People often fail to distinguish between the inherent value of creativity and how much they truly value it. As a race, we benefit from the tangible results derived from creativity and often assess the value of that creativity according to its monetary value. In business, true to our selfish human nature, we only value creativity when we stand to gain while shying away from the risk accompanying uncertainty. Take for instance the tech industry as an example of this functionality-driven utility bias. Creative ideation might inspire new approaches to software design or user experience. However, unless these ideas lead to an innovative, marketable product—like a groundbreaking app or device—the original creative thought is often undervalued. Before going further here, it is essential to first define creativity, which is the process of generating new ideas. In contrast, innovation is the process of improving upon and implementing those ideas into tangible products or solutions. This raises the question— how can innovation, which depends on creativity, be so highly valued on a large scale, yet creativity itself remains underappreciated on an individual level?
To examine what makes creativity and innovation valued differently, consider a simple example in our daily life of the power of practicality. The majority of people overwhelmingly prioritize STEM over the arts, because scientific work is chained to the course of progress whereas, in the realm of art, progress in the same sense doesn’t exist. It’s easy to say that nowadays the creative arts fields are questioning what value their practice has when they have no “commercial value.” People traditionally prioritize tangible progress over exploration and ideation unless the latter has any chance of being translated into some real metric of monetary value. Innovation is a language that can be translated; innovation has final value. Creativity is the set of building blocks; it has instrumental value. Creativity is something that can potentially be translated; however, in the eyes of common people, it might be unreliable with no assurance of monetary gain.
Attempting to understand how laypeople value creativity is difficult due to a lack of data quantifying people’s value for creativity or even a common metric for mass appreciation. However, more than just instrumental and final value, creativity itself has different types of conditional value that increase the variance in value. Creativity is more highly valued when people believe their creative outputs to be extraordinary in their field. Dr. Eric Bonetto directly writes in his paper on The Paradox of Creativity, that “Creativity is a disposition to produce things that are new and valuable of their kind, rather than valuable, period. It follows that not all exercises of creativity are valuable, since not all the kinds produced are valuable.” Ideas that are innovative, yet not the best creations in their areas are often ignored and even devalued.
Furthermore, there is substantial discourse on whether rural or urban areas value creativity and innovation more. Common consensus, is that low-income rural populations resist innovation due to barriers like tradition, risk, and psychological factors. However, some argue that rural areas can foster creativity through their tranquil environments, as residents must develop unique income opportunities, such as tourist attractions, to stay local rather than migrate to cities. Similarly many believe input constraints– the unavailability of resources such as time, human capital, funding, etc– can boost creativity, with research showing a U-shaped relationship between constraints and creativity, where moderate constraints optimize motivation.
Constraints and location are two examples that can be used to pose the question of whether being more creative contributes to how much that person values being creative. This perception of value varies from person to person and likely is influenced by their progress in life, along with the current obstacles. Besides, it's difficult enough to quantify what it means to be more creative than others, meaning that for now, this question is unanswerable.
Often, we value creativity at a superficial level, enjoying its rewards, while fearing the risk. People frequently fear pursuing creative ideas due to the risk of failure and the potential negative consequences associated with it. Dr. Anthony D. Fredericks examines a common belief that it’s much easier and less risky to do things the way they’ve always been done in the past. The fear of failure prevents people from taking risks, and when people internalize the view that failure is anything that is not perfect, they disempower themselves from exercising their inherent creativity. Further, Dr. Jennifer Mueller finds that people often reject creative ideas even when indicating creativity as a desired goal. This can be explained by a bias against creativity which is activated when people experience a motivation to reduce uncertainty and reduce risk. Practicality blinds us to possibilities, limiting our true appreciation for the formation of unique ideas.
Innovation is widely valued at the national level, but the reality of its application often presents contradictions. While about 60% of CEOs in a 2010 IBM study identified creativity as the most important leadership quality, companies frequently fail to reward creative individuals. In large organizations, despite the critical need for progress, bureaucracy and risk aversion often stifle creativity at lower levels, as employees fear negative repercussions if their ideas don’t succeed. Mueller’s research discussing The Paradox of Creativity shows how those with less power are less willing to take risks and to put ideas forward which might potentially have negative career repercussions. However, despite these barriers, there is a clear consensus that innovation is essential for economic growth, with reports from McKinsey and Intel showing that 84% of executives believe innovation will be crucial for future success and the U.S. economy over the next 30 years.
Finally, we expect a rising value of creativity in our modern world considering that the majority of industries/professions are getting closer and closer to being outcompeted by technology. Information Technology, art, design, analyst positions, and various other back-end office positions are rapidly being replaced as artificial intelligence technology evolves. As AI replaces these routine functions, individuals will be forced to take greater creative risks in order to uplift their own value. Whether creativity’s role as the final differentiator between technology and humanity is not clear; however it still is in the eyes of many, a last resort. For many, desperation will encourage them to innovate and take risks when pushed out of their comfort zone. Thus, we can be sure to expect a rising value for creativity around the world as people scramble to enhance their ability to express creativity in a last-resort effort. This demonstrates yet again how society superficially values creativity; only embracing creativity when it aligns with practicality and profitability, driven by desperation.
Does society superficially value creativity? Driven by profitability, constraints, and risk, at a societal and organisational level we often do value creativity, while at an individual level, the perceived value varies. In the future, technological advancements will likely contribute to a superficially driven future increase of value at both an individual and societal level.
Aadith Kacholia
