CREATIVITY

The experience of our group in creating two movie scripts led us to a surprise conclusion. In what follows we will:

I.     Process documentation

The two diagrams below summarize the organizational structure of the group in two situations – production of Script 1 and Script 2.

In Script 1 the supervisor started the exercise by determining the strong and weak point of each member. The tasks were then allocated in such way to extract maximum value of each type of talent contribution. The supervisor generated the idea for the script and the implementation steps were allocated between the subordinates. There was strictly one channel and one way of communication – from supervisor to the subordinates. We call this particular structure a ‘sole creator scenario’ since the production revolves around the creator of the idea.

 

Script 2 was created via a continuous communication between all the equal-status members. The responsibilities were not shared according to members’ strengths, instead each participated in every step of the production process. We call this situation ‘team-based scenario’ highlighting the collaborative nature of the creative process.

Summary of experience during the process

The overall impression of our experience can be divided into two themes: quality and efficiency of work.

Efficiency

As can be seen from the diagram above, the overall impression from our teammates is that the efficiency of creation was higher for blog 2 compared to blog 1, and for Script 1 compared to Script 2. We believe that Trust was the main component that allowed for the efficiency improvement.

1. SM has been worked with Ana and Klaus separately before the course. However, Ana and Klaus did not collaborate before the team formation. At the initial phase of collaboration, SM acted as the platform of communication between Ana and Klaus. However, the communication is not effective if Ana and Klaus could not communicate with each other directly.
2. By the time we have approach Blog 2 Script 2 we were the most comfortable with each other, therefore we felt safe to reveal our ideas to each other. We quickly pooled our ideas together, gave each other comments and collaborated with the implementation.
3. Once we have established trust, the meetings were much more efficient as we focused on the problem and did not feel the need to tip-toe around the issue for the sake of harboring relationships.
4. Communication was further improved once the trust was established as we new the most effective way to make our points understood. As we became familiar with each others' communication and working styles, it was possible to adjust the delivery of ideas and process discussion to ensure the message is understood.
5. Even though we have discussed from the time of group formation what our individual strengths and weaknesses are, it was not until we approached Blog 2 Script 2 that we started feeling confidence in each others' skills. For the previous projects we felt safer double-checking after each other, thus spending more time on the project.

In summary,

Therefore,

The establishment of trust is positively correlated with time needed for collaboration.

Trust ∝ time

Time is essential but not the only element needed to gain trust from people. Trust can be categorized into 3 main types (Thompson, 2000) - deterrence-based, knowledge-based and identification-based. The first two types of trust can be established with frequent interaction and effective communication between members.

Trust

∝ frequent and effective communication (time dependent)

Besides, trust enables good problem solving by effective communication and interaction (Boss, 1978).

Quality

At the same time, diagram bellowed clearly shows that we believe the quality of Script 1 to be higher compared to quality of Script 2. The summary of our experience sheds light on the reasons behind this conclusion:

Note that Number 1- 3 represent the situations that interfered with the creative process, whereas number 3-7 – those stimulating our creativity.

Overall, our experience leads us to two interesting conclusions.

First, we challenge the notion that the best creations always come from a collaborative effort in friendly warm settings. Creativity can be born in a tightly controlled environment and a sole creator can produce superior results.

Second, clearly there are several dimensions by which we can judge a success of a creative project. Therefore, different approach to creative process may be more suitable for different contexts. There may be some situations where it makes more sense to rely on a collaborative creative team, whereas in other cases a single creative talent should dominate the process.

We now present some evidence to support our conclusions.

II.     Sole creator scenario.

1.     Democracy = creativity?

If we apply to the national context the idea that creativity is born in a free-flow of ideas, we can hypothesize that we will find democratic nations producing a greater variety and quality of art compared to oppressive authoritarian regimes. Let’s look for evidence if this is true:

Russia – Rostropovich, Bulgakov (oppressed by Soviet leaders)

Italy – Galileo Galilei (oppressed by church)

France – Victor Hugo (oppressed by Napoleon III)

China – Ai WeiWei, Cui Jian (崔健)

Germany - Max Ernst, Thomas Mann, Einstein (oppressed by Hitler)

 

Although we have not performed a rigorous statistical analysis of which regime producers the most famous art and science (PhD will surely go for the person who does this. Our group wants a special mention, if inspire this work), a brief overview leads us to conclude that oppressive regimes can stimulate individuals to produce creations unheard of in the democratic settings. The opposite also seems to be true - how many truly great artistic creations have come out from the most democratic nations?

