What is political creativity, why it matters, how it works, and how we can foster it

What is creativity in politics Dreamocracy (c) Alex Lee Unsplash

Understatement of the decade: democracy is facing an existential crisis. From MAGA supporters storming Capitol Hill to the documented erosion of support for democracy as we know it, representative democracy is being challenged and needs to reinvent itself, around the world. We, and many others, have written extensively about this. But what are the key factors that can contribute to solving this democratic crisis?

At Dreamocracy, we believe that nurturing groups’ ability to produce original and better solutions is crucial to addressing the challenges facing democracy.

How did we reach that conclusion? This is what this article explains, by defining what political creativity is, why it matters to democracy, and how it can be fostered. It thus presents what we believe in deeply.

→ Also worth reading:

What is collective political creativity?

Political creativity is an ability that groups or individuals have, to produce solutions to public problems that are both useful and original. This says it all, but it’s worth examining each of these elements in greater detail.

We are aiming, especially when talking about complex public problems, for actual solutions, not just ideas. The ability to develop solutions is the start. Ultimately, what we’re aiming for is the implementation of those solutions. Once our ideas see the light of day, thy become innovations. These innovations can be of various kinds. We need social innovations, i.e. innovations that modify social relations and that rely on the involvement of individuals on the ground. We also need policy innovations,i.e. new policies that address current issues. To foster those, we also want governance innovations, i.e. novel and democratic ways of gathering preferences and making decisions, and more specifically, democratic innovations, i.e. governance innovations that foster more democratic forms of decision making.

Creativity, as an ability to solve problems, is a form of intelligence. We all display different forms of creativity, just like we have different forms of intelligence.

While Collective Intelligence is the capacity of groups to outperform individuals in problem-solving, innovation, prediction, creativity, and other cognitive tasks, collective creativity is the ability that groups have to both more novel and more impactful solutions than the members of the group that form it.

Collective creativity is therefore a type, a subset of collective intelligence. To be specific, what we’re aiming for at Dreamocracy is collective political creativity. Just like there is collective political intelligence, which Prof Eva Sørensen defines as “a realistic and deep understanding of what the disagreements are, what it would require to make decisions that satisfy several views, and what the costs would be of making decisions that produce losers”, we see collective political creativity as the ability of groups to produce novel and useful solutions to public challenges.

→ Also worth reading:

This is different from group creativity in general. A team at a major sports brand coming up with an innovative type of sneakers exercises its collective creativity. On the other hand, when citizens work together with policy makers in Wallonia’s first Deliberative Committee to produce new governance recommendations, they mobilize their collective political creativity.

As mentioned before, creativity is the precursor – think chemistry – to solutions that are both useful and original. The solutions produced should of course first be useful: over time, any “new” solution will only be acknowledged as “innovative”, and the group as creative, if it is superior to others in solving the problem at hand.

But they should also be original. What is originality in a political context? People often mistake originality with highly imaginative, even whacky approaches. Yes, imagination is a key ingredient that will enable creativity, as imagination allows us to visualize new possibilities, new worlds, new configurations. And “out of the box”, unconventional thinking is often very welcome. However, that originality need not be frivolous. What matters is being original in a specific context. Originality is relative. A solution may be new in a certain context, but have been tried in a different geography, in a different field of interest, or in the past. For instance when public authorities decided to introduce participatory budgeting in Porto Alegre in Brazil in 1989, that was unprecedented, although co-management of finances is something that cooperatives do routinely. By the time Portugal organized a nation-wide participatory budget in 2017, the approach of participatory budgeting in itself was no longer original, with hundreds of cities practicing it, but no one had tried this at the level of a whole nation. “It is the first nationwide public participatory budget in the world, enhancing its originality,” commented the Observatory of Public Sector Innovation.

Final word: being creative in politics does not equate with being loose with laws and regulations. Thinking “outside the box” of received wisdom is not an invitation to break the law! Yes, in common parlance, one might talk lightly of “creative” forms of public accounting for instance. This, however, does not meet the essential criteria of being both original and useful.

However, originality and impact of the solutions adopted are two key dimensions characterizing creative groups and the innovations they introduce. But they are not sufficient in the specific context of public affairs.

Creativity and politics: oxymoron or perfect match?

When team members present what Dreamocracy does, people often react by saying “well, political creativity, that’s quite an oxymoron.” Is creativity in politics an aspiration or a reality? In fact, as has been documented, there is plenty of creativity in politics that goes unseen, probably because it’s difficult for the media to capture.

