it’s a neutral thing really – it’s not like kind of a…we’re not going in there and making up these ideas for people they’ve got those ideas already and we’re solving – we’re helping them to solve their problems…

As within the knowledge work literature, creativity and problem solving are treated as separate constructs. Frenkel et al (1995) use creativity as one of the variables in determining their ideal types of worker. Software development work, according to the interview responses would undoubtedly be located in the top right corner of the cube (see Fig 2.2) suggesting high creativity, high theoretical knowledge and high intellective skills and therefore the term knowledge worker would be applied to this group. The response from SDC2 ‘creative - everything that can be done with the brain but not with the hands’ encapsulates much of the early comments regarding knowledge work from Drucker in the context of software development work. Moving away from the notion of creativity towards complex problem solving, the EIU (1998) model (see Fig 2.4) would similarly, according to the responses in this study, locate software developers at the far right of the complexity continuum. According to this model, complex work is considered to be evident in unstructured problems which have imprecise information inputs and diffuse or general scope which are evident in WD2’s response below.

WD2: It’s a different kind of ethos to er..the kind of jobs where it’s like when I was a student and I’d go and work in a kitchen for a couple of days and just wash pots and pans and they’d say ‘here are some pots and pans – wash them’ and I‘d wash them. Whereas if you’re given a job as a professional I’d be told to fix something or er…design something, or develop something or whatever and you’re not necessarily told exactly how to do it because you’ve got…you should have the problem solving skills to be able to solve that problem and then if you haven’t then you have the kind of...the attitude to actually approach it and solve the problem somehow and get help to solve the problem or whatever – you know. Whereas if you’re just told to clean something or hammer that’s a very simple kind of thing.

87

This response epitomises the knowledge worker discussion around the content of the job in terms of application of knowledge, problem solving, the amount of autonomy that there is in the role and the level of ambiguity that is inherent both within the work and the employment relationship. Evidently, from the analysis of the interview data, the presence or absence of creativity, problem solving and complexity in the work is of considerable import in determining the level of job satisfaction experienced and any associated affective behaviours. It is therefore essential that this facet of the work is explored in greater detail within Study 2 in order to establish the extent to which problem solving and creativity impact upon these outcomes. Its inclusion in the theoretical framework will also require a fuller review of pertinent literature relating to problem solving and creativity in order to explore what is meant specifically by these terms and thus determine what is most appropriate to measure.