Explaining this fascinating phenomenon is beyond the scope of this blog. We only want to throw in a few ideas. It could be that under autocratic regimes where people are not free to express themselves openly, creative minds seek a release of their imagination in forms that are more difficult to control by the dictatorship. It could also be that the stable and predictable lifestyle psychologically is not the most productive setting for the creativity. We explore this idea a little more.

It will be interesting to hear what the readers think about this.

2.     Happiness = creativity?

Is the creative person more productive in a good or bad mood?

First let’s look at some examples:

• Vincent Van Gogh,
• Dostoevsky,
• F. Scott Fitzgerald,
• Edgar Allen Poe,
• Lord Byron
• Edgar Degas
• Iris Chang
• Friedrich Nietzsche

(and for those not so familiar with the world literature we have creates a second list):

• Kurt Cobain
• Woody Allen
• Jim Carrey
• Eminem
• Britney Spears

Each of the above is a creative mind (no judgment about the quality of creation) and each has reported or been diagnosed with some type of a depression. Coincidence? We do not think so. Let’s look at the empirical evidence. 

• Blumer (2002) among many other clinical psychology specialists argue that Vincent van Gogh’s creativity was based on his mental illness. It was his depressive mood swings that gave him the unusual feel for the line and shapes. Additionally, van Gogh experienced abnormal bouts of energy during his manic phases, which provided hum with energy for incessant painting. 

• Ludwig (1996) published a study in which over 10 years he studied over 1000 ‘accomplished people’ in variety of professions, including art, music, science, business, politics, and sports. He concluded that around 77% of artistic professions (music, art) suffered mental illness especially "mood disorders compared to just 18% among the less artistic professionals (sport, business). 
• Verhaeghen, Joorman, and Khan (2005) suggested that self-reflective contemplation, which often goes hand in hand with depression encourages meticulousness and seriousness in the creative attempts, which in turn influences the effort exerted on the creative process. 
• Other researchers suggest that negative moods send signals to us that the current state of affairs is not satisfactory. This may stimulate us to attempt to make changes resulting in creativity (Martin, 1996). 
• We have also found evidence ‘that people are more creative when they enjoy privacy and freedom from interruption’ (Cain, 2012). An influential psychologist H. Eysenck proposed that introversion allows creative people to become absorbed into the task to a degree, not known to extroverts. By the extension to this argument, situations that are built around teams stifle creative process. 

In other words, it is possible that if the world-famous artists, musicians, poets, writers and other talents were working for a company that ensured stable happy environment for its workers, the world today would be at a much lower level scientifically and esthetically. 

3.     Altered state of mind = creativity

Due to the controversy of the subject we will mention only very briefly that there is one additional stimulation of creativity, which has been popular with the artistic people for generations. Mind-altering substances such as alcohol or various drugs are behind the most famous creations and person:

Amedeo Modigliani, Vincent van Gogh, Oscar Wilde were all habitual drinkers of absinthe, which is now classified in most countries as an illegal addictive psychoactive drug. 

Fuseli – this Italian painter reportedly ate raw meet before bed to provoke nightmares

Ken Kessey wrote One Few Over Cuckoo’s Nets after experimenting with mescaline in a psychiatric hospital. 

Ernst Hemmingway spent years on end in an alcohol-induced haze. 

Steven King has stated that he doesn't even remember what he wrote during between 1979 – 1987 due to his heavy cocaine use.
 

4.     What can the management do to enhance personal creativity?

By now it should be clear that outstanding creativity is not necessarily born in the collaborative environment. Therefore the currently fashionable methods to motivate the creative flow in the organizational settings may not be appropriate. Instead we suggest the following:  

·      Build the work around the creative center.

We can find evidence that companies in certain industries recognize the superiority of a sole creator mode. For instance, while filming director everything revolves around director.

·      Form creative partnerships

The above discussion of the personal creativity sources made one thing very clear - creative types may be very difficult to work with. ‘When Failure is not an Option’ (Hillman, 2005) gave an example of the event-planner Elizabeth Allen, who puts the atmosphere in the team first and refuses to hire talents if their personality does not fit into her understanding of ‘normal’ behaviour. While it may be difficult and risky to attempt to incorporate the unstable talent into a team, it is much easier to find just one person who would be able to work with, manage and complement the talent. Rigby (2009) suggest that a partnership between a left-brain and right-brain individuals found in industries from fashion to computer.

