Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Thinking Skills and Creativity 2 (2007) 85–95

Advancing the case for creativity through

graduate business education
Todd Dewett ∗ , Melissa L. Gruys 1
Raj Soin College of Business, Wright State University, Dayton, OH 45435, USA
Received 24 October 2006; received in revised form 5 April 2007; accepted 10 April 2007
Available online 27 April 2007

Abstract
We describe an MBA course focusing on creativity and innovation in organizations. Drawing on the creativity literature and
experiential learning theory, the theoretical foundations of the course are discussed. Core aspects of the course include reading
articles from academic journals and business periodicals, engaging a wide variety of experiential activities, keeping a personal
journal, and completing two individual projects. We sought to understand the effect of the course on students’ perceptions of the
importance of creativity for organizations, their own creativity and self-perceptions of creativity, as well as their perceptions of the
utility of journaling. Data were collected at the beginning and end of the course to examine these issues. The results suggest that
the course had a positive influence in each case. These results are discussed and thoughts for future research are provided.
© 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Creativity; MBA; Experiential learning

1. Introduction

Creativity is vital to organizational success and provides the foundation of ideas from which innovation follows
(e.g., Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby, & Herron, 1996; see Shalley, Zhou, & Oldham, 2004; Zhou & Shalley, 2003 for
recent reviews of the literature). As the market for business education has grown, business educators have turned their
attention to creativity as an important topic in the classroom. Consequently, the classroom focus on the role of creativity
in organizations and the enhancement of student creativity have been considered by scholars in various disciplines
including management (Driver, 2001), marketing (e.g., Gilbert, Prenshaw, & Ivy, 1996), economics (Hervani & Helms,
2004), and accounting (Wynder, 2004).
Recently, commentators have suggested that creativity should occupy a more central role in graduate business
education. Not surprisingly, surveys of corporate executives indicate that creativity and innovation are among their
highest priorities (McGregor et al., 2006). For example, Marcio Moreira, a Vice-Chairman at global advertising
company McCann Worldgroup, has suggested that every MBA program should have creativity as a required part
of the coursework (Gangemi, 2006). In response, Masters of Business Administration (MBA) programs (and their
variants) have begun offering electives centered on creativity and related topics including, innovation, design, and

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 937 775 2216; fax: +1 937 775 3545.
E-mail addresses: todd.dewett@wright.edu (T. Dewett), melissa.gruys@wright.edu (M.L. Gruys).
1 Tel.: +1 937 775 2375; fax: +1 937 775 3545.

1871-1871/$ – see front matter © 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2007.04.001
86 T. Dewett, M.L. Gruys / Thinking Skills and Creativity 2 (2007) 85–95

product development (Nussbaum & Tiplady, 2005). According to a study by Selden and Vardis (2005), 29% of MBA
and EMBA programs have freestanding courses in creativity and innovation, and the number of schools offering these
courses has doubled in the past 5 years.
However, research into the nature and effectiveness of creativity courses in the business curriculum, undergraduate
or MBA, is scant at best. For example, Driver (2001) studied undergraduate business students’ perceptions of the extent
to which the classroom environment supported risk taking and creativity. Her findings suggested that the classroom
can be a hospitable place for creative development. At the graduate level, Pinard and Allio (2005) describe an approach
taken by one university to integrate creativity into the MBA curriculum and offered some evidence of its effectiveness
(i.e., a high national ranking for the program). McIntyre, Hite, and Rickard (2003) and Kabanoff and Bottger (1991)
demonstrated that graduate business students provided creativity training showed an increase in creativity-related ability.
In addition, Anderson (2006) provided evidence that creativity and innovation-related exercises in MBA courses can
increase student creativity and the value that students place on creativity.
The research cited above is encouraging, though most relies on anecdotal or descriptive data, suggesting the need for
further research. Building on this work, the current study addresses two main research questions. Can an MBA course
improve student creativity? What types of classroom tools and approaches facilitate this improvement? In addition, we
wished to understand whether or not such a course could increase student creative self-efficacy and whether or not it
could increase student assessment of the importance of creativity for organizations.
The remainder of the paper will be structured as follows. First, a brief description will be offered of one creativity-
related graduate business course. Next, a brief study is described utilizing students in the course who provided pre-
and post-course data related to the research questions noted above. Finally, the results are discussed and suggestions
for future research are offered.

