Ind V Group Creativity and the Generation

Ind v Group

Creativity and the Generation of Ideas: Current Evidence

The generation of ideas and the encouragement of creativity is important for business growth and development and in many other applications, including those of purely artistic merit (however that might be defined), yet current research increasingly suggests that accepted wisdom regarding creativity and innovation can be more detrimental to the process than it is helpful. A variety of perspectives and levels/types of research have been brought to bear on this issue, and though they are not entirely consistent some clear trends appear to be emerging that directly counter decades of accepted "knowledge" and practice when it comes to creativity and collaboration. Through a synthesis of this current information, some more reliable and nuanced practices and perspectives can be recommended for better personal and individual understanding as well as for more effective business development and growth.

Alex Osborn, a highly successful advertising executive who shared some of his experience and beliefs in his 1948 book Your Creative Power, has remained one of the most influential personalities and voices in the understanding of creativity and business collaboration to the present day (Cain, 2012; Lehrer, 2012). It was Osborn that developed the concept (and coined the phrase) of "brainstorming," and it was largely at his insistence that groups of many individuals working actively and uncritically towards solving a certain problem became seen as the best method of approaching complex or novel situations (Cain, 2012; Lehrer, 2012). Empirical examinations of Osborn's brainstorming theories have shown them to be all but unequivocally false, with collections of individuals working independently capable of generating more ideas -- and usually better ideas, as well -- than can collections of the same size where the individuals work in groups and actually interact (Dennis & Valacich, 1994; Cain, 2012; Lehrer, 2012). Indeed, according to Cain's perspective solitude -- and even perhaps a certain degree of the personality trait of introversion -- are necessary to drive true creativity. Society generally and the Olson-derived brainstorming theory specifically reward extroversion and make it far easier for the ideas of extroverts to rise to prominence, but this fails to fully account for the true creative and innovative potential of any population, which according to basic statistics will have introverts as one-third to one-half of its members (Cain, 2012).

On the other hand, this does not mean that collaboration is not a good thing. Many successful companies and organizations have been built on the ability for different perspectives and knowledge areas to come together, often in semi-random meetings, and though this can be achieved somewhat through explicit practices there has been a great deal of efficacy shown in the designing of spaces to encourage the occurrence of random meetings and exchanges of information (Lehrer, 2012). It is also important to note that this type of random or at least less explicitly controlled interaction and collaboration is highly different from the purposeful brainstorming proposed and supported by Osborn and his influence (Cain, 2012; Lehrer, 2012). Instead of selecting a specific problem and bringing individuals into an interactive group for the explicit purpose of generating ideas for addressing or solving that problem, this type of collaborative interaction is generally un-purposed and leads to true creativity by not presenting any real bounds on the meetings, conversations, and exchanges that take place. The Bose Corporation was founded by Amar Bose when he was supposed to be working on his dissertation but found himself somewhat randomly seeking out advice and knowledge from the Acoustics Lab down the hall from his own offices for a personal hobby, as one example; Pixar's building was designed to bring different departmental personnel into regular contact simply so ideas could continue to be generated and seen from new perspectives without growing stale (Lehrer, 2012). Both of these examples and many specific research studies show that groups working together can certainly lead to innovation and creative output, but they also demonstrate that explicit control and focus is not necessary in order to achieve this end (Dennis & Valacich, 1994; Lehrer, 2012).

Another important distinction between these examples and Osborn's theory of group creativity is the manner in which criticism is perceived. According to the conventional wisdom propagated by Osborn and those that adhere to his style of practice and thinking, criticism of any kind makes it less likely that individuals will freely share their ideas, for fear that they will be dismissed as irrational, unfeasible, or simply ridiculous (Lehrer, 2012). In reality, though, research has shown that various levels of critiquing and criticizing proposed ideas (when undertaken in a proper manner) not only leads to more effective solutions to problems, but also generates more ideas purely in terms of quantity, as well (Lehrer, 2012; "Narcissists," n.d.). When a group has two people identified as "narcissists," for example, it is more likely to generate more creative results because these two controlling personalities will actively critique each other's ideas and help to whip up critical and creative thinking amongst the rest of the group, whereas according to the "Narcissists" (n.d.) article a group with only one narcissistic personality will control the group's thinking too much and quash creativity. It should also be noted that three narcissists in a group is found to create too much conflict and thus reduce creativity, as well, and indeed other research strongly supports the notion that there should be both a solid level of agreement and familiarity/cordiality in a group and the existence of new personalities, ideas, and manners of thinking present at the same time (Lehrer, 2012; "Narcissists," n.d.). Criticism should not be left out of creative processes and group discussions then, but rather criticism should be included to the point that it does not lead to true conflict that distracts from the issue at hand or that creates an inability to progress in the discussion of specific ideas.