Search results

Psychologists have created highly specific and elaborate models of the creative process and the variables affecting creative performance. Unfortunately, much of this research has tended to take either an overanalytical or an underanalytical approach. By overanalytical we mean that researchers have studied single, isolated stages of group creativity, such as idea generation. By underanalytical we mean that researchers have tended to treat “creative group performance” as a single, unitary construct. However, we argue that it would be better to approach creativity as a multidimensional sequence of behaviors. In support of this argument, we discuss research on individual as well as group creativity showing that, firstly, there are multiple routes toward creative performance (e.g., flexibility and persistence), which may be pursued alone or in combination. It is likely that these different routes are subject to distinct influences. Secondly, we argue and show that different stages of the creative process (problem finding, idea generation, idea selection, idea implementation) are not necessarily affected by the same variables, or in the same way. We highlight some new questions for research, and discuss implications for the management of groups and teams.

A creative identity, the incorporation of creativity into self-definition, is associated with creative outcomes. Given the importance of creativity to organizational success, understanding creative identity and in particular creative identity work (the formation and maintenance of creative identity) can be useful in understanding creatives within organizations. To be considered creative, individuals need to not only produce unique artefacts, but these artefacts need to be assessed by legitimate judges as being creative. Judges may be within an organization (e.g., senior researchers within a laboratory) or may be external to an organization (e.g., award judges in international advertising competitions). Underpinning creative identity work is the creative assessment, however this assessment is ambiguous and contextual. In other words, what is considered creative in one context or by one judge may not be considered creative in another context or by different judges. The ambiguity of the creative assessment makes creative identity work a precarious undertaking. Based on two case studies – a R&D laboratory and an advertising agency – this research explores the strategies which creative individuals employ in their creative identity work in response to the ambiguity of the creative assessment. This research contributes to the growing area of creative identity research by unpacking three specific strategies used as part of identity work of creatives: defending, emotional distancing and differentiating. These strategies assist the creatives in maintaining a coherent sense of who they are within the organizational context despite the unpredictability of the creative assessment.

Social entrepreneurs who use market mechanisms to solve wicked problems (Rittel & Webber, 1973) may benefit from practices based on design thinking. Design thinking offers approaches to work iteratively on both problem and solution spaces collaboratively with multiple diverse stakeholders, which is characteristic of innovating for social change. This research conceptualizes designing as a construct formed by three practices: making improvements, generating creative leaps, and problem-solving. Using Boland and Collopy’s (2004) conception of a sense-making manager, it proposes “how” nascent social entrepreneurs take actions and also proposes “what” specific activities they undertake for the development of the venture. A conceptual model proposing “what” it is that social entrepreneurs do and “how” they go about their activities affecting new venture development is tested using structural equation modeling. Preliminary support for the predictive capability of the model is encouraging, suggesting that practices based on design thinking may be further developed in order to advance theoretical understanding of the application of design thinking for social entrepreneurship.

Creativity is increasingly vital to competitive advantage. Leaders are under growing pressure to generate a creative output from themselves and their teams, and human capital managers and consultants are increasingly called to facilitate and build a climate that promotes innovation. Positive emotions are beneficial for big picture, creative, innovative thinking (Fredrickson, 2001; Fredrickson & Branigan, 2005; Subramaniam et al., 2009). Negative emotions create more accuracy, bottoms up neural processing, and problem finding (Forgas, 2013; Forgas & Wyland, 2006). This research investigated if induced positive emotions lead to a higher creative output than negative emotions. An online experiment aimed to induce either a positive or negative mood through video clips before participants undertook a creative task. Personality dimensions were also measured to assess how preferences in information processing impacted creative output. The study demonstrated the efficacy of induced mood and concluded that positive emotions seem to be beneficial for creative output, both quantity and quality. The findings add to the considerable data on the impact of emotions on workplace performance (Amabile et al., 2005) and can be directly applied to learning, innovation, and creative thinking interventions in the workplace. The chapter concludes with a brief discussion of interventions that facilitate a positive emotional climate and how to increase creative potential and performance.

This chapter examines emerging theoretical approaches and thematic aspects of creative and cultural entrepreneurship and the significant societal and economic contributions of creative firms. It reviews the concepts and definitions essential to examining creative industry entrepreneurship. The authors then provide framing for this exceptional collection of chapters in Volume 1 (of 2) and discuss existing research approaches from surveys and small-scale qualitative studies. Then, the chapter’s overview showcases the range of international research included in three sections: conceptual reflections on creative and cultural entrepreneurship, resilience and adaptation of creative and cultural enterprises, and insights into creative subsectors. Finally, the chapter proposes a research agenda for developing the field further, addressing methodological gaps (longitudinal studies and cluster research), emerging thematics (rural creative industries and creative placemaking) and sector studies (game and film industries).

This chapter presents a Dewey-inspired analysis of the role of dissent in the creative process. We extend and complement received knowledge on the role of positive affect on creativity by discussing the tensions between negative and positive affect. Using a netnography of three online communities, which bring together animators and visual special effect artists, we develop a grounded typology of creative conflict practices. By cross-referencing the creative status with creative objectives, we define four distinct types of creative conflict practices: invoke, evoke, poke, and provoke. Our qualitative findings further show how creatives adeptly manage tensions between positive and negative affects.

While audiences play a key role in the implementation and ultimate success of novel ideas, how audiences are reflected in negotiations about quality within the creative process remains undertheorized. We examine this question through a comparative ethnography of two settings where digital technology use magnifies the countless micro-decisions involved in producing a creative output and considerations of audience evaluation throughout the creative process – Nashville music production and systems biology cancer research. We find that actors encounter a fundamental tension between two competing standards of quality: the technically perfect, processed and ideal versus the empirically grounded, unprocessed and real. We show how actors navigate this tension vis-á-vis three different audiences – internal peers, extended community, and external reviewers – and how this manifests differently across audiences and the arts and sciences, depending on the audience’s expertise. Our study illuminates the tension between the “ideal versus real” in creative processes that is brought to the fore when creating with digital technology, extends extant research on audiences and organizing for creativity, and offers unique insights from our comparative ethnography across the arts and sciences.