2. The research context

“Managing for Creativity and Innovation” is an elective MBA course offered at an AACSB accredited business
school at a medium sized Midwest University in the United States. The course, taught by the first author of this paper, is
defined by three primary types of activities and two projects. The activities include readings from business periodicals
(academic and popular), activities designed to physically engage the students with core course concepts, and writing
in a personal journal intended to capture insights and thoughts related to the intersection of the course materials and
their organizational life. The projects involve researching a historically significant creator and conducting an analysis
of their organization using the course concepts as a guide. This array of activities was chosen in order to capitalize on
the benefits of experiential learning. Kolb and Fry offered the well known experiential learning model containing four
elements: concrete experience, observation and reflection, formation of abstract concepts, and testing in new situations
(e.g., Kolb, 1984; Kolb & Fry, 1975). This work is widely viewed as useful for planning teaching and learning activities
(Tennant, 1997). In particular, experiential activities as teaching and learning tools in business education have received
strong support (Kayes, 2002; Kolb & Kolb, 2005) because they help students use a multisensory approach towards
learning (Cantor, 1997) and often serve as a catalyst for an interactive process between learners (Joshi, Davis, Kathuria,
& Weidner, 2005).
The initial class meeting is used to highlight three key recurring themes in the course. The first is the need to think
critically and question assumptions. The second, highlighted by the unconventional nature of the course structure and
activities, involves the link between positive affect and creativity (e.g., Amabile, Barsade, Mueller, & Staw, 2005).
Third, students learn that perceptions of personal risk are a central part of understanding employee creativity. Common
sense and research tell us that to be creative in organizations is to take a risk (e.g., Shalley, 1995; Zhou & George,
2001). New ideas invite evaluation (Albrecht & Hall, 1991) and employees do not want to be negatively evaluated.
This tendency is so strong that Pfeffer and Sutton (2000) found that only half of the workers in one large sample study
felt that it was acceptable to take calculated risks at work in the name of creativity and change.
From the first moment, the course attempts to improve students’ comfort with risk. The instructor arrives at the first
class meeting wearing motorcycle boots, blue jeans, a sleeveless tee-shirt, and a baseball hat. The students are then
informed that the course is not for everyone and that they will be asked to participate in activities that may cause some
anxiety. They are further informed that there is no text for the course, nor any exams. They are nonetheless assured
that the course is rigorous with a significant work load. Most importantly, they are explicitly charged with having fun
and are told that if they do not feel they can meet this challenge they should consider dropping the class.
 T. Dewett, M.L. Gruys / Thinking Skills and Creativity 2 (2007) 85–95 87

To quickly push the students into building new comfort with risk, the importance of self-disclosure is discussed.
Self-disclosure can be defined as information about one’s self-communicated to another person (Cozby, 1973). It
encompasses the breadth of topics conveyed, the depth of information shared, and the duration of time spent sharing
(Cozby, 1973; Omarzu, 2000). Research suggests that people who show high self-disclosure (assuming it is not
excessive) tend to be more liked and accepted interpersonally (e.g., Goleman, 1998; Kelley, 1999). Aside from these
benefits, it is an activity that inherently forces the students to experience risk as they share guarded information about
themselves. The students are specifically informed that we are talking about the self-disclosure of difficult information
(e.g., fears, anxieties), not self-affirming information (e.g., disclosing successes or areas of strong competence).
The activity begins with the instructor self-disclosing in order to model what is expected in the activity. He shares
personal stories including failed attempts to write novels, start a business, and attain desired jobs. Student reactions
indicate they do not typically hear their professors speak so openly about failures and shortcomings. When the instructor
is done, students are organized in groups of three to four and they spend several minutes self-disclosing to one another.
A few students naturally open up and share their thoughts while most find the activity very difficult. When the activity
is stopped, the instructor debriefs the group not by asking what they shared, but by asking how they felt while sharing.
Typical responses include “nervous,” “scared,” and “embarrassed.” It is suggested that these sentiments accurately
describe how most employees feel when thinking about whether or not to speak up and offer ideas at work. The
students are encouraged to realize that if they wish to become managers who facilitate creativity they must remember
and appreciate how risk feels.
Each subsequent class meeting involves some combination of discussing readings, engaging activities, journaling,
and student project presentations. Each of these major components of the course is briefly discussed below.

2.1. The readings

The course readings represent a wide array of business periodicals, both academic and popular. For each one,
students must turn in a two page critical commentary. Every commentary must identify and defend a point or issue
the student agreed with by explaining the logic behind their agreement and any real or hypothetical examples which
support their position. In addition, each commentary must contain one negative or critical comment about a point they
felt the author(s) neglected or inadequately addressed—again, by elaborating their logic.
Most classes begin with riddles and brain teasers, announcements, and a discussion of the agenda. Next, we turn
to a discussion of the articles. To begin, the instructor selects one of the assigned articles and asks the class for their
reactions. Using student comments as a catalyst, the instructor uses approximately 1 h to highlight the important issues
and/or shortcomings of each assigned reading. Great care is taken to validate student ideas and perspectives that are
shared and to relate them to comments from other students and assertions made in the readings. In response to a student
question, other students are encouraged to respond before the instructor offers a perspective. In short, a facilitated
interactive discussion takes the place of traditional lecture.
Following the facilitated discussion, students are divided into small groups and an assigned facilitator leads each
group through a discussion of their written critical commentaries. All students serve as group facilitators at some point
in the term and their job is to ensure full participation from all group members to create a lively interactive discussion.
Observation of the groups during this time indicates that students often provide comments and perspectives not raised
in the earlier class discussion. This can be attributed to at least three things: the safety of the small group size, the
lack of a professor in the group, and the sheer diversity of ideas people have prepared in their written commentaries.
A short debrief follows whereby each group shares their key themes or ideas with the larger class.
From a theoretical perspective, the approach to using readings described above stems from research supporting
creativity and experiential learning. In the creativity literature, autonomy is a well known antecedent to creativity
(e.g., Shalley et al., 2004). Autonomy refers to the extent to which an employee has the freedom to make job-related
decisions (Shalley, Gilson, & Blum, 2000). By allowing the students to be equal partners with the instructor in the class
discussion, by using their comments to facilitate further discussion, by allowing them to write about topics of their
choosing from each assigned reading, and by allowing completely separate discussion of the material in small groups
without the instructor present, the students experience autonomy in their task (i.e., writing about and discussing the
readings). In terms of active or experiential learning, significant research demonstrates that instructional material using
different media (or approaches, contexts) improves learning more than only using one media (e.g., Kulhavy, Stock,
Peterson, Pridemore, & Klein, 1992; Mayer, 1999; Mayer, Moreno, Boir, & Vagge, 1999). The multimodal approach
88 T. Dewett, M.L. Gruys / Thinking Skills and Creativity 2 (2007) 85–95