·      Hire freelancers

Finally, if a company struggles with the two previous levels of integration of the artist into the organizational process it can also opt for a simpler freelance-based arrangements, where the need to manage the unmanageable is removed. The popularity of this model is perhaps more popular than you have suspected – British freelance association PCG estimates that one in 20 UK employees employed on a freelance basis (Two-thirds more firms take on freelancers, 2011).   

5.     Problems with sole creativity

While the quality of work in the sole creator setting may be higher, there are a number of problems associated with this approach:

• Vulnerability - relying on one person to generate a stream of ideas that fit into the concepts and the deadlines of the company is dangerous. Additionally, placing the fate of the entire project in the hands of an entire person tips the scales of power towards one employee.
• Where to find enough ‘creative geniuses’?
• How to build work around unpredictable and unstable creative talent?

III. Team-based scenario

In the real world, it seems that most companies do not have the luxury of relying on individual creators precisely for the reasons outlined above. In the real world, there is tremendous pressure on the companies to keep up with the rapidly changing environment and demands of the customers by generating a steady stream of innovations. Arguably, the quality of creativity becomes less important, while efficiency takes the place of the Key Success Factor (have you seen Godfather 3? Rocky 5? Sex and The City 2? Disappointing, wasn’t it?).
Team-based scenario seems to be the commercial answer to the competitive reality of the business world. Frey 1999 distinguishes between the personal and commercial creativity, where the former comes from artist’s intrinsic motivation and institutional is motivated by some intrinsic rewards. Spiting creativity into two separate and distinct definition is important as it brings us back to our initial suggestions – there is no one best way to stimulate creative process and there are different contexts for each type.

What can the management do to enhance this type of creative process?

The guidelines for nurturing a team-driven creative process are clear. The main idea boils down to creating comfortable pleasant environment where the employees feel contented to share [remember the earlier discussion of the impact of trust on efficiency]; benefit diversity of opinions floating around and ensuring that the organizational structure does not stiffen the creative center with too much control and constraints (Amabile, 2008 and Catmull, 2008). Earlier we saw that trust is positively correlated with efficiency, therefore leaders need to exert maximum effort to stimulate trust in the team relationships.
Among other techniques, one possible way to plant trust in organizational setting is to bring people closer (Thompson, 2000) – both physically (think Pixar and Google common rooms) and psychologically (through shared experiences, single culture, one vision). 

IV.     Sole vs team-based creativity

	Personal creativity	Team creativity
Heart of the project	Single talent	Diverse creative team
Stability	Unstable	More stable
Replicability	Hard to repeat successful creation	Easier to re-create success
Reliability	Unreliable	Reliable
Cornerstone of creativity	Based on individual preferences [may include psychologically dangerous states of mind]	Trust, comfort, security
Suitable context	Non-commercial art, one-off projects, independent freelance-based work E.g. Writers, painters	Commercial setting where creativity is required on continuous scheduled basis. Works particularly well for smaller innovations and improvements
Management role	Organize the process	Oiling the machine

V.     Conclusion

We need to be aware of the different types of creativity and setting in which they work best. Sole creativity may provide the best quality of creations, but it is extremely difficult to manage in most commercial settings. Firms need to be very clear on their priorities as trade-offs between the efficiency and quality is inevitable. It is almost impossible to produce on a corporate conveyor-belt the same high quality of creations that are born through personal creativity. We are not sure if in the long run creativity in team settings is sustainable, and it is certainly not particularly ethical – where is nobility in manufactured creativity?

Echo to comments.

Many thanks for the comments and the feedback on our blog. We were honored to receive so many words of encouragement from our classmates. We were pleased that our thoughts inspired some of you and we hope that our blog managed to encourage our class to think about the topic of creativity from new angles. We were also glad that some of you decided to take our thoughts further and offered interesting extensions to as well as useful criticism of our ideas.
Several of you have pointed out that a strong original idea is a necessary, but not sufficient component of the innovation [Mak Paul, YingYing, Iris]. Indeed, after the original creative idea is born it needs to be developed, sharpened and supplemented with complementary additions.  In fact our classmates managed come up with an angle, which our group has not considered. In our analysis we envisioned a creative process requiring the involvement of the originator of the idea at all stages. Our classmates, however, noticed that this is not, in fact, necessary. Rather than awkwardly trying to incorporate the non-cooperative sole creator into processing and refining the idea it is possible to simply pass it down the line for others to work on. Graphically, we can imagine the following representation: 