So, how do we recognise creativity in the public policy field when we come across it? What qualifies as a “creative” public policy, policy maker or solution? In order to nurture our collective creativity, we have to understand it better.

In our experience, a public sector innovation (policy, governance or other) should tick all of the following boxes, otherwise people and history will not remember it as having been creative. Beyond being both original and useful, it should be:

Efficient. If it’s new and impactful, but is more costly (financially and otherwise) than previous approaches, it may not be seen as creative.
On time. Being right too late is pointless. A creative political system addresses issues with better and more efficient solutions in time.
Agile and persistent, because some new solutions may have come too early and need to be adapted over time to fit new circumstances.
Transversal, i.e. it should minimize collateral damage and maximize collateral benefits, as opposed to linear thinking that addresses one issue but creates problems elsewhere (think of propositions that look like “too many immigrants / build wall”).
Persistent in its benefits, v.s. shortsighted quick fixes.
Well received. The best solution in the world will be pointless, if it is not understood and if it is ultimately rejected by the relevant stakeholders.

→ Also worth reading:

Why do we need creativity in politics?

Our motto at Dreamocracy is “Collective creativity for the common good.” Look back at the past 5,000 years of history: finding the right mode of governance that fosters the common good is no easy task. Why should collective creativity be a key answer?

In these troubled times, the ability to produce novel and more impactful solutions is more essential than ever. The reasons for this are many, from the delegation of rote tasks to automation, to the accelerating pace of change and the increasing complexity of public affairs and business. They all demand original and impactful responses to novel challenges, far more frequently than ever before.

Meanwhile, demagogues of all hues are claiming that, by virtue of being self-proclaimed outsiders, they have the ability to think outside the box. They portend to be more in line with people’s aspirations. To have more effective, simple solutions to complex problems, even though they too are often still part of the homogeneous community that is modern day politics.

Understanding how to foster collective creativity to better tackle public problems is essential to addressing the core challenges that democracy is facing:

Input legitimacy: we need to be more creative in finding ways to listen to and take into account people’s input in public decision making.
Throughput legitimacy: more generally, we need to reinvent our modes of governance, as representative democracy is largely contested.
Output legitimacy: people expect better, faster policies that tackle their needs.
Emotions legitimacy: governments need to find new ways to address the deeper aspirations and fears of citizens.

If we’re not creative on each of the above four dimensions of public trust, we leave the field open to demagogues and populists, who, in our view, address real concerns that people have, but with propositions that are neither original nor useful.

You might therefore have noticed that there has been a lot of talk of “innovation”, “new approaches”, “innovative solutions”, “new ideas” lately in the public sector. Yet, many doubt that policy makers are wired for creativity and innovation. In fact, public administrations give priority to stability. Parties have become machines to support or oppose governing majoriti

es and cultivate their market share of votes. Lobbies resist change, sometimes very effectively, and rarely promote progressive policies. Lawyers and economists, while well-equipped to understand and promote change, are too often employed to justify and support the status quo. Think tanks have a particular role to play to

foster creative thinking, but few aim for true renewal of policies. Philanthropists can – and some do – play a shining role in promoting boldness and supporting experiments and innovation, but few have yet seized on the agenda of policy innovation in the same way as the Bloomberg foundation for instance, that funds the yearly

Mayors’ Challenge.

All in all, nobody is immediately responsible, but the fact is that creativity is not at the heart of these actors’ priorities. This stands in sharp contrast with a large number of companies and civil society organizations that have geared their staff and processes towards innovation. If creativity can be mobilized to invent more effective vacuum cleaners, why shouldn’t it be similarly stimulated to tackle long-term unemployment, for instance?

→ Also worth reading:

How can we foster political creativity?

When thinking of creativity, most people imagine a room full of post-it notes on the wall and a fun session that leads to ideas that will most likely not be followed through. People believe that it comes in a “Eureka” moment. That it is the product of lone geniuses. That some people are creative and others not and that it can’t be taught. That it is stimulated by financial incentives. That a good “brainstorm” session is enough to generate new ideas. That it thrives on peace and is harmed by conflict and constraints. That having a good idea is the key step, or even enough to win minds over.