here involved students reading the material outside of class, writing about the material, discussing the material in class,
discussing their commentaries in small groups, as well as journaling. Thus, they approach the material in five different
ways. Further, the interactivity of the group approaches increases learning between students (Joshi et al., 2005).

2.2. The activities

Each class meeting has at least one, sometimes two, experiential activities—beyond interactive group discussions
of the assigned readings. There are two goals for these activities. The first is to continually push the students into a
zone of discomfort so that they will become marginally more comfortable with risk taking and so that they will be more
sensitive to how employees often view creative behavior at work. The second is to stimulate abstract and conceptual
thinking. Students are encouraged to consider the activities as symbolic representations of the issues surrounding them
at work. This second goal will be addressed in the next section on personal journaling.
Some of the activities are completed by individuals and some are completed by groups. The students are asked to
defer judgment and self-analysis and to simply engage the activities as would a child. After each activity, a debrief
is conducted to discuss not only how they felt during the activity (again enforcing the need to appreciate the risk in
creativity) but how they see the activity as somehow related to the issues they face at work.
Theoretically, these activities address part of the foundation of experiential learning—self-efficacy, a concept first
pioneered by Bandura (1977). Bandura (1986) observed that people tend to avoid tasks and situations they believe
exceed their capabilities and take on tasks and activities they believe they can handle. The theory predicts that when
self-efficacy is high, people will engage tasks that foster skill development. Conversely, when self-efficacy is low,
people will not engage in tasks that might help them develop new skills. Several factors affect the perception of self-
efficacy, likely the most important being personal experience (Bandura, 1991). Thus, the activities provide the students
with concrete experience in engaging the unknown by completing tasks they are unfamiliar with. In the process, it is
hoped that they gain increased comfort with risk and increased creative self-efficacy. Ultimately this is important since
self-efficacy is associated with increased creativity (Gist, 1989; Redmond, Mumford, & Teach, 1993).
There are too many activities to describe each one in this paper. However, a brief description of two activities is
provided below for illustration.

2.2.1. Letter to young self

The students are asked to bring a picture of themselves from childhood to class. The activity begins by focusing
intently on the picture. After a few moments, the students are asked to close their eyes, remain focused on the image
of themselves as a child, and listen to a passage that is read aloud. Several paragraphs are then read. They are designed
to stimulate mental imagery and make the students realize that they were once creative geniuses (building on the fact
that creative skills often diminish in youth as social demands increase, e.g., Runco, 2004; Torrance, 1968). They are
reminded of the fact that they used to question everything, had unstoppable imaginations, and possessed an endless
ability to experiment and play with ideas. When the passage is complete, they are asked to open their eyes and write
a letter to their young self in their journal apologizing for allowing their creativity to diminish. In addition, they are
specifically asked to specify how they will make amends. The activity is debriefed by facilitating a discussion of how
we change as we grow older, why, and how this impacts our work in organizations.

2.2.2. Coin catch

A box of several hundred pennies is provided for student use. The activity involves catching pennies from one’s
elbow. The activity is demonstrated for them as follows: hold your elbow at the side of your head (palm facing upward),
drop a few pennies near the tip of the elbow, then catch the pennies in your hand using one swift downward motion.
They are challenged to see who can catch the most pennies in one try. This activity elicits strong reactions. Typically,
students either want to win or want to learn how to catch at least one penny. A debrief follows the activity.

2.3. Journaling

Journals are often used in educational settings (Jarvis, 2001). For example, their use is common in the academic
study of literature, psychology, teacher education, and sociology (Anderson, 1992; Cole, 1994; Hettich, 1990). They
have also been used in areas related to the study of creativity (e.g., Synectics; Dew & Waggoner, 1993). However,
 T. Dewett, M.L. Gruys / Thinking Skills and Creativity 2 (2007) 85–95 89

