Return on inspiration : a socio-psychological investigation into the impact of lateral thinking upon individual, group and organisational performance

In the popular press, lateral thinking is positioned as critical for businesses striving to survive and thrive. This assumption is contested, however. Differences of opinion exist as to whether, and in what ways, the hiring of creativity and innovation consultants and trainers to inspire lateral thinking and behaviour improves performance. This research contributes to this debate by investigating the rich complexity and multi-nuanced dimensions of lateral thinking’s ROI in more depth. The research builds on evidence that self-efficacy influences performance, and specifically examines how lateral thinking - as a pattern-switching phenomenon - can shift people’s patterns of performance by shifting their patterns of perceived self-efficacy. The study begins by investigating a plethora of claims and counter-claims in the literature on the impact such interventions can have, and it leverages the cognitive, affective, and behavioural framework developed by Kraiger, Ford and Salas (1993), and social factors surfaced by Amabile (1983), as a structural device to support this analysis. It then examines the views of ten creative thinking experts - from Edward de Bono to Tony Buzan, and Professor John Adair to Professor Jane Henry - who were interviewed to shine further light on this topic from both an academic and practitioner point-of-view. Following this, its focus narrows to investigate one specific piece of the creativity and innovation jigsaw: the potential impact lateral thinking workshops can have upon people’s perceived self-efficacy. In this respect, this study builds upon previous research by Bandura (1977;1997), Colquitt and LePine (2000) and Tierney and Farmer (2002), and the established link between improved perceived self-efficacy and improved performance, which is made possible via Bandura’s (1995) four sources i.e. ‘mastery experiences’, ‘modelling’, ‘persuasion’ and a person’s ‘physiological and emotional state’ (Bandura, 1995:3-4). To support this process, case studies were employed as part of the data collection process, involving the delivery of three separate three-hour lateral thinking workshops to three separate charities in London, UK. The analytical aim of the case studies - which are widely used by social scientists and business researchers (eg. Stake, 2005; Ghauri, and Grønhaug, 2010; Ng and Coakes, 2014; Lee and Saunders, 2017; Yin, 2018) to investigate complex [‘real-life’] social phenomena (Patton and Applebaum, 2003:63) - was to understand lateral thinking training’s impact in a holistic, rather than reductionist-fragmented (ibid:63), way. In this respect, twenty-two of the twenty-eight attendees were subsequently interviewed - using semi-structured interviews - to gain a fuller understanding of different individuals’ perceptions and interpretations of the training’s impact. Analysis demonstrates that the three lateral thinking workshops in this enquiry had a “provocative permission” impact upon the way people think, feel and behave at work, however, this bolstering of individuals’ creative confidence and perceived self-efficacy was more contributive than causal. From a provocational perspective, these workshops were able to help participants think differently and approach challenges from alternative perspectives; from a permission perspective, they were able to foster psychological safety and help participants feel safe enough to ‘let themselves be creative’ (Cameron, 1995:xi). The research also shows that lateral thinking training can “dis-inspire”, as well as inspire, if key socio-psychological conditions are not met. The thesis develops these new concepts - provocative permission, and dis-inspiration - by way of a conceptual contribution to the lateral thinking literature.

Grantor dc:publisher

Oxford Brookes University

Year dc:date

2023

Author dc:creator

• Bannerman, James

Contributors dc:contributor

• Handley, Karen
• Patterson, Fiona
• James, Phil

Statement dc:rights

• All rights reserved

Language dc:language

en

DOI dc:identifier

https://doi.org/10.24384/mcbg-qd25

OAI identifier oai:identifier

tle:087686a5-7f74-43ed-a88d-deacb62068df:d6bd9758-527a-46cd-bfe2-c433766e8fca:1