 

Top diagram depicts creative process as a continuous collaboration between the original sole creator and the team. In the scenario, which is the one we originally had in mind, the creative mind is integrated in the process, whereas bottom diagram shows that once the idea is created it can be separated from its creator and passed to the team to process. On the one hand, analysis of such structure raises concern of whether the idea, separated from its creator, can be developed to the fullest. The creator knows better what he meant in a specific thought or idea. He knows how it can be modified, how value can be extracted from it. On the other hand, the opposite is true – myopic focus and tight control of the process can lead to missing innovation potential. Consider the following quotes:
‘This ‘telephone’ has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a mean of communication. The device is inherently of no value to us.’ Western Union internal memo, 1876
‘There is no reason why anyone would want a computer in their home’. Ken Olson, President of Digital Equipment Corp, 1977
‘There will never be a market in selling stock over the Internet’. David Komansky, Merrill Lynch Chairman and CEO, 1999

The above examples clearly demonstrate that true potential of the innovation can be discovered by involving visions of people from unrelated fields. The greater diversity of backgrounds, experiences and ideas, the further from the starting point can the idea be brought. Therefore, there seems to be a certain benefit in allowing the diverse team to manage the innovation process, even if it means separating the original creator from the process. 

We agree with our commentators that in commercial settings it is not possible to survive on sole creators. Team is ultimately the only possibility and here is why. From the class we have learned that there is a difference between the creativity and innovation. Sole originator may be best in producing true high-quality creativity [i.e. creative idea], however, what corporations need is not an abstract flashes of creative genius, but specific innovations. As we learned in class, innovation is defined as a commercialization of that new concept or product derived from a novel idea. Innovation in a firm is a combination of several disciplines. It is a marriage [albeit rather polygamous] of several sections of the supply chain. To produce something commercial requires a bridging of many concepts, fields, disciplines and insights. This is why a sole creator cannot push through the entire process. Team creativity seems to be the only way to innovate in an organizational setting.

Very interestingly, some of you attempted to develop our analysis of what drives creativity:

·      It was suggested that creativity is born from freedom. Unbounded by deadlines, budgets, other constraints the greatest work emerges. YingYing implied that movie director’s source of creativity lies in the fact that they are unbounded by the market and industry demands .

·       Particularly interesting was the point of beginner’s luck [YAY]. The idea that creativity comes to ‘unpolluted’ mind brought us to thinking about creativity in children. Child’s creativity is a excellent example of how an unconstrained mind produces amazing questions and answers. This work can be not sharp enough due to lack of skills, but the fact remains that child’s mind sees the angles undetected by adults simply because it is not weighed down by the perceptions of that what is possible and the ways of the habit. We can, therefore, see that the point about freedom and the point about luck, in fact, talk about the same idea: unconstrained thinking is a driver of creativity.

This, however, brings us to a very interesting position. On the one hand we have just seen evidence that great creativity stems from truly unbounded dreaming. On the other had, we have seen that oppression does something to people to produce great creations. The two are contradictory, yet they co-exist. Once again, we reach the same conclusion as we reached in our blog – there are several fundamentally different sources of creativity, each inspired and developed their own unique environments.

Combining the two highlighted conclusions, which we reached with help of our classmates, we would like to offer a word of caution. Consider the following examples:

1.    Technological giants such as Microsoft or Google repeatedly tap into abilities of small software companies. Even though these monsters with enviable budgets have arguably the best talent, most progressive work practices, most fluid structures and policies, still they find that smaller software firms are able to produce superior products.

2.    Pharmaceutical industry is another example where large corporations rely on smaller start-ups to fuel creativity. Research shows that most breakthroughs come not from large pharmaceuticals’ own laboratories, but from research they bought from smaller biotech firms.

3.    Bringing our idea to a more theoretical level, the study of strategic management recognizes that most innovation in organizations comes from ambidextrous structures, where an innovating unit is separated from the main company.

We hope that the above example are convincing in demonstrating that even the corporations acknowledge that the most ground-breaking innovations are not born in structured institutionalized settings. Therefore, even though teams may be better suited to produce organizational innovation, it seems that teams in larger organizations become too constricted by the institutional realities. Therefore, we suggest, that the answer to commercial innovation lies in combining the two types of creativity. Best innovation will come from teams [group creativity], given independent lives [where team acts as a sole creator].