to our knowledge, they are not typically used in MBA courses. They were chosen for this course because too often
academic environments pressure students to defend what they know instead of exhibiting and exploring their thinking
(Clinchy, 1995). The benefits of journaling are thought to include personal growth and development, a positive feeling
of self-expression, stress reduction, improved critical thinking, better self-understanding, an increased ownership of
learning, and creativity (Boud, 2001; Hiemstra, 2001). Journal use in class has been linked to student perceptions of
usefulness as well as student performance (Connor-Greene, 2000).
This type of activity can be useful because it provides a means for recording personal thoughts and evolving insights.
As a result, journaling can lead to the synthesis of knowledge and new insights (Hiemstra, 2001). This happens through
the process of reflection, which can be defined as “intellectual and affective activities in which individuals engage to
explore their experiences in order to lead to new understandings and appreciations” (Boud, Keogh, & Walker, 1985, p.
19). Students report that using journals stimulates thinking while reading and enhances cognitive focus (Cole, 1994;
O’Connell & Dyment, 2003). Hettich (1990) notes that students prefer journal writing as opposed to term papers
because they allow the students to address a wider range of topics which are often more personal in nature.
During the first class meeting the journaling process is explained. The class is informed that they are to purchase a
notebook and write about whatever they would like—as long as it meaningfully pertains to the course materials and
themes. The journals are turned in twice during the term, though they are not graded, and confidentiality is stressed
repeatedly. Students are provided with at least half an hour during each class meeting to write in their journals and
are asked to take time each week outside of class to journal as well. They are asked to generate reflections on the
readings and how they relate to issues they face in life and at work. They are asked to critically analyze themselves
and their work environments relative to the concepts discussed in class. This creative activity spurs critical thinking
and provides an additional way to engage the students in the experiential learning process described by Kolb (Hubbs
& Brand, 2005). Moreover, most of the students report finding the experience enjoyable and cathartic.

2.4. The projects

The course currently uses two individual projects. The first is the eminent creator presentation. Students are to choose
any highly regarded creator (e.g., inventor, artist, business person, social activist) and locate several good resources
about their life and work. They must prepare a presentation highlighting the person’s career to be delivered in small
groups and are graded by the students who watch each one. When each small group is complete, the class debriefs by
sharing any key themes or insights they uncover. No matter which creators they select, a few themes tend to emerge
regularly: a disdain for formal education, speaking up in the face of authority, taking risks in general, being driven by
high intrinsic motivation, expending great effort in the service of the task at hand, and persevering through adversity
and failures.
The second project charges the students with writing a paper analyzing the extent to which their work environment
is supportive of creativity and innovation. They are provided a list of key concepts and issues derived from the course
readings and asked to identify the factors in their work environment that are the most and least supportive of creativity
and innovation. For the most troubling factors, they must offer recommendations for how these issues can be improved.
At the end of the term, they are put into small groups to present their analyses to their peers for discussion. When all
groups are done, the class debriefs by sharing key themes they uncovered. The project not only forces students to look
at their work environments with a more critical eye but it often validates many of them by revealing that the challenges
they face are typically not unique.
Having described the actual functioning of the course, the major activities used, and the students’ experience
through their journal entries, we now return more formally to our research questions: Can an MBA course raise
students’ assessment of the importance of creativity for organizations? Can such a course improve students’ creativity?
Can it also increase students’ creative self-efficacy? What types of classroom tools and approaches can facilitate these
possibilities?

3. Methods

To address these issues, students in two sections of the MBA course described earlier, both taught during the same
term, were exposed to a pre- and post-course survey as well as three activities designed to measure some aspect of
creativity. During the very first class meeting, before any of the introductory activities noted above, the students were
90 T. Dewett, M.L. Gruys / Thinking Skills and Creativity 2 (2007) 85–95

asked to participate in a research project which would require approximately 12 min of their time during both the first
and last class meeting. They were informed that participation was completely voluntary and that their participation
would in no way affect their grade.
The two sections contained a total of 54 students. The research instrument was administered to 52 students during
the first class meeting (i.e., those in attendance) and was completed by all present. A nearly identical instrument
(differences explained below) was administered at the end of the last class meeting using the same instructions noted
above. Fifty-one students completed the instrument at this time. Due to student absences either at the start or end of
the term, paired pre- and post-data was obtained for 49 students. The sample was predominantly Caucasian (98%),
varied widely in age (23–56, average 27.8) and managerial experience (average years of managerial experience 4.1),
and was evenly distributed in terms of males (50%) and females (50%).

3.1. Measures

In both the pre- and post-surveys measures included the belief in the importance of creativity, creative self-efficacy,
willingness to take risks, five measures of creativity, and three items concerning the journaling process.

3.1.1. Importance of creativity

The importance of creativity in organizations was measured both pre- and post-course using the following item: “I
value creativity at work.” Ratings were made on a Likert-type scale from 1, very strongly disagree, to 7, very strongly
agree.

3.1.2. Creative self-efficacy

Three items developed by Tierney and Farmer (2002) were used for this study using a Likert-type scale from 1,
very strongly disagree, to 7, very strongly agree. The items are designed to capture the extent to which the respondent
believes in his or her creative ability. Sample items included: “I feel that I am good at generating novel ideas” and “I
have confidence in my ability to solve problems creativity.” Coefficient alpha was calculated to test reliability for this
and subsequent multi-item scales. Alpha for this scale was .84 for the first test administration and .76 for the second.

3.1.3. Willingness to take risks

Four items adapted from Dewett (2006) were used to measure this construct using a Likert-type scale from 1, very
strongly disagree, to 7, very strongly agree. The items are intended to capture the degree to which each respondent is
willing to voluntarily take risks at work in the pursuit of positive outcomes. Sample items included: “I will take a risk
and try something new if I have an idea that might improve my work, regardless of how I might be evaluated” and “I
will take informed risks at work in order to get the best results, even though my efforts might fail.” Coefficient alpha
for this scale was .97 for the first test administration and .80 for the second.

