Fostering Creativity in Difficult Groups: Lessons from Practice

By Helga Hohn and Joop Verloop

Originally appeared in the International Creativity Network Newsletter, volume 4, number 2, 1994, pages 4-5.

Environmental conditions that affect creativity and innovation are important in effective practice. Amabile and Gryskiewicz (1988) found among others the following major factors that affected creativity positively or negatively in Research and Development environments.

Creativity Stimulant

• freedom
• self-motivation
• sufficient resources
• encouragement
• recognition
• sufficient time
• good project management
• good organization climate

Creativity Obstacles

• constraint
• external motivation
• insufficient resources
• disinterest
• evaulation pressure
• insufficient time
• poor project management
• poor organizational climate

We used the above factors to explore these climate factors further in two groups. With participants permission, we formed two creativity training groups and included deliberate stimulants for one and obstacles for the other. Although we did not have a formal experiment, we were curious to see what would happen in the groups in regard to "cold" climate quantity, quality, and originality.

In Group I several creativity stimulants were deliberately included:

• A warm appreciative introduction with emphasis on freedom in personal style of creativity and time;
• Information was adequate and easy to read, questions were encouraged and the attitude of the experimenter was warm and appreciative; and
• There was time to get to know the other group members and start as a group.

In Group II several creativity obstacles were deliberately included:

• An authoritative introduction of the creative session with a special emphasis on restrictions in time and some evaluation pressure;
• An overload of complex and far off information without any help to read it. Questions were not answered and the attitude of the experimenter was aloof and disinterested; and
• There was no opportunity for group members to get to know each other.

Observations and Surprises

The results of these practice sessions were not what we expected. At the end of the creativity session both groups had a very good group climate. The obstacles group gave even a somewhat higher appreciation of the session than the stimulants group. The groups differed about 10% in the amount of generated ideas (Group I 79 ideas, Group II 71 ideas). But again, contrary to expectation, Group II had in many ways the more original ideas.

The results were different enough from our initial expectations to make both the observer and facilitator look at them from a different viewpoint. In taking a closer look at the process in the group and psycho-dynamics between the group and the environments some interesting observations and interpretations could be made. Both groups started with different group climates, yet the outcome was not that different. Given this situation, what else might we consider. One likely source of additional information was the facilitator who was the same for both groups. We inquired further about his reactions.

Group I with the creativity stimulating environment, was open and comfortable. The facilitator reported: "I found the group to be friendly and open toward me. The atmosphere was open minded; people were nice but also a little bit dull. The group worked hard and motivated and produced many ideas, but there were few group dynamics and almost no hitchhiking on ideas. This was quite continuous through the whole session. In the end my feeling in the session was quite all right, but I felt there was too little 'movement/trembling in the air'. Somehow diversity and originality were not too high. "Group II with the creativity obstacles in their environment started as a cool unfriendly group. The facilitator commented: "At the start the group was very cold and made aggressive remarks about my identity and what I was doing there anyway. I had to deal with a slight feeling of panic as it took a long time to get started and the time was limited in the program."

In examining the process of Group II there was a lot of dynamic change. The words facilitator noted: "I worked hard at 'dragging' the group through the first phases of CPS. I was extremely encouraging to those members who were reacting positively. They began to work with each other and to hitch-hike on each other's ideas. By the end of the session I felt the group had transformed into a creative and cohesive group, cooperating with each other and generating diversified and original ideas."

From a psycho-dynamic and group dynamics viewpoint, Group I seemed to have perceived the authorities (experimenter and facilitator) as cooperative. Group II seemed to have initially defined them more negatively. The role of the facilitator appeared to be a very important one as a change agent for Group II.

Insights and Opportunities

Although this activity was exploratory, we had some new insights and directions for further research and applications (see box). A group in a 'cold, negative' environmental climate will be susceptible to project the 'feeling of coldness' coming from the environment of the facilitator and any other outsiders. Conversely, the facilitator may be influenced negatively and perceives their behavior as intended solely for him or her. In such a climate the facilitator can change the negative attitudes of the group and provide opportunities for a better creative climate in the unit. Thus continued research on group climate might be productively focused on the combined interaction with the facilitator. The position the facilitator takes 'with' the group or 'against' the group can be of crucial importance for the creativity of the group within a 'cold, negative' environmental climate.

Tips for Facilitating in a "Cold" Organizational Climate

• Do not take negative remarks personally;
• Keep up your own energy;
• Take time for trust formation between the group and yourself;
• Do not overdo it, the group needs time to test you and the change they are experiencing;
• Be light on aggressive remarks. Do not be a 'sponge' for the negative feeling, react lightly on the content level and avoid power games;
• Strongly reinforce any positive input. Be appreciative of every small light or signal;
• Briefing, at the beginning of a session may take longer when climate is difficult. Trust that this time is well spent in order to establish open communication in the group; and
• Remain optimistic that you will be able to change any negative energy into positive in spite of the pressure.

References

Amabile, T. M. & Gryskiewicz, S. S. (1988). "Creative human resources in the R&D laboratory: How environment and personality affect innovation". In Handbook of Creative and Innovative Managers (Kuhn, R. L. , ed. ). New York: McGraw Hill Book Company.

Belbin, M. (1981). Management Teams, Why They Succeed or Fail. Oxford:

Butterworth-Heimeman Ltd. COCD (1992). Report and video tapes on two creative H. D. Hohn, Center for the Development of Creative Thinking, Antwerp.

Gibb, J. R. (1972). "Managing for creativity in organizations". In Climate for Creativity (Taylor, C. W. , ed. ), 23-32. New York: Permagom Press.

Kerlinger, F. (1969). Foundations of Behavioral Research. London: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.