The intellectual history of the science of creativity
The scientific approach to creativity did not arise out of nowhere. It is the result of more than eighty years of research and practical experience. The roots of this discipline lie with pioneers such as Alex Osborn, who laid the foundations for the brainstorming method in the 1930s. Osborn realized that the biggest barrier to creativity was not a lack of ideas, but premature criticism that nipped new thoughts in the bud. This led to the development of the Osborn-Parnes Creative Problem Solving (CPS) model, further refined by Sidney Parnes and Ruth Noller at the then Center for Studies in Creativity.
The evolution of these models has led to the current CPS 6.1™ framework, developed by Dr. Scott Isaksen. This framework provides a structured methodology for exploring challenges, generating ideas, and preparing for action. It is a fundamentally different vision of organizational development, in which creativity is not seen as a flash of genius, but as a discipline that can be facilitated and scaled up. In the Benelux, this approach has been further popularized by experts such as Luc De Schryver, who introduced the systemic vision of innovation in the Dutch-speaking region.
Making the invisible visible: The Situational Outlook Questionnaire (SOQ)
One of the most powerful diagnostic tools in the o2c2 toolkit is the Situational Outlook Questionnaire (SOQ). The SOQ is designed to measure the organizational climate for creativity and change. [4, 8] It is important to distinguish between culture and climate. Whereas culture refers to the deep-rooted values, traditions, and beliefs that change only very slowly, climate refers to the observable patterns of behavior in the everyday work environment. The climate is the experience of everyday life in the workplace; it is the atmosphere that determines whether people dare to use their creative potential.
The scientific value of the SOQ lies in the fact that it is based on more than 55 years of research. The instrument measures nine crucial dimensions that determine whether an environment stimulates or hinders innovation. By quantifying these dimensions, leaders gain an objective picture of the “invisible” barriers in their organization, departments, and teams.
The nine dimensions of the innovation climate
The nine dimensions of the SOQ provide a multidimensional picture of how employees experience their working environment. Below is a description of these dimensions and their impact on the innovation process.
Challenge and Involvement: The extent to which people are emotionally connected to the goals and vision of the organization. High scores indicate a climate in which people are energetic and committed.
Freedom: The degree of autonomy and independence that people experience. This determines whether employees feel they have the space to take initiative and define their own career paths.
Trust and Openness: The emotional security in relationships. A climate of trust enables people to share ideas without fear of ridicule or rejection.
Idea Time: The amount of time available for elaborating and developing new concepts. In a climate with high time pressure, creativity often dies an early death.
Playfulness and Humor: The presence of spontaneity and ease. A relaxed atmosphere lowers the threshold for unconventional thinking and experimentation.
Conflict: The presence of personal and emotional tensions (negative dimension). High scores indicate friction that distracts the focus of work to interpersonal problems.
Idea support: The way new ideas are received. Are they immediately shot down (“we’ve already tried that”) or are they given a chance to grow?
Debate: The occurrence of substantive differences of opinion and discussions. Unlike conflict, debate is constructive and helps to refine ideas.
Risk-taking: The willingness to deal with uncertainty. To what extent does the organization dare to leap into the unknown without every failure being immediately punished?
Benchmark your own climate
The SOQ enables organizations to benchmark their own climate against innovative, average, and stagnant organizations. Longitudinal research shows that innovative companies score significantly higher than stagnant companies on virtually all positive dimensions. The table below illustrates these differences on a scale of 0 to 300.
| SOQ Dimension |
Innovative Organisations |
Average
Organisations |
Stagnant Organisations |
| Chellenging/Involvement | 238 | 190 | 163 |
| Freedom | 210 | 174 | 153 |
| Trust | 178 | 160 | 128 |
| Idea Time | 148 | 111 | 97 |
| Playfulness/Humor | 230 | 169 | 140 |
| Conflict (Negative) | 78 | 88 | 140 |
| Ideeënsteun | 183 | 164 | 108 |
| Debat | 158 | 128 | 105 |
| Risico-nemen | 195 | 112 | 53 |
Source: Compiled data based on SOQ standard groups.
These figures show a clear causal relationship: the healthier the climate, the greater the chance of commercial success and product innovation. This is crucial for a leader, because it translates the abstract term “innovation culture” into measurable behaviors that can be directly managed. It is the transition from guessing to knowing.
Identifying individual preferences: The VIEW Assessment
Whereas the SOQ examines the environment, the VIEW assessment focuses on the individual and their preferences when solving problems. VIEW stands for An Assessment of Problem Solving Style and is a powerful, scientifically validated tool that has been used for over 20 years to gain insight into how people instinctively deal with change and complex challenges.
The fundamental principle of VIEW is that everyone’s problem-solving style is value-neutral. There is no “right” way to solve problems; there are only different ways. By making these preferences visible, teams can turn the natural tensions that arise when working together into synergy.
VIEW looks at individuals’ problem-solving preferences in three key areas, each representing a different part of the creative process.
This dimension assesses an individual’s response to boundaries, rules, and organization when faced with new challenges. The Explorers and Developers are at opposite ends of this spectrum.
• Explorers enjoy breaking through systems. They find structures restrictive and prefer radical, out-of-the-box solutions. They are often the ones who come up with new ideas that change the rules of the game.
• On the other hand, structure helps Developers. They focus on small improvements and ensure that ideas are feasible and usable within the current rules. They are very precise and work quickly.
This dimension examines the tendency to process information in problem-solving contexts. In this section, we discuss internal and external processors.
• External processors prefer to talk to others in order to think. They like to talk about their ideas out loud and get immediate feedback to improve them.
• Internal processors think things over in silence and need time to reflect before sharing their ideas. They want to think things through in peace and quiet before coming up with a plan.
