Creative Intelligence and Organizational Decision Making

Posted: November 28th, 2013

Creative Intelligence and Organizational Decision Making






Creative Intelligence and Organizational Decision Making

Part 1

Creative Intelligence

The intuitive, innovative, imaginative and inspirational styles of creative intelligence have their different contribution to an organization. As effective as they all are depending on the approach a business uses, they also have their own disadvantage. In definition, each approach tackles a situation in a different way. An individual using the intuitive approach focuses more on the results than the process. Experiences are relied on thus guiding one into improvising the available resources to generate a current solution. One using the innovative approach is more persistent on problem solving, prefers being systematic and relies on the data when making decisions. An imaginative approach concentrates on visualizing an opportunity, thinks ‘outside the box’, uses writing and art when making decisions. The inspirational approach is persistent in self sacrificing and social change. The similarities and their different can be used to bring the needed change in any organization.

The intuitive and the innovative approaches are similar in the way they handle challenges (Marakas, 2003). They both rely on the past. Both methods focus on some information that relates to the specific challenge. The intuitive approach relies on the experiences while the innovative style relies on data whether it was collected in the past or the present. This is where they form their foundation of their resources before finding other information or making any conclusions. Through these two approaches, past mistakes and negative outcome are avoided thus making more concrete decisions (Marakas, 2003). This saves the organizational the wastage of extra resources used in the trial and error period.

Although there are few similarities between these styles, their diversity, if implemented wisely, can propel an organization to great heights. Organizations use directors and managers in decision making. It is unlikely that an organization will use one approach when tackling all challenges or making every decision. This is because different people will use different styles when making the decisions appertained to them. Having different styles enables the organization to use the strengths in one style in eliminating the weaknesses used in another style. For example, the innovative approach is highly systematic. Although this is good, it can also be a weakness (Weiss & Legrand, 2011). In an advertising firm, the imaginative style is very significant when making coming up with advertising ideas for the clientele rather than using the innovative style.

The social change is the most distinct of the four styles. The focus is drawn away from the problematic area and driven to the society. In this style, the managers solve a problem through inspiration. For example, a manager can inspire the employees to become their own managers or to manage projects, even though they have never been in those positions, so that employees can be more creative and enthusiastic on their work. This style does focus on what the problem is, but rather focuses on those capable of solving the problem.

It is significant that a good organization incorporates all these styles in order to create a balance (Weiss & Legrand, 2011). This can be done by making sure that people who are good at either of the styles are in the decision-making board or are holding the different managerial positions. An organization needs experiences and data, people who are ready to ‘think outside the box’, those who are inspirational and those who are systematic in order to avoid monotony and the repetitiveness of mistakes that have been done in the past.

The incorporation of diversity in these creative intelligence styles will not only propel an organization to greater heights, but will also help the company save on the major costs incurred by poor decision making. It will also put the company ahead of its competition, being of benefit to its employees, the customers, the general society and the general organization.

Part 2

Influences of models and Mindsets


The environmental, hereditary, education, genetic and experiences can easily influence our mindsets/models. The environment has a large role to play regarding mental models and mindsets. Whether it is the environment we are living in or the environment we were brought up in, it will still influence our mindset. We are likely to think in terms of how we were brought up and the surroundings we were brought up in (Nilakant & Ramnarayan, 2006). If one was brought up in an environment where it was wrong to cut down trees for whatever reasons and killing animals was considered as brutal murder, they will have this mindset will be that taking care of the trees is not an option but compulsory. If they were to compare brutality, their metal model would be the brutality of killing an animal. Such people become very conservative employees even when they are in a completely different environment.


The hereditary part of a person is that which they have received either from their parents or from relatives. This is when a boy develops an interest in football at an early age without any influence from anybody, only to realize that the father was a talented footballer.
This hereditary nature can influence our mindsets and models. A person can have conservative models and mindsets, a character inherited from either a parent or a relative (Nilakant & Ramnarayan, 2006). For example, if the owner of a business tends to run a company in the conservative ways such as believing that the older people should always accumulate the top positions, the son might follow this conservative way if he has inherited this way of thinking. Such sayings as “he is as conservative as his father”, pops up in the employee conversations. Such people can only overcome this challenge by being willing to change. Since this occurs naturally, it can only be changed by the willingness of the individual. However, the good thing about hereditary is that it can influence the models and mindsets both positively and negatively. If it is a positive mindset, it occurs naturally.


Education greatly influences mental models and mindsets. People are limited by knowledge. The less knowledge one has, the more limited is the mindset (Nilakant & Ramnarayan, 2006). For example, professors may have greater mindsets and models as compared to university graduates with a bachelor’s degree. This is one of the reasons why organizations prefer to employ college graduates holding a degree rather than employing those with a diploma. When faced with a challenging situation, an employee holding a master’s degree may be more positive and confident when facing a challenge as compared to a one holding a bachelor’s degree or a diploma. Due to such influence, organizations prefer putting those with master’s degrees and doctorates at the managerial positions.


Genetics play a major role in a person whether they are inherited or unique in an individual. If one’s genes are those that enable one to be self-motivating, hardworking and mentally sharp, his/her mindsets and models will likely follow suite (Nilakant & Ramnarayan, 2006). If ones genes have formed one to be artistic and creative, their mindset will tend to view things differently from others.


Experiences influence one’s mindset and models greatly. This is because one learns with each experience. For example, if one has tackled difficult situations successfully in the past, then they will have a mindset that believes that there is nothing extremely difficult to tackle. On the other hand, one who has constantly failed in the past will be less optimistic in a current situation. This is why experience is part of the requirements for one who has had past experiences in that particular position. Most organizations seek for those who have learnt positively in those experiences as they will bring a positive mindset and model in the organization.


Marakas, G. M. (2003). Decision support systems in the 21st century. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Nilakant, V., & Ramnarayan, S. (2006). Change management: Altering mindsets in a global context. New Delhi: Response Books.

Weiss, D. S., & Legrand, C. P. (2011). Innovative intelligence: The art and practice of leading sustainable innovation in your organization. Mississauga, Ont: J. Wiley & Sons Canada.


Expert paper writers are just a few clicks away

Place an order in 3 easy steps. Takes less than 5 mins.

Calculate the price of your order

You will get a personal manager and a discount.
We'll send you the first draft for approval by at
Total price:
Verified by MonsterInsights