There are many such myths about creativity, also in public affairs. Understanding properly what creativity entails in the field of public policies entails a whole new way of doing politics. One that is collaborative, open to different types of expertise, founded in shared solidarity, that sees constraints, dissent and even conflict as opportunities, and that considers societal issues in a holistic fashion.

The 7 key stages of creativity in politics – How to unleash collective creativity

In his “handbook of political creativity”, Stephen Boucher reviewed 23 case studies that illustrate different ways of fostering a creative process in the field of public affairs. Each case study proves that there is tremendous creativity in the political field at all levels of government, despite many obstacles. However, such creativity too often emerges despite, not thanks to the political system as it currently stands.

→ Also worth reading:

The 22 cases presented in the handbook have in common 5 key steps that should be followed in order to produce better outcomes, beyond the ideation phase which is only one of the 5 steps.

Clarifying what the issue is and agreeing on a definition of the problem at hand. Too often the various stakeholders rush to discussing possible solutions and get stuck on ideological grounds, without having properly defined the issue, how it relates to other issues, what are its different dimensions, etc.
Then comes the idea generation phase. People usually associate this phase with the creative process, as a whole. It’s only a part. A brainstorming session has never solved a social crisis. This phase involves first multiplying options, and then selecting among this enlarged pool of options.
Testing ideas out, experimenting, prototyping, and, most importantly, evaluating: The ensuing step is crucial, as being creative, especially in politics, necessitates a high tolerance for risk and minimal fear of failure. Creative entrepreneurs are not afraid of failing, because failure is a necessary prerequisite for success. No idea, solution or business model is perfect to begin with, and trial and error is the only way of advancing in an uncertain environment. An important factor here is the courage of being vulnerable, as “vulnerability is the birthplace of innovation, creativity and change”.

Generating buy-in for the resulting ideas in the public arena. Many “good” ideas have been rejected by the stakeholders concerned by the issue, because a vocal minority or majority of them were not involved in developing them, or disagreed with them. This is a phase that should in fact run in parallel to the other 4 phases.
Scaling up the new solutions thus developed. Once a community has agreed on the problem at hand, on novel solutions to address it, has accepted their necessity, and tried them out (at a local level, or for a short period of time, etc), a crucial condition for innovative policy making is the ability to unroll those solutions on a large scale and for a longer period of time.

Similar to the Creative Problem Solving (CPS) approach, each of these steps can be divided into a divergence and a convergence sub-phase, first multiplying options, then selecting them. We believe however, contrary to CPS’s 4 steps (clarification, ideation, transformation, implementation), the transformation and implementation phases need to be tailored to the specificities of political battles, by taking into account the crucial importance of testing, communicating and scaling.
At each of these 5 steps, a proven method for innovation has been an “out of the box” mindset. A second condition for creativity, mostly lacking in the political bubble, is empathy. Studies have shown that creatives flourish in empathetic environments, because empathy is conducive to creative thought. Politics, on the other hand, is all too often a toxic, hostile environment where the strongest person survives. This is counterproductive and a poison for creativity.

Tools and methods that foster collective creativity

When it comes to boosting individuals’ and groups’ collective ability to produce original and useful content, decades of research have produced a multitude of insights. We will not try to summarize those here. We will only point out a few key drivers that we focus on at the organisation and at the team level when working on projects with our partners.

The organisation-level conditions that foster creativity

When fostering collective creativity in an organisation that seeks to address complex public problems – whether a public administration, an NGO, an interest group, a political party, or other – some key principles are worth keeping in mind.

First, as Harvard Business School Professor Teresa Amabile has pointed out, one wants to make sure not to kill the potential for creativity. That means aligning three key ingredients of a creative mindset in an organisation: expertise – creative skills – motivation (Harvard Business Review, Sept.-Oct. 1998).

Whereas expertise is what most organisations nurture and identify most readily, creative skills are starting to be identified as crucial to public bodies and other contributors to policy making. Hence the interest in approaches such as design thinking since IDEO’s pioneering efforts in the USA or Christian Bason’s in Denmark’s MindLab, the former Danish government innovation lab (2007-2014).

What is more difficult to nurture is the right level of motivation that unleashes people’s talents and desire to contribute their best ideas. For that, Amabile insists on setting the right level of challenges for team members. Not too hard, but not too easy either.

