Nida Mačerauskienė


Creativity is considered as an intangible characteristic that drives business to success. Creative persons play an important role in fostering both technical and social innovation and progress. Contemporary higher education graduates are expected to possess soft skills including creative thinking, problem-solving, critical thinking, flexibility, motivation, positivity and others. Therefore, the research was designed with the aim to enhance the understanding of the concepts of creativity and creative thinking and to address the question of how creativity and the process which we use when we come up with a new idea can be enhanced within and by higher education institutions. This study examines a creativity-driven study environment to promote a safe, non-judgmental atmosphere and the Creative Platform process meant to develop creativity during regular practical tasks to make it an involuntary reflex and to discover new viewpoints, perspectives, and solutions to any business problem. The framework of the research is based on the analysis of literature and experimental research methods. The results revealed that using special techniques, purposeful creative thinking can be developed beyond creativity subject. Moreover, interdisciplinarity teams lead to better solutions.


business studies; creativity; Creativity Platform; creative thinking

Full Text:



Guilford, J.P. (1967). Some theoretical views of creativity. In H. Helson & W. Bevan (Eds.), Contemporary approaches to psychology (419-459) Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.

Kintsch W. (1998). Comprehension. A Paradigm for Cognition. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Kozbelt, A., Beghetto, R.A., & Runco, M.A. (2010). Theories of creativity. In J. C. Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of creativity (20-47). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lewis, M. & Moultrie, J. (2005). The organizational innovation laboratory. Creativity and Innovation Management, 14(1), 73- 83.

MacKinnon, D. W. (1962). The nature and nurture of creative talent. American Psychologist, 17, 484 – 495.

Mačerauskienė, N. & Turčinskaitė-Balčiūnienė, A. (2017). Do Differences Make a difference? The Case Based on Creativity Platform. Retrieved from

Plucker, A.J., Beghetto, R., & Dow, G. (2004). Why isn’t creativity more important to educational psychologists? Potentials, pitfalls, and future directions in creativity research. Educational Psychologist, 39(2), 83–96. DOI:

Rhodes, M. (1961). An analysis of creativity. Phi Delta Kappan.

Soliman, S. (2005). Systems and creative thinking. Cairo, Egypt: Center for Advancement of Postgraduate Studies and Research in Engineering Sciences.

Sternberg, R.J. (2006). The nature of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 18(1), 87-98. DOI:

Sternberg, R.J. & Kaufman, J. C. (2010). Constrains of creativity: Obvious and not so obvious. In J.C. Kaufman and R.J. Sternberg (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity (467-482). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Tardif, T.Z. & Sternberg, R. J. (1988). What do we know about creativity? In The Nature of Creativity, ed., Sternberg R. J., chapter 17 (429-440). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Wallas, G. (1926). The art of thought. London: Jonathan Cape

Zhu, Y. & Bargiela-Chiappini, F. (2013). Balancing Emic and Etic: Situated Learning and Ethnography of Communication in Cross-Cultural Management Education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 12(3), 380-395.



  • There are currently no refbacks.