Creativity in groups

Creativity in groups is an emergent process that results in novel and relevant ideas, responses,
processes, or products. This definition of creativity weds process and outcome which will be
addressed later in this entry. Although creativity in groups has a long history of being studied in
disciplines such as business and psychology, only recently have communication scholars paid
systematic attention to how group communication and creativity are related. This entry explores
the concept of creativity in a group context, examining how creativity differs from related
concepts such as learning and innovation, the different factors that seem to hinder as well as
facilitate creativity, and theoretical developments in the group communication field.
The term creativity is sometimes used interchangeably with related concepts such as learning
and innovation. Careful examination, however, reveals that creativity is related to, yet distinct
from, these processes. Learning may be considered to be the increased capacity of a group to
adapt and change on the basis of newly acquired information, skills, or understanding. So while
creativity generally indicates learning has taken place, not all learning results in creativity. While a
group may increase knowledge, skills, and understanding of information, for example, it is when
that knowledge, skill, or understanding is applied in ways that serve to yield novel products,
processes, or ideas that are directly relevant to the task at hand that members engage in
creativity. Thus learning paves the way for creativity and creative activity.
In addition to the production of novel and relevant ideas, responses, processes, or products,
innovation adds the criterion of implementation. The main difference between creativity and
innovation is that the latter requires a plan for how the group’s creative product will be put into
effect as well as the actual enactment of that plan. Creativity is part of the innovation process.

Factors Affecting Group Creativity

One might think that part of the answer to having groups produce highly creative and imaginative
solutions to problems is to compose them of highly intelligent or creative individuals. While this
may make intuitive sense, it is not always the case that groups composed of such individuals will
produce more creative solutions than groups not composed of such individuals or than
individuals working alone. Part of the reason is that bringing individuals together to work in a
group setting sometimes results in the manifestation of factors that hinder creativity. Some of
these factors are associated with the individuals who compose the group, some are associated
with the larger environment or broader context in which the group is situated, and some are
associated with the exchange of communication messages themselves.
Among the factors associated with individual hindrances to creativity are functional fixedness
and evaluation apprehension. Functional fixedness refers to a person’s propensity to think about
things in ways in which they have traditionally been used. A claw hammer, for example, is a
tool used to pound nails into a material or pull them out. Yet, depending on the situation, the
tool may also be used as a lever or a glass smasher. A person who is prone to functional fixedness
will have difficulty using the hammer in the latter two ways because he or she is rigid in his or
her thinking about how a hammer can or should be used. With evaluation apprehension, group
members may fear being judged or seen in a negative light by other group members. In an
effort to minimize this fear, such members will refrain from expressing ideas.
Factors associated with the larger environment in which the group operates also may serve
to hinder group creativity. These factors include organizational resources that are available to
group members, such as time and information. Time pressures imposed on the group by the
organization, for example, will have an adverse effect on creativity as members are not allowed
to adequately express and search for information and ideas. Another broader environment factor
concerns organizational culture. Here, an organization that has had a past history of financial,
social, or other failures may have developed procedures, policies, language and / or reward systems
that are indicative of being riskaverse. Consequently, original, novel, and divergent problem
solving is not valued. A group charged with creative problem solving is affected by the risk averse
culture of the organization in which it is embedded. Group creativity suffers as a result.
Among the factors related to communication messages that may hinder group creativity are
production blocking and the communication network structure that is characteristic of the group.
Production blocking occurs when group members are limited in their generation of ideas because
of the sequential flow of communication messages. That is, every time a group member speaks,
others are essentially blocked from expressing their ideas. Network structure refers to the patterning
of communication messages among group members, or who talks to whom and with what
frequency. Group members may communicate little with each other and may direct most if
not all messages to the group leader. The group leader, then, acts as a gatekeeper for
information and ideas.