Furthermore, Prof. Linda Hill, also of the Harvard Business School, has found that innovative organizations function as communities with three key capabilities: creative abrasion, creative agility, and creative resolution. Creative abrasion involves fostering a marketplace of ideas through active debate and discourse. Rather than minimizing differences, these organizations amplify them. This process goes beyond traditional brainstorming, where judgment is deferred. Instead, it encourages heated yet constructive arguments to generate a diverse range of alternatives.

Motivation is certainly not just about stimulating challenges and positive reinforcement. It is also about frank conversations. Hill insists on abrasion, which she defines as “the ability to generate ideas through discourse and debate”. Creative abrasion is reinforced by creative agility, “the ability to test and experiment through quick pursuit, reflection, and adjustment”. And, finally, abrasion and agility need creative resolution, “the ability to make integrative decisions that combine disparate or even opposing ideas”.

Specific team-level methods that we use to foster creativity

Dreamocracy’s team members have all been trained in Creative Problem Solving, one of the leading schools in the study and practice of creativity. Within this broad approach, we have used well-honed practices and developed our own. Rather than list all the types of creative hammers, screwdrivers and wrenches in our toolbox, here is an overview of the broad families of methods that we use and adapt according to specific public challenges.

Divergent, creative thinking techniques can indeed be grouped into several families based on their underlying mechanisms. Research in psychology, creativity studies, and innovation theory has documented many such approaches.

1. Analogical Thinking – Involves drawing parallels between unrelated or distantly related concepts to generate new insights or ideas. Analogical reasoning taps into the brain’s ability to make associations across seemingly different concepts, helping to solve problems by transferring knowledge from one domain to another. Techniques:

– Metaphor and simile: Using figurative comparisons to connect ideas from different domains. We use metaphors and quotes a lot.

– Biomimicry: Applying nature’s solutions to human problems is a well-documented and powerful approach.The best known example is probably Velcro inspired by burrs.

– Forced analogy: Forcing a connection between unrelated concepts to spark new ideas. Like simply opening a book and connecting our challenge with the first word that our eyes come across. What do you think when you’re thinking about “social housing” and your eyes come across the word “caramel”?

2. Intuition-based thinking – Encourages relying on gut feelings, insights, or subconscious processes, often in the absence of logical reasoning. Intuition-based thinking leverages unconscious cognitive processes, often supported by research on incubation, the idea that taking breaks from problem-solving can lead to spontaneous insights. Techniques:

– Meditation and mindfulness: Clearing the mind to allow intuitive thoughts to surface is very effective. Not all groups of civil servants or activists are comfortable with taking time to be present in the moment. But we try…

– Dream journaling: Capturing thoughts from dreams to fuel creativity works for everyone. Have you never woken up with a great insight?

– Flow state: Engaging in a task to the point where ideas emerge naturally and effortlessly is both effective and very pleasant. We give a lot of time to our groups to think in silence. Talking is great, but thinking in silence, focused, can be far more productive.

– Photolanguage: This is the art of using pictures to stimulate new, more intuitive connections. Note: we love it.

3. Associative thinking – Involves generating new ideas by making spontaneous connections between seemingly unrelated concepts. This technique taps into the associative networks of the brain, promoting connections that may not be immediately obvious, as studied in creative cognition. Techniques:

– Word Association: Writing down words that come to mind in response to a starting concept.

– Mind Mapping: Creating a visual diagram to explore associations and relationships between ideas.

– Brainstorming: Generating as many ideas as possible without criticism, encouraging associative leaps.

4. Disruptive thinking (aka ‘Lateral Thinking’) – Challenges established patterns or logical sequences to generate novel perspectives by breaking conventional rules. Disruptive thinking can break mental fixedness and encourage exploration outside routine thought patterns, a phenomenon supported by research into lateral thinking, as coined by Edward de Bono. Techniques:

– Provocation: Making deliberately outrageous or irrational statements to shift perspective.

– Six Thinking Hats: Approaching problems from multiple viewpoints (e.g., emotional, logical, creative).

– Reversal: Reversing common assumptions to see problems from an entirely different angle.

5. Pattern recognition and systems thinking – Involves detecting patterns or seeing the whole system to create solutions or generate new ideas. This approach is supported by research into how the brain recognizes patterns and structures in complex systems, fostering creativity by revealing hidden relationships. Techniques:

– Pattern Identification: Observing repeating structures or processes in nature, technology, or human behavior.

– Systems Mapping: Drawing connections between different parts of a system to reveal new opportunities.