3.1.4. Creativity
Two measures of creativity were included in the survey and three activities designed to measure ideational fluency
were also used.
The first measure was a personality-based measure developed as part of the International Personality Item Pool, or
IPIP (e.g., Goldberg et al., 2006). The scale contained 10 items and used a Likert-type scale from 1, very inaccurate,
to 5, very accurate, accompanied by the instructions to “select the response for each item that best describes you.”
Sample items included: “Challenge other’s points of view,” “Can easily link facts together,” and “Like dealing with
abstract ideas.” Coefficient alpha for this scale was .99 for the first test administration and .82 for the second.
The second measure of creativity was Gough’s (1979) adjective checklist. The measure contains 30 adjectives that
differentiate more creative people from less creative people. A score is determined by applying a +1 (for adjectives
associated with creative people) or a −1 (for adjectives not associated with creative people) to each adjective the
respondent marks, then summing the scale. Scores ranged from −5 to 9 with an average score of 4.97. Coefficient
alpha for this scale was .88 for the first test administration and .70 for the second.
Three creativity activities were also administered to the participants. Following the completion of data collection at
the end of the term, the data for the three activities were coded by two independent coders (undergraduate university
students in their final year). Both coders were compensated for their time and received $ 100 for work that lasted
 T. Dewett, M.L. Gruys / Thinking Skills and Creativity 2 (2007) 85–95 91

approximately 5 h per coder. In addition, both were trained using random samples of data to be coded. Given the
pre/post-design, the total number of participant surveys coded was 98. Each coder was provided with a sample of
surveys to code which included 49 that were common to both coders. This allowed for the calculation of inter-rater
agreement via the Interclass Correlation, or ICC (Bliese, 2000; Shrout & Fleiss, 1979), reported below. A rule of thumb
guideline found in the literature suggests that values greater than .70 are typically acceptable for consistency estimates
of interrater reliability (Stemler, 2004).

3.1.5. Ideational fluency

The study included three different measures of ideational fluency, a type of test often used in the study of creativity
and divergent thinking (e.g., Ames & Runco, 2005; Basadur, 1994). In the first exercise, students were asked to generate
a list of as many unusual uses for an empty soda can as they could in 3 min. The two coders calculated the number of
non-redundant ideas produced per participant at time one and time two (the beginning and ending of the course). The
coders’ sample of 49 common surveys resulted in an ICC score of .98, indicting adequate agreement (Stemler, 2004).
Thus, the scores for each coder were averaged to obtain one pre- and post-quantity measure for each participant. The
scores ranged from 1 to 18.
In the second exercise, students were asked to generate a list of related items when presented with a broad category.
Specifically, the respondents were presented with the word “beverages” and asked to think of as many different types
of beverages as possible in 3 min. The coders’ sample of 49 common surveys resulted in an ICC score of .84, indicting
adequate agreement (Stemler, 2004). Thus, the scores for each coder were averaged to obtain one pre- and post-quantity
measure for each participant. The scores ranged from 8 to 30.
In the third exercise, the respondents watched a person spin a book on his finger (as one would a basketball). They
were told, as an example, that this could represent the challenge of managing a group that is constantly changing.
They were then asked to generate as many additional ideas about what this act could be symbolic of in their lives in
3 min. The coders calculated the number of non-redundant ideas for each respondent, pre and post. Agreement statistics
indicated adequate agreement (ICC = .97), thus the scores were averaged to provide each respondent with one pre- and
post-score. The scores ranged from 1 to 17.

3.1.6. Importance of journaling

To measure perceptions of the importance of journaling one item was adapted from O’Connell and Dyment (2003)
and one item was developed for this study. The items, “I think that keeping a journal is important for personal growth”
and “I think that writing in journals is a helpful way to encourage reflection on courses taken,” were measured using a
Likert-type scale from 1, very strongly disagree, to 7, very strongly agree. Coefficient alpha for this scale was .83 for
both the first and second test administration.

3.1.7. Enjoyment of journaling

One item was included only at the post-term administration of the survey to judge the extent to which students
enjoyed the journaling experience. The item, “I enjoyed the time I spent journaling for this course,” was developed for
this study and was measured using a Likert-type scale from 1, very strongly disagree, to 7, very strongly agree.
Usefulness of journaling to the learning process. One item was included only at the post-term administration of the
survey to judge the extent to which students viewed journaling as a mechanism that helped them think critically about
the course material. The item, “I believe that journaling in this course helped me think more deeply and critically,” was
rated using a Likert-type scale from 1, very strongly disagree, to 7, very strongly agree.

3.2. Results

Correlations for all study variables are presented in Table 1. The table reflects correlations at time two. It is interesting
to note that the IPIP scale, Gough’s adjective checklist, unusual uses and also creative self-efficacy and willingness to
take risks are all positively correlated with the perception that creativity is important. Thus, perhaps those who view
themselves as creative or have been told they are creative view creativity as more important than those who do not view
themselves as creative. Another interesting correlation (though only marginally significant) is between importance of
creativity and managerial experience. This might suggest that those class members with more managerial experience
view creativity as more important than those who have less managerial experience.
92 T. Dewett, M.L. Gruys / Thinking Skills and Creativity 2 (2007) 85–95

Table 1
Correlations for all variablesa
Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