Communication View
In addition to factors associated with communication messages themselves, communication is
related to group creativity in at least two other ways. First, and perhaps most basic, communication
is a symbolic activity, and creativity is always expressed symbolically. When group members
wish to convey information, thoughts, and ideas to one another, they do so through the use
of language. Ideas are expressed, assessed, and validated though the use of language, the exemplar
of human symbolic activity. Second, symbols, their use, and the meanings attached to them serve
to create the very group environments in which creativity takes place. Group environments
may be described in different ways, and regardless of how described, communication serves to
give life to them. For example, notions of how things should be done, what is to count as
acceptable or right or wrong, and the general atmosphere of group relations are all
communicatively and symbolically constituted and maintained. The manner in which group
members communicate with one another serves to give life to these notions and, in short, to the
immediate environment in which creativity occurs.
Given that the communication process is essentially tied to group creativity, a variety of
communication techniques, tools, and formats have been designed to enhance creativity. One of
the ways in which group creativity may be fostered is by attempting to minimize the effects of
those individual, environmental, and communicative factors that hinder it. Such fostering may be
accomplished, for example, by structuring the communication that takes place in the group.
A variety of methods, or formats, have been developed for structuring communicative activity,
with arguably the most famous being the brainstorming technique developed by advertising executive
Alex Osborn. One of the central arguments justifying the use of the brainstorming technique
concerns the role of the evaluation of ideas. Sometimes group members place an emphasis on
evaluating ideas instead of generating them. As well, some group members may become
apprehensive about having their ideas being negatively evaluated by other members. Consequently,
those ideas are never expressed in discussion. The brainstorming technique is designed to reduce the
adverse impact of evaluation on idea generation. Despite its widespread use, the brainstorming
technique has met with equivocal empirical results.

Theoretical Approaches
Abran Salazar has put forward a theoretical view of the connection between communication and
group creativity. His view is influenced by a complex systems orientation to the study of
groups. There are many different systems, and groups are but one type. A complex system is
one that is marked by increased dynamism and variety of group activities. It is a system that
operates at the boundary between order and chaos.
Picture a match that has just been put out. Left alone, smoke rises from the match head in a
steady column (order). A few inches above the match head, there is a noticeable disturbance
in this orderly rise: The smoke displays an increased dynamism (complexity) among the particles
that compose it, with the result being a visible change in the column. Just beyond this
disturbance, the smoke loses coherence and dissipates (chaos) into the surrounding air. The point at
which the smoke seems ready to dissipate may be said to be the “edge of chaos”; it is the point
at which the smoke has reached a complex and dynamic state but has not yet lost coherence.
At times, groups also operate in an analogous complex state. Salazar claims that in order for
a group to be creative, it should function in this complex state. That is, a group’s chances of being
creative are small if it continues to function in the ways it always has—by displaying a characteristic
order. By the same token, a group will not be creative if it is in a state of chaos. Rather, a
group should
function between order and chaos. How group members communicate with one another informs us
about whether a group is in a complex state.
One can observe how members target other members through their communication, that is, who
tends to talk to whom and with what frequency; this is the group’s structural system. One can
also observe the procedure group members use when working on a task (technical system);
the roles group members occupy (relational system); and the assumptions about what is right or
wrong, and good and bad, which is inherent in how group members communicate about
information (information system). Whenever we see group members changing their interaction
patterns, whether by changing the frequency and directional flow of communication, using new
procedures to solve problems or make decisions, displaying little or no discussion typical of group
member roles, or questioning or supplanting assumptions about what counts as good or bad
information, the group is showing evidence of operating in a complex state. This complex state lays
the fertile ground for the emergence of the creative process and outcomes. Hence, as far as
creativity is concerned, there is no differentiation to be made between process and outcome.
John Gastil has built on Salazar’s ideas, focusing on how groups can come to a state of
complexity. He discusses a threestage process. The first of these stages is taking an inventory
of the group. Here, group members come to know how each of the four systems described in
the previous paragraph work. Group members take stock of their group in an effort to come to
know how to change it. In the second stage, perturbation, group members introduce disturbances
that serve to shake up the group in some way pertaining to one or more of the four systems. Such
perturbations may include changing group roles, employing different standards for evaluating
information, or using a new procedure for solving problems. Finally, in amplification and
extension, group members employ the changed features, integrate them into everyday group
functioning, and recognize the implications of the change(s) for other aspects of group work,
such as impact on roles and power differences.
As of today these theoretical ideas have not been empirically tested. While the models identified
above have intuitive appeal, future development in the field of communication will benefit
from further theoretical honing and empirical scrutiny. After all, there may be an element of chance
or serendipity associated with creativity that no model may be able to capture. Clearly the study of
communication and group creativity is still in incipient stages. However, if group communication
scholars’ attention to creativity in some degree parallels that paid to it by psychology scholars after
J. P. Guilford’s call to engage in creativity study in his
1950 address to the American Psychological Association, it will have been a very promising beginning
indeed.