The third dimension concerns the standards people use to make decisions. People-oriented and task-oriented decision-makers are diametrically opposed in this respect.
• Decision-makers who prefer to consider the impact on people first prioritize relationships and harmony. They think: “How will this decision affect the team members?”
• Task-oriented decision-makers prefer to focus on logic, reason, and objective standards. Their main goal is to find the best or most efficient solution, even if the emotional impact is not as important.
Statistics
Impressive statistics support the psychometric strength of VIEW. The instrument shows a considerable degree of internal consistency, supported by a norm group of more than 80,000 respondents.
VIEW scale. Orientation to. Way of. Way of Deciding
Change. ProcessingData
Average score 73.80 30.59 33.47
Standard deviation 16.60 9.28 8.57
Cronbach’s alpha 0.88 0.85 0.84
This information is very useful for a team. A team leader will adjust the way meetings are set up to give internal people the time they need to think, when he or she knows that most people in the team are internal people. This prevents useful information from being lost simply because the process was wrong. The scientifically based method differs from a regular coaching program because it converts these “human challenges” into performance-enhancing factors.
The difference in results between the scientific approach and traditional coaching
A frequently asked question is how this method differs from traditional management coaching. The answer lies in the shift from subjective intuition to objective measurement and systemic integration. Traditional coaching often emphasizes individual and psychological barriers in a way that is detached from the organizational context or tangible innovation results.
The problems with traditional methods
Many traditional methods do not work well because they do not take individual needs into account. They use “one-size-fits-all” plans that do not consider how the organization functions. Other problems include:
• Short-term focus: People are looking for quick wins to boost morale, but they are not addressing the major structural issues.
• No accountability: It is difficult to demonstrate that a coaching program works without clear measurement criteria.
• Treating symptoms: To get employees more involved in the company, companies offer perks, but they do not address the real problem, which is a poor working environment.
The o2c2 approach, on the other hand, is based on evidence. This means that every action is based on data from the SOQ and VIEW. Instead of guessing why a team is underperforming, the scores on dimensions such as “Idea Support” or “Risk Taking” are examined.
The scientific approach vs. traditional coaching: The difference in results
One of the most frequently asked questions is how this methodology differs from traditional management coaching. The answer lies in the shift from subjective intuition to objective measurement and systemic integration. Traditional coaching often focuses on the individual and psychological barriers in a way that is detached from the organizational context or actual innovation output.
The Pitfalls of Conventional Methods
Many traditional approaches suffer from a lack of personalization. They use “one-size-fits-all” plans that do not take into account the specific dynamics of the organization. Other limitations include:
- Short-term focus: Quick wins are sought to boost morale, but fundamental structural problems are not addressed.
- Lack of accountability: without clear metrics, it is difficult to prove the effectiveness of a coaching program.
- Symptom management: attempts are made to increase employee engagement by offering perks, while the real cause — an unfavorable working environment — remains untouched.
In contrast, o2c2’s approach is evidence-driven. This means that every intervention is based on data obtained from the SOQ and VIEW. Instead of guessing why a team is underperforming, the scores are analyzed on dimensions such as ‘Idea Support’ or ‘Risk Taking’.
The Power of the Systematic Method
The scientific method integrates three dimensions: the individual (VIEW), the environment (SOQ), and the process (CPS 6.1™). When these three are aligned, a synergistic effect is created. Studies show that teams facilitated in this way generate up to 400-600% more ideas and develop 250% more high-quality solutions.
This is achieved through:
- Metacognitive optimization: teams learn not only how to solve problems, but also how to guide their own thought processes.
- Data-driven communication: a common language emerges for discussing differences, which increases psychological safety.
- Structural assurance: innovation becomes an integral part of daily operations through the use of KPI monitoring and evidence-based decision-making.
Innovation and Employee Engagement: A Causal Relationship
An often overlooked benefit of a scientifically grounded innovation climate is its direct impact on employee engagement. The global decline in engagement and productivity is a worrying trend, often caused by employees who do not feel supported in their role or who do not feel they have room for their own ideas.
The SOQ dimensions ‘Idea Support’ and ‘Freedom’ are directly correlated with intrinsic motivation. When employees feel that their suggestions are taken seriously and that they have the autonomy to take initiative, their proactive participation increases. This creates a self-reinforcing positive spiral: a favorable climate leads to more innovative behavior, which in turn increases employee engagement and well-being.
Furthermore, the scientific approach helps to manage the “dark side of creativity.” Innovative employees can sometimes unintentionally provoke envy or hostility among colleagues who see them as a threat to the status quo. By presenting innovation as a collective dynamic—supported by objective data on everyone’s unique contribution (VIEW)—this friction is reduced and social cohesion is strengthened.
Conclusion: from intuition to impact
The science of creativity offers a robust framework for making the previously invisible forces within an organization measurable and controllable. By using tools such as the Situational Outlook Questionnaire (SOQ) and the VIEW assessment, organizations can move away from an ad hoc approach to innovation and build a sustainable culture of renewal.
The most important insights for organizations that want to take this path are:
- Measure the climate, not just the culture: focus on observable behavior that directly influences innovation.
- Value cognitive diversity: use VIEW to recognize employees’ unique problem-solving styles and deploy them productively.
- Opt for evidence-based interventions: Stop “one-size-fits-all” coaching and base decisions on objective data.
- Embed innovation systemically: Integrate creativity into the DNA of the organization through structured processes such as CPS 6.1.
By embracing this scientifically grounded approach, organizations transform their teams into effective problem solvers who not only tackle today’s challenges but also capitalize on tomorrow’s unique opportunities. The result is an agile, resilient organization that is ready for the future—a place where creativity is not a mystery but a measurable driver of success.