Finally, we would like to address a comment urging us to be more careful in drawing our conclusions.  We most certainly agree that generalizations should always be made very carefully. To paraphrase an idiom, exception defines the rule, in a loose rhetorical sense meaning that for each proven tried-and-tested rule there will be at least one situation not conforming to the pattern. This seems to be especially true when talking about social science in general and human behaviour and thoughts in particular. Science is ‘knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method’. What we have done is merely point out that it appears that there is ANOTHER source of creativity – the one born out of oppression and solitude. In fact, in our blog we specifically made the following comment: ‘Although we have not performed a rigorous statistical analysis of which regime producers the most famous art and science a brief overview leads us to conclude that oppressive regimes can stimulate individuals to produce creations unheard of in the democratic settings.’ [emphasis added]

Therefore, not only we have explicitly acknowledged lack of rigorous scientific testing of our suggestions, but we were also careful not to use words such as ‘either or’. We did not suggest that creativity is born either under oppression OR under freedom. We have merely pointed out that there are enough cases to wonder if more than one source is possible. Therefore, we were pleased to discover that we are in fact on the same page with the commentator. 

We thank our classmates for giving us an opportunity to look deeper into the topic and consider aspects that have previously escaped us and hope that our aggregation and further development of your ideas may prompt further inspirations.

Reference:

Amabile, T.M. (1979). Effects of external evaluation on artistic creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(2), 221-233.

Amabile, T.M. and Khaire M. (2008). Creativity and the role of the leader. Harvard Business Review, 86(10), 100-109.

Boss, W.R. (1978). Trust and managerial problem solving revisited. Group & Organization Studies, 3(3), 331-342.

Berns, G.S., Chappelow J., Zink, C.F., Pagnoni, G., Martin-Skurski, M.E., & Richards J. (2005). Neurobiological correlates of social conformity and independence during mental rotation. Biological Psychiatry, 58, 245-253.

Blumer, D. (2002). The illness of Vincent van Gogh. American Journal of Psychiatry. (159), 519-526.

Cain, S. (2012, January 13). The rise of the new groupthink. New York Times Sunday Review. Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/15/opinion/sunday/the-rise-of-the-new-groupthink.html?pagewanted=all

Catmull, E. (2008). How Pixar fosters collective creativity. Harvard Business Review, 86(9), 64-72.

Frey, B.S. (1999). State support and creativity in the arts: some new considerations. Journal of Cultural Economics. 23(1-2), 71-85.

Harris, P. (2009). The truth about creativity. Harlow, England: Pearson Prentice Hall Business.

Hillmann, M.R., Dongier, P., Murgallis, R.P., Khosh, M., Allen, E.K. & Evernham, R. (2005). When failure isn’t an option. Harvard Business Review. 83(7/8), 41-50.

List of people with depressive disorders. Retrieved March 8 2012, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_with_major_depressive_disorder

Ludwig, A.M. (1996). The price of greatness: resolving the creativity and madness controversy. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Martin, L.L., & Stoner, P. (1996). Mood as input: What we think about how we feel determines how we think in Martin L.L. & Tesser A. (Eds), Striving and feeling: Interactions among goals, affect, and self-regulation (pp. 279–301).

Runco, M.A. (2004). Everyone has creative potential. In Sternberg R.J., Grigorenko, E. & Singer, J.L. (Eds), Creativity: from potential to realization (pp21-30). Washigton, DC: American Psychological Association.

Scott, M. (October 8, 2011). Iraniam filmmaker Naderi says repression helps forge great art. Retrieved from http://www.dailystar.com.lb/Culture/Film/2011/Oct-08/150739-iranian-filmmaker-naderi-says-repression-helps-forge-great-art.ashx#ixzz1neYB7aaf

Simonton, D.K. (1994). Greatness. Who makes history and why. Guilford Press: New York and London.

Thompson, L.L. (2000). The mind and heart of the negotiator (2nd edition). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Two-thirds more firms take on freelancers. (2011). Retrieved March 8, 2012, from http://www.lawdonut.co.uk/news/law/two-thirds-more-firms-take-on-freelancer

Rigby, D.K., Gryver, K., & Allen, J. (2009) Innovation in turbulent times. Harvard Business Review, 87(6), 79-86.

Verhaeghen, P., Joorman, J., & Khan, R. (2005). Why we sing the blues: The relation between self-reflective rumination, mood, and creativity. Emotion, 5(2), 226–232.