1. Importance of creativity
2. Creative self-efficacy .70**
3. Willingness to take risks .42** .35*
4. IPIP creativity measure .46** .42** .18
5. Gough’s adjective checklist .49** .55** .37** .44**
6. Ideational fluency 1 .32* .30* .16 .32* .37*
7. Ideational fluency 2 .14 .13 .04 .14 .31* .22
8. Ideational fluency 3 .13 .24 .13 .00 .24 .61** −.02
9. Importance of journaling −.12 .03 .08 .02 −.13 .06 −.15 .09
10. Enjoyment of journaling .00 .20 .21 .16 .10 .14 .06 −.02 .39**
11. Journal usefulness .09 .13 .07 .20 .20 .23 .09 .08 .53** .67**
12. Gender −.05 −.02 .03 −.30* −.00 −.18 −.06 .07 .14 .03 .11
13. Age .14 .08 .27† .26† .21 .23 .26† .08 .11 .06 .03 .05
14. Managerial experience .27† .12 .11 .38** .30* .24 .21 −.07 −.03 .01 .05 −.11 .72**

N = 49.
a Correlations presented in this table reflect time two data collected at the end of the course.
* p < .05.
** p < .01.
† p < .10.

Descriptive statistics for the study variables before and after the MBA course are shown in Table 2. The changes
in the mean scores for the measures shed light on the research questions for the study, which asked whether an MBA
course can raise students’ assessment of the importance of creativity for organizations, improve students’ creativity
levels, and also increase creative self-efficacy. Results suggest that the means for the measures were higher after the
course than before, and for most of the variables, the standard deviations were smaller after the course than before.
This suggests that, in general, the level of creativity and the students’ perceptions of how creative they were improved
over the course of the class.
In order to more closely examine whether or not the changes seen in the scores from before the course to after
the course were meaningful, paired sample t-tests were conducted. Paired sample tests are relevant when the same
individuals have taken the same measures at two different time periods. Table 3 presents the results of the t-tests for
all pairs of tests.
Results suggest that there was a significant improvement in student scores for creativity (as measured by the Gough
adjective checklist, the IPIP creativity measure, and all three measures of ideational fluency), willingness to take risks,
and creative self-efficacy from pre-course to post-course. In addition, the assessment of the importance of journaling
also saw a significant change, with students viewing the process of journaling as more important following the class
than before the class. Though the students did assess the importance of creativity in the workplace to be higher at the
end of the course than at the beginning, the difference was only marginally significant.

Table 2
Mean scores for measures before and after MBA creativity course
Variable Mean-entry scores S.D. Mean-exit scores S.D.

1. Importance of creativity 5.86 .98 6.16 .87

2. Creative self-efficacy 5.30 .92 5.63 .68
3. Willingness to take risks 5.18 1.10 5.54 .84
4. IPIP creativity measure 3.84 .65 4.05 .57
5. Gough’s adjective checklist 4.94 4.46 6.57 3.78
6. Ideational fluency 1 8.66 3.54 11.80 4.17
7. Ideational fluency 2 17.28 4.85 20.03 8.72
8. Ideational fluency 3 6.40 3.36 9.50 4.82
9. Importance of journaling 4.68 1.07 5.62 .89

N = 49.
 T. Dewett, M.L. Gruys / Thinking Skills and Creativity 2 (2007) 85–95 93

Table 3
Results of paired samples t-tests
Variable pair t-Statistic Significance

1. Importance of creativity −1.74† .089

2. Creative self-efficacy −2.86** .006
3. Willingness to take risks −2.45* .018
4. IPIP creativity measure −3.87** .000
5. Gough’s adjective checklist −3.49** .001
6. Ideational fluency 1 −7.04** .000
7. Ideational fluency 2 −2.43* .019
8. Ideational fluency 3 −5.45** .000
9. Importance of journaling −13.25** .000

N = 49.
* p < .05.
** p < .01.
† p < .10.

The last research question asked what types of classroom tools and approaches can facilitate the improvement of
creativity, creative self-efficacy, and the perception of the importance of creativity. Based on the results that indicated
significant changes in the mean scores noted above, the unconventional methods used in this class appear to have
facilitated these important changes.
It is important to note that we cannot be certain that the class and its activities are wholly responsible for the changes
in levels of creativity and perceptions about creativity and journaling in the students (since there was no control group).
However, this study certainly establishes the strong likelihood that creativity can be enhanced through activities and
courses such as those described here.
Additional findings pertain to the items that assessed the degree to which students enjoyed the journaling process
and felt that journaling helped them think more deeply and critically about the course material (these items were
administered on the post-test only). The mean for the level of enjoyment was 5.7 (S.D. = .93) on the seven point rating
scale, suggesting that students enjoyed the journaling process. The mean for the item measuring the usefulness of
journaling was 6.0 (S.D. = .76) on the 7 point scale, suggesting that students believe that journaling helped them to
think more deeply and critically about creativity and about the class content.