– Fractal Thinking: Recognizing recurring patterns at different scales.

6. Constraint-based creativity – Imposes artificial or real constraints to stimulate creative thinking by forcing problem-solvers to think within boundaries. Cognitive science has shown that constraints can paradoxically enhance creativity by reducing choice overload and focusing cognitive resources on problem-solving within specific boundaries. Techniques:

– SCAMPER: A checklist that encourages thinking about how to Substitute, Combine, Adapt, Modify, Put to other uses, Eliminate, or Rearrange elements of an existing idea.

– Limitations on Time/Resources: Forcing solutions within strict time or resource limits.

– Creative Writing Prompts: Using a specific prompt to limit focus and stimulate new ideas.

7. Visual and spatial thinking – Engages the brain’s visual and spatial faculties to generate ideas. Visual and spatial thinking activates different parts of the brain than verbal thinking, opening new avenues for creativity and idea generation. Techniques:

– Sketching/Drawing: Translating abstract ideas into visual forms to inspire new ideas.

– Visualization: Mentally picturing the outcome or process to generate creative insights.

– Lego Serious Play: Using physical objects to model abstract ideas.

8. Randomness and serendipity – Introduces random or unexpected elements to break conventional thought patterns. Research into serendipity in creativity shows that encountering unexpected information can lead to spontaneous insight by disrupting habitual thinking. Techniques:

– Random Word or Image Generator: Using random stimuli (e.g., words or images) to inspire new directions.

– Serendipity Walk: Taking a walk to randomly encounter stimuli that spark new ideas.

– Oblique Strategies: Using a deck of cards with cryptic prompts to push thinking in unexpected directions.

9. Collaborative thinking (aka group creativity) – Relies on collective idea generation where diverse perspectives from multiple individuals combine to create novel ideas. Collaborative thinking harnesses the diversity of thought within groups, and research on group creativity shows that social interaction can spur creative problem-solving, though it requires overcoming potential challenges like groupthink or dominant voices. Techniques:

– Brainwriting: Group members write down ideas independently and then share them to inspire further thinking.

– Collaborative Sketching: Groups collectively draw out ideas, iterating on one another’s contributions.

– Nominal Group Technique: Gathering individual ideas independently before discussing them as a group to avoid groupthink.

10. Play and gamification – Uses playful or game-based methods to stimulate creativity by reducing inhibitions and encouraging exploration. Play activates the brain’s reward systems, fostering experimentation and exploration, which leads to more flexible, divergent thinking. Techniques:

– Role-Playing: Pretending to be someone else to approach a problem from their perspective.

– Creative Games: Structured activities that challenge participants to think creatively within a game format.

– Improv: Using improvisational techniques (e.g., in acting or music) to stimulate spontaneous creativity.

11. Reframing and perspective shifting – Involves looking at a problem from a completely different perspective to uncover new solutions. Cognitive research shows that changing the mental framing of a problem can lead to different mental pathways for solutions, often allowing for creative breakthroughs.

Techniques:

– Problem Reframing: Asking “What if?” or changing the way a problem is framed.

– Empathy Mapping: Seeing a problem from the perspective of a different stakeholder or persona.

– Opposite Thinking: Considering the opposite or inverse of the current idea.

Conclusion

How can we reform our institutions and political culture in order to place creativity at the heart of politics?

Collective creativity and intelligence can be mindfully tapped into. However, to change the whole political system to make it more conducive to fostering, supporting and disseminating creativity, more needs to be done at a structural level, to foster a constructive operational environment for creative policy makers. At Dreamocracy, we recommend the following 6 reforms.

Make creativity and political innovation a priority. Think “Liberté, égalité, fraternité, créativité”! Putting creativity at the heart of our political system is far more than a “new New Public Management” technique. It is an antidote to populism and to people’s mistrust in democratic governance.
Acknowledge complexity and develop the tools to embrace it. Policy makers, generally speaking, shy away from complex messaging. This is understandable. However, in a complex, VUCA world, we need to find holistic solutions that transcend specific issues, geographies, actors. Creativity can help come up with better solutions, if dare steer away from simplistic reasoning and messaging.
Involve relevant stakeholders using the experience gained in terms of effective participatory democracy techniques.
Teach creativity to civil servants and public leaders.
Organize the State and institutions as a catalyst of creativity in society.
Use creativity to make politics more appealing.

→ Also worth reading: