How to let it flow

How much do you know about creativity and idea generation? When was the last time you felt creative? And perhaps more importantly, what did you do then?

Most of us envision creativity as this “in-the-flow” feeling when something magically clicks in our mind and the creation process effortlessly flows out into a masterpiece. Most of us probably know that every artist has their process and not everyone writes a novel or composes a melody in the middle of the night following a dream. However, what many of us do not realize is creativity is not exclusive to artists and that it does not have to be a sporadic moment of inspiration. Rather, research has provided us with many tools to hone our creativity and dive into new ideas. Let’s explore how creativity is influenced by context, personal traits, groups, and the surprising benefits of entitlement, rivalries, embarrassment, financial constraints, and failure.

Context

Defined by Amabile (1983), creativity is the “degree to which outstanding creative individuals feel influenced by social and environmental factors.” Although this definition may imply masterpiece creation, it also highlights something we often neglect: the importance of other people and circumstances to the creative process. In a study with over 200 participants, McKay, Mohan, and Reina (2021) found that people have varying experiences over the course of a project, that these experiences tend to stabilize within a week, and that they influence creative self-perceptions and performance behaviors. It is not just about the individual or their inspiration. Within these experiences, switching tasks (from the main task to an intervening task) later in the creative process significantly enhances creative performance (Madjar, Shalley, & Herndon, 2019). This means that you can boost your creativity by working on a different task or scheduling an interruption once you have worked on the main task for a while.

Other creativity enhancers seem to be breaks. Paulus, Nakui, Putman, and Brown (2006) showed that rather than interrupting the brainstorming process or using breaks during long brainstorming sessions (which involve more fatigue and cognitive inhibition), breaks are most effective after a period of idea-generation block. This is because individuals who tend to remain in an idea category for longer benefit more from breaks than those who jump between idea categories, possibly since idea switchers do not need prompting to refresh ideas (Paulus, Nakui, Putman, & Brown, 2006). Breaks also seem important when brainstormers start generating fewer ideas during the session, as they may release old or partially formed ideas that brainstormers often inhibit (Paulus, Nakui, Putman, & Brown (2006).

Personal Traits and Preferences

Besides one’s context, personal traits and preferences play a fundamental role in creative idea generation. Mueller, Wakslak, and Krishnan (2014) showed that while people with “how” mindsets experienced greater creativity, they rated creative ideas lower in creativeness than those with a “why” mindset. This implies that organizational cultures in which employees focus on asking “why” rather than “how” may increase creativity recognition, since employees are not concerned with the challenges of accomplishing the idea before its elaboration (Mueller, Waslak, & Krishnan, 2014). Also, in exploring the relationship between emotional intelligence (EI) and creativity at work, Carmeli, McKay, and Kaufman (2014) found that those with higher EI display higher generosity, which then fosters a sense of vigor and consequently promotes creative behaviors.

And finally, the uplifting news for procrastinators: their gift may promote creativity if accurately used. Shin and Grant (2020) found that moderate, rather than low or high, procrastination “can foster creativity when employees have intrinsic motivation and opportunity to generate new ideas.” Whereas pre-crastinators deliver projects quickly and may rush creativity and chronic procrastinators wait until the last minute and likely underperform, moderate procrastinators leave the task in the back of their minds, thereby incubating ideas and considering a wide variety of options (Grant, 2016).

Groups

Groups are another important area that organizations aiming to promote creativity should not undermine. Network research suggests that tie strength and location, as well as network size and diversity all influence creativity (Koseoglu & Shalley, 2021; Mannucci & Perry-Smith, 2021).
While weak ties prove useful during idea generation, strong ties play an important role during idea elaboration (Koseoglu & Shalley, 2021). And, as employees at a central location in the network benefit from easy and quick access to information, those at the peripheries collect nonredundant information not shared within the organization and thus, experience creativity (Koseoglu & Shalley, 2021).

Furthermore, though individuals with large networks may have more opportunities to connect and benefit from both strong and weak ties, Mannucci and Perry-Smith’s (2021) research indicates that those with smaller networks are more likely to activate weak ties and hence, benefit from the extraneous ideas, especially when creativity is perceived as hazardous. The researchers added that activating the wrong ties leads to abandoning creative ideas or choosing uncreative ones (Mannucci & Perry-Smith, 2021). Finally, in Koseoglu and Shalley’s (2021) study, individuals with higher contact diversity (functional background, organizational function, or nationality) generated more creative ideas. Large networks, small networks, central or peripheric locations; creativity may be accessible to all those who take advantage of their characteristics and context.