4. Discussion

This paper offers a detailed description of a graduate business elective course focusing on creativity and innovation
in organizations. Overall, our analysis of student data provided at the start and end of the course indicated strong
support for our research questions. Specifically, exposure to the course marginally raised the students’ perceptions of
the importance of creativity for organizational success. In our view, this finding is noteworthy given the high initial
average score at the beginning of the term (5.86 on a 7 point scale). In addition, the students’ belief in their creative
ability rose significantly. Both of these findings add empirical support to Anderson’s (2006) assertion that creativity-
related MBA courses can enhance student creativity and the value they place on creativity. More importantly, on five
measures of personal creativity, the students showed significant improvement from time one to time two. Finally, while
our data cannot directly link the use of journals to increased creativity, the data does support the contention that students
see strong value in the activity and enjoyed journaling in the course.
The practical implications of this study are clear. The importance of creativity and innovation in industry is increas-
ing and graduate business studies can help prepare future managers for the challenges involved in supporting these
goals. Thus, we applaud the trend noted by Selden and Vardis (2005) indicating a rise in courses of this type and
call for additional professors and MBA programs to champion their development. Another clear implication is that
multimodal approaches and experiential activities contribute to student learning by stimulating student engagement
with the material. Not only do these methods stimulate positive affect, but also our results suggest the may actually
improve creativity and self-perceptions of creativity.
94 T. Dewett, M.L. Gruys / Thinking Skills and Creativity 2 (2007) 85–95

Of course, the study is not without limitations. For this exploratory research we utilized a small sample. In addition,
while the measures employed appear sound, further empirical support is warranted. In addition, we have no data on
the degree to which the course influenced subsequent behaviors at work. Finally, given that only one professor was
involved in teaching the course, we were not able to discern how the results, if at all, were explained by the professor
as opposed to the structure and activities described in this paper.
Building on these issues, several areas for future research deserve attention. Larger samples and more rigorously
tested measures will be welcome. Importantly, longitudinal research linking courses of this sort to subsequent behavior
at work is vital. Similar to the case of training, if there is no “transfer of learning” (Herold, Davis, Fedor, & Parsons,
2002) to the workplace, efforts in the classroom may be futile. While we believe such a transfer is very plausible
for many subjects in the current study, this assertion must be empirically assessed. Finally, the introduction of more
rigorously evaluated group tasks will improve the similarity between the classroom environment and the organizational
environment, increasing realism and potentially aiding the transfer of learning.
Creativity and innovation are not only the cornerstones of organizational success, they are topics that students find
interesting and relevant. This study joins a small group of others which have begun to examine these topics in MBA
classrooms. We hope that our work will stimulate still further study.

References

Albrecht, T. L., & Hall, B. J. (1991). Facilitating talk about new ideas: The role of personal relationships in organizational innovation. Communication
Monographs, 58, 273–288.
Amabile, T. M., Barsade, S. G., Mueller, J. S., & Staw, B. (2005). Affect and creativity at work. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50, 367–403.
Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management
Journal, 39, 1154–1184.
Ames, M., & Runco, M. A. (2005). Predicting entrepreneurship from ideation and divergent thinking. Creativity and Innovation Management, 14,
311–315.
Anderson, J. (1992). Journal writing: The promise and the reality. Journal of Reading, 36, 304–309.
Anderson, L. (2006). Building confidence in creativity: MBA students. Marketing Education Review, 16, 91–96.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191–215.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1991). Human agency: The rhetoric and the reality. American Psychologist, 46, 157–162.
Basadur, M. (1994). Managing creativity. In M. A. Runco (Ed.), Problem finding, problem solving, and creativity. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In Multilevel theory,
research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions. San Francisco, CA, USA: Jossey-Bass., 349–381.
Boud, D. (2001). Using journal writing to enhance reflective practice. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 90, 9–17.
Boud, D., Keogh, R., & Walker, D. (1985). Promoting reflection in learning: A model. In D. Boud, R. Keogh, & D. Walker (Eds.), Reflection:
Turning experience into learning. East Brunswick, NJ: Nichols.
Cantor, J. A. (1997). Experiential learning in higher education. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education.
Clinchy, B. M. (1995). A connected approach to the teaching of developmental psychology. Teaching of Psychology, 22, 100–104.
Cole, P. (1994). A cognitive model of journal writing. In Proceedings of selected research presentations at the 1994 national convention of the
Association for Educational Communications and Technology.
Connor-Greene, P. A. (2000). Making connections: Evaluation the effectiveness of journal writing in enhancing student learning. Teaching of
Psychology, 27(1), 44–46.
Cozby, P. C. (1973). Self-disclosure: A literature review. Psychological Bulletin, 79, 73–91.
Dew, D. R., & Waggoner, J. E. (1993). New models for reaching diverse learners. In Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association of
Teacher Educators.
Dewett, T. (2006). The role of risk in employee creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior.
Driver, M. (2001, September/October). Fostering creativity in business education: Developing creative classroom environments to provide students
with critical workplace competencies. Journal of Education for Business, 28–33.
Gangemi, J. (2006). Creativity comes to B-School. Business Week online, March 26. http://www.businessweek.com/bschools/content/mar2006/
bs20060326 8436 bs001.htm.
Gilbert, F. W., Prenshaw, P. J., & Ivy, T. T. (1996). A preliminary assessment of the effectiveness of creativity training in marketing. Journal of
Marketing Education, 18, 46–56.
Gist, M. E. (1989). The influence of training method on self-efficacy and idea generation among managers. Personnel Psychology, 42, 787–805.
Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M. C., Cloninger, C. R., et al. (2006). The International Personality Item Pool and
the future of public-domain personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 84–96.
Goleman, D. (1998). Working with emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam.
Gough, H. G. (1979). A creative personality scale for the adjective check list. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1398–1405.
 T. Dewett, M.L. Gruys / Thinking Skills and Creativity 2 (2007) 85–95 95

