The Psychoeconomic View of Creative Work in Groups and Organizations

Abstract

Although most research on creativity deals only with individuals, there are many settings in which creative tasks are assigned to groups. Indeed, in most contemporary research settings collaborative inquiry is the norm. Extensions to the psychoeconomic theory of creativity provide several specific predictions about the nature and optimization of group creativity. These predictions are based on consideration of the ways in which some individual differences in creative style, such as domain experience and flexibility of thinking, are likely to interact. Instead of characterizing such attributes as conducive or harmful to the creative process, the psychoeconomic theory explicitly recognizes their potential for contributions in both directions. In particular, the theory implies that groups should be composed of heterogeneous participants who vary in their experiences within the domain in question, and who are only moderately familiar with one another, for most successful creative performance. This proposal is contrary to several theories which imply greater success from more congenial and symmetric groups. The theory also yields detailed predictions for how the optimal composition of a creative group should vary in response to changes in the characteristics of the group's members and the structure of its working environment.

Understanding, Measuring, and Enhancing Individual Creative Problem-Solving Efforts

“…Mobility also balances the conserving tendencies created by having extensive knowledge about a field, but because knowledge and thought mobility may be opposing forces in most persons, balancing these two inclinations may be easier in a diverse group than in one person (Rubenson & Runco, 1995). Children's knowledge in specific domains predicted performance on verbal and math tasks involving creative thinking better than did divergent-thinking tests (Baer, 1991(Baer, , 1994.…”

Meta-Creativity: Being Creative About Creativity

“…The classroom may similarly make autonomy and incubation difficult. Risk-taking is again relevant Rubenson & Runco, 1995). Teachers are not in a position to take risks.…”

Aesthetic Heuristics in Ubimus

“…Given these constraints, collective creative products demand creative decisions that lead to intense sharing of unique resources. Psycho-economic models of creativity suggest that the analysis of the flow of resources may unveil the mechanisms that boost and constrain creative outcomes (Rubenson & Runco 1992, 1995Sternberg & Lubart 1991). If creative processes were to occur in ideal conditions, creative decision-making would be based on objective, rational assessments that would maximize the use of resources leading to improvements in both individual and group creative performance.…”

“…Creative activities involve the consumption and production of resources (Rubenson & Runco 1992, 1995Sternberg & Lubart 1991). Purely rational decisions would imply an optimal usage of resources, maximizing the creative output and ensuring positive impacts on both the material and social dimensions of the creative outcomes.…”