Literature Review on Group Creativity Theory - Essay Example

Part A – Art Director An art director is a critical component to any successful website production campaign in which design and ambience is of concern. The purpose of the art director is to oversee the creativity associated with the project and to help guide the design team to produce exactly the look and feel of the project that the customer desires (Paulus & Nijstad, 2003). This position is not typically a simple position as it takes several years of work experience and further education to become skilled enough to guide fellow designers.

The art director must be an expert in their field and have strong knowledge to properly guide the design team and create an environment that is conducive to creativity, innovation and stimulation of new ideas (Paulus & Nijstad, 2003). In other words, the art director serves as a project manager, designer and coordinator of all design activities in order to achieve the best possible end-product for the customer. Without a strong art director, a design team may not have clear direction or have the tools necessary to instill creativity and innovation for all projects.

Part B – Literature Review on Group Creativity Theory Perhaps the most difficult challenge for the art director is to implement a creative environment while balancing the challenges of group creativity theory and all of the variables associated with group dynamics. There are many external, social and psychological factors that can impact a design team’s ability to think creatively. Furthermore, the politics of a creative team can impact the group creativity because individuals begin to compete over whose ideas are more creative.

One issue that can arise is an over-abundance of ideas that can actually reduce the positive creativity that is desired within a group collectivity situation (Goncalo & Staw, 2006). In this situation, it is highly important for the art director to utilize the control and organizational power awarded by the position to continue to harbor good ideas while reducing the opportunity for too many ideas to have a negative impact on group creativity. In the end, a choice must be made and the group must push forward to produce a strong website that is both creative and to the customer’s approval.

Due to socio-psychological issues stemming from criticism in the workplace, there is often a serious issue that confronts group creativity. Many employees shut down their creativity when their own work has been criticized, in which case, directors often avoid criticizing work which negatively impacts the quality and abundance of creativity (De Dren et al., n.d.). However, present research has shown that if art directors and managers take a pro-active position to create a work environment that encourages criticizing the work of others and one’s own work, group creativity will increase and the overall quality of work will improve (Nemeth et al. 2004). Criticism is no longer defined as a negative component to group and personal creativity; instead, it should be viewed as a strong component of positive creativity that helps challenge the design team to improve upon weaknesses in the current product.

This is a technique that the art director should utilize based on current research within the field. Furthermore, extrinsic motivations outside of the company and the design team can also impact group creativity. According to Cooper and Jayatilaka (2006), group creativity can be diminished due to outside obligatory factors that can reduce motivations for designers and artists to think and work creatively. Due to this research, it may be clear that the company is unable to combat the negative effects of external obligations that employees may have in their personal lives.

However, Goncalo and Staw (2006) suggest that group collectivism and harboring the ideals of working together as a collective unit will reduce personal and external factors that can diminish creativity. Overall, the main concept is for an art director to harbor an effective working environment that will reduce negative components that can impact group creativity.ReferencesCooper, R.B., & Jayatilaka, B. (2006). Group creativity: the effects of extrinsic, intrinsic, and obligation motivations.

Creativity Research Journal, 18(2), 153-172.De Dren, C.K.W., Bechtoldt, M.N., & Nijstad, B.A. (n.d.). Team personality diversity, group creativity, and innovativeness in organizational teams. Sustainable Development in a Diverse World, Retrieved from http://www.susdiv.org/uploadfiles/RT3.2_PP_Carsten.pdf Ford, C.M. (1996). A Theory of individual creative action in multiple social domains. Academy of Management Review, 21(4), 1112-1142.Goncalo, J.A., & Staw, B.M. (2006). Individualism–collectivism and group creativity.

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 100(1), 96-109.Nemeth, C.J., Personnaz, B., Personnaz, M., & Goncalo, J.A. (2004). The Liberating role of conflict in group creativity: a study in two countries. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34(4), 365-374.Paulus, P.B., & Nijstad, B.A. (2003). Group creativity: innovation through collaboration. New York: Oxford University Press.