But what happens when individuals change groups? In Choi and Thompson’s (2005) study, changing group membership led to a greater volume and variety of ideas and increased the creativity of oldtimers due to the direct influence of newcomers. However, exposure to another group’s ideas did not achieve the same results (Choi & Thompson, 2005). This suggests that increased creativity may be due to social interactions with newcomers, depending on the quality of these newcomers (Choi and Thompson, 2005). Also, contrary to popular belief, individuals who brainstorm alone may produce a greater number of ideas in general as well as good ideas than those who brainstorm in groups, since only one individual may speak at a time (Stroebe & Diehl, 1994). While people often enjoy group brainstorms more than individual brainstorms, the researchers suggest that group members should generate ideas individually and meet to evaluate those ideas and that, if the latter is not possible, small groups may reduce creativity loss (Stroebe & Diehl, 1994).

Entitlement, Rivalries, Embarrassment, Financial Constraints, and Failure

The most surprising facts may arise for those enjoying entitlement, rivalries, embarrassment, financial constraints, and failure. That entitled coworker you struggle to work with could be your team’s secret weapon; Zitek and Vincent (2015) demonstrated that, through a need for uniqueness, entitled people generate more creative ideas. Menon, Thompson, and Choi (2006) showed that external rivalries promote creativity since individuals are less likely to pursue knowledge generated by someone in the same organization but feel encouraged to do so if the rival is extraneous to the organization. Remarkably, sharing embarrassing rather than prideful stories also seems to increase creativity of subsequent brainstorming sessions in both the number of ideas generated and their variety (Wilson, Thompson, & Lucas, 2020).

Furthermore, research may support the popular tenet that the greatest ideas come from sacrifices; Scopelliti, Cillo, Busacca, and Mazursky (2014) showed that constrained financial resources may lead to creativity, particularly for those individuals with high innate novelty-seeking traits. The researchers explained that financial constraints facilitate creative processing in product ideation and repair tasks as they focus novelty-seekers on the task and thus, avoid burdening them with choice overload as it reduces their ability to concentrate on the creative task (Scopelliti, Cillo, Busacca, & Mazursky, 2014). This way, rather than attending to multiple inputs, novelty-seekers’ minds become frugal and zone-in on the task (Scopelliti, Cillo, Busacca, & Mazursky, 2014).

Last but not least, increasing the volume of ideas generated is associated with higher creativity, not because it decreases failure but simply because it widens the variety of ideas and thus, increases the chances of success (Grant, 2016). Creative thinkers must become comfortable with failing many times and trying many times; rather than a flaw, failure is a natural (and arguably, fundamental) part of the creative process.

When you hear, “go with the flow,” think “be intentional in your creativity,” and make sure to surround yourself and your employees and coworkers with the needed tools to generate creative ideas.

References:
Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization. Journal of personality and social psychology, 45(2), 357.

Carmeli, A., McKay, A. S., & Kaufman, J. C. (2014). Emotional intelligence and creativity: The mediating role of generosity and vigor. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 48(4), 290-309.

Choi, H. S., & Thompson, L. (2005). Old wine in a new bottle: Impact of membership change on group creativity. Organizational Behavior and human decision processes, 98(2), 121-132.

Grant, Adam. (2016, April 26). The surprising habits of original thinkers | Adam Grant [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxbCHn6gE3U

Koseoglu, G., & Shalley, C. E. (2021). Social Networks and Employee Creativity. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Business and Management.

Madjar, N., Shalley, C. E., & Herndon, B. (2019). Taking time to incubate: The moderating role of ‘what you do’and ‘when you do it’on creative performance. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 53(3), 377-388.

Mannucci, P. V., & Perry-Smith, J. E. (2021). “Who are you going to call?” Network activation in creative idea generation and elaboration. Academy of Management Journal, (ja).

McKay, A. S., Mohan, M., & Reina, C. S. (2021) Another Day, Another Chance: Daily Workplace Experiences and Their Impact on Creativity. Journal of Product Innovation Management.

Menon, T., Thompson, L., & Choi, H. S. (2006). Tainted knowledge vs. tempting knowledge: People avoid knowledge from internal rivals and seek knowledge from external rivals. Management Science, 52(8), 1129-1144.

Mueller, J. S., Wakslak, C. J., & Krishnan, V. (2014). Construing creativity: The how and why of recognizing creative ideas. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 51, 81-87.

Paulus, P. B., Nakui, T., Putman, V. L., & Brown, V. R. (2006). Effects of task instructions and brief breaks on brainstorming. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 10(3), 206.

Scopelliti, I., Cillo, P., Busacca, B., & Mazursky, D. (2014). How do financial constraints affect creativity?. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(5), 880-893.

Shin, J., & Grant, A. M. (2020). When putting work off pays off: the curvilinear relationship between and creativity. Academy of Management Journal, (ja).

Stroebe, W., & Diehl, M. (1994). Why groups are less effective than their members: On productivity losses in idea-generating groups. European review of social psychology, 5(1), 271-303.

Wilson, E. R., Thompson, L. L., & Lucas, B. J. (2020). Pride and Pratfalls: Recounting Embarrassing Stories Increases Creativity. International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation, 8(1), 21-30.

Zitek, E. M., & Vincent, L. C. (2015). Deserve and diverge: Feeling entitled makes people more creative. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 56, 242-248.

By: Teresa Aires