Herold, D. M., Davis, W., Fedor, D. B., & Parsons, C. K. (2002). Dispositional influences on transfer of learning in multistage training programs.
Personnel Psychology, 55, 851–869.
Hervani, A., & Helms, M. M. (2004). Increasing creativity in economics: The service learning project. Journal of Education for Business, 267–274.
Hettich, P. (1990). Journal writing: Old fare or nouvelle cuisine. Teaching of Psychology, 17, 36–39.
Hiemstra, R. (2001). Uses and benefits of journal writing. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 90, 19–26.
Hubbs, D. L., & Brand, C. F. (2005). The paper mirror: Understanding reflective journaling. Journal of Experimental Education, 28, 60–71.
Jarvis, P. (2001). Journal writing in higher education. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 90, 79–86.
Joshi, M. P., Davis, E. B., Kathuria, R., & Weidner, C. K. (2005). Experiential learning processes: Exploring teaching and learning of strategic
management framework through the winter survival exercise. Journal of Management Education, 28, 672–695.
Kabanoff, B., & Bottger, P. (1991). Effectiveness of creativity training and its relation to selected personality factors. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 12, 235–248.
Kayes, D. C. (2002). Experiential learning and its critics: Preserving the role of experience in management learning and education. Academy of
Management Learning & Education, 1, 137–149.
Kelley, R. (1999). How to be a star at work. New York: Times Books.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2005). Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing experiential learning in higher education. Academy of Management
Learning & Education, 4, 193–212.
Kolb, D. A., & Fry, R. (1975). Toward an applied theory of experiential learning. In C. Cooper (Ed.), Theories of group process. London: Wiley.
Kulhavy, R. W., Stock, W. A., Peterson, S. E., Pridemore, D. R., & Klein, J. D. (1992). Using maps to retrieve text: A test of conjoint retention.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 17, 56–70.
Mayer, R. E. (1999). Designing instruction for constructivist learning. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models, Vol. II:
A new paradigm of instructional theory. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Mayer, R. E., Moreno, R., Boir, M., & Vagge, S. (1999). Maximizing constructivist learning from multimedia communications by minimizing
cognitive load. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 638–643.
McGregor, J., Arndt, M., Berner, R., Rowley, I., Hall, K., Edmondson, G., et al. (2006). The world’s most innovative companies. Business Week
online, April 24. http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06 17/b3981401.htm.
McIntyre, F. S., Hite, R. E., & Rickard, M. K. (2003). Individual characteristics and creativity in the marketing classroom: Exploratory insights.
Journal of Marketing Education, 25, 143–149.
Nussbaum, B., & Tiplady, R. (2005). Where MBAs Learn The Art of Blue-Skying. Business Week, April 18, Issue 3929.
O’Connell, T. S., & Dyment, J. E. (2003). Effects of a workshop on perceptions of journaling in university outdoor education field courses: An
exploratory study. The Journal of Experiential Education, 26, 75–87.
Omarzu, J. (2000). A disclosure decision model: Determining how and when individuals will self-disclose. Personality and Social Psychological
Review, 4, 174–185.
Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. I. (2000). The knowing–doing gap. Harvard Business School Press.
Pinard, M. C., & Allio, R. J. (2005). Innovations in the classroom: Improving the creativity of MBA students. Strategy & Leadership, 33, 49–51.
Redmond, M. R., Mumford, M. D., & Teach, R. (1993). Putting creativity to work: Effects of leader behavior on subordinate creativity. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 55, 120–151.
Runco, M. (2004). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 657–687.
Selden, G. L., & Vardis, H. (2005). Creativity and innovation as a competitive advantage: Are B-schools doing enough? Working paper. Kennesaw
State University.
Shalley, C. E. (1995). Effects of coaction, expected evaluation, and goal setting on creativity and productivity. Academy of Management Journal,
38, 483–503.
Shalley, C. E., Gilson, L. L., & Blum, T. C. (2000). Matching creativity requirements and the work environment: Effects on satisfaction and intentions
to leave. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 215–223.
Shalley, C. E., Zhou, J., & Oldham, G. R. (2004). The effects of personal and contextual characteristics on creativity: Where should we go from
here? Journal of Management, 30, 933–958.
Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 420–428.
Stemler, S. E. (2004). A comparison of consensus, consistency, and measurement approaches to estimating interrater reliability. Practical Assessment,
Research & Evaluation, 9 (4). Retrieved from http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=9&n=4.
Tennant, M. (1997). Psychology and adult learning (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2002). Creative self-efficacy: Its potential antecedents and relationship to creative performance. Academy of Management
Journal, 45, 1137–1148.
Torrance, E. P. (1968). A longitudinal examination of the fourth-grade slump in creativity. Gifted Child Quarterly, 12, 195–199.
Wynder, M. (2004). Facilitating creativity in management accounting: A computerized simulation. Accounting Education, 13, 150–231.
Zhou, J., & George, J. M. (2001). When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: Encouraging the expression of voice. Academy of Management
Journal, 44, 682–696.
Zhou, J., & Shalley, C. E. (2003). Research on employee creativity: A critical review and directions for future research. In J. Martocchio (Ed.),
Research in personnel and human resource management (pp. 165–217). Oxford, England: Elsevier.