=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-1283/paper9
|storemode=property
|title=Social Intelligence and the Creative Process
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1283/paper_9.pdf
|volume=Vol-1283
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/ecsi/Hopwood14
}}
==Social Intelligence and the Creative Process==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1283/paper_9.pdf
Social Intelligence and the Creative Process
Jon Hopwood PhD
Institute of Live Communications, Melbourne, Australia
jon@institutelc.com.au
Abstract. This paper explores the relationship between the creative process and social intelligence.
Creativity has established value in modern, knowledge-based economies but is complex, multi-faceted
and often group-led. Social intelligence is one method for navigating this complexity using intuition,
communication, collaboration and empathy. A ‘creative vortex’ model (originally derived from PhD
thesis research) has been proposed. This forms the basis of theoretical framework from which further
empirical research on social intelligence and the creative process can be conducted.
Keywords: Social Intelligence; creativity; creative process; creative industries; soft skills; group
creativity
1 Introduction
Ideas are the currency of success. In modern economies creativity is seen as a major driver of
social wellbeing and economic prosperity. In many developed societies there is an established
infrastructure of creative industries (Cunningham, 2002; Garnham, 2005; Potts, Cunningham,
Hartley, & Ormerod, 2008). These industries include communications, advertising, film,
media and the arts (Caves, 2000; O’Connor, 2007; Hartley, 2005; Leadbeater & Oakley,
1999). They contribute to the knowledge economy (OECD, 1998; Roodhouse, 2001; Throsby,
2001) through creativity and imaginative intellectual property (Smith E. A., 2001; Howkins,
2002). Creativity is required to extend and adapt current thinking and meet new social and
economic challenges (Amabile, 1996; Csikszentmihalyi, 1996; Fairholm & Card, 2009;
Fischer, 2005; Montuori & Purser, 1996; Townley, Beech, & McKinlay, 2009) .
Creativity is therefore important and influences the way we consume and communicate. There
is a shift to a conceptual age where divergent thinking and innovation are desired skill sets.
The left brain influence of information is giving way to more right brain values at work:
inventiveness, meaning and empathy (Pink, 2006).
Given the impact of right brain values the creative process is influenced by social intelligence.
The importance of social intelligence as an enabler of performance and flexibility in human
relationships is becoming increasingly valued in business and society (Hahn, Kun, & Choi,
2011). The ability to engage in ‘complex’ relationships with other humans leads to social
success (Goleman, 2007) (Rahim, 2014) (Druskat, Mount, & Sala, 2013). Such practical
intelligences are required in 21st Century knowledge and creative economies.
Much of the literature explores the creative process as it applies to individuals. More recent
research acknowledges the emergence of social creativity as it applies to groups. Empirical
research conducted as part of a PhD thesis explored the social creative process within a
festival organisation in Melbourne, Australia. This qualitative-based ethnographic and
longitudinal research provided deep insights into the creative process as expressed in a group
environment. From this research a creative vortex model was derived. This paper presents this
empirically derived vortex model in a new context through the social intelligence literature.
This paper argues that while individual creativity remains an important attribute in the creative
process, the key driver of creativity in the conceptual, collaborative age is group creativity and
that social intelligence is a necessary but under-researched attribute of this group creative
process.
1.1 The Significance of Creativity
Understanding more about the significance and structure of creativity will lead to a clearer
understanding of how to harness social intelligence in the creative process. Creativity has been
the subject of academic research for over a century and philosophical discourse since the time
of ancient civilisations (Welling, 2007). The consensus across the literature is that creativity is
of significance to society. From a philosophical perspective creativity is viewed as a quest for
knowledge and the advancement of humankind through such knowledge (McKeon, 1973).
Creativity can be universally applied across all human cultures in both a contemporary and a
historical context. Since ancient times civilisations have possessed a form of creative
expression through literature, art or music and in contemporary terms are able to express this
creativity through scientific and technological breakthroughs (Simonton & Ting, 2010).
Creativity can in part define a civilisation: ‘to some extent we can claim that civilisations are
defined by the creative geniuses who are responsible for the exceptional achievements – the
great inventions, theories, philosophies, poems, paintings, and other creative products that
compose a civilisation’s intellectual and aesthetic legacy’ (Simonton & Ting, 2010). This
creativity has its origins amongst the ancient Greek philosophers and later in the Industrial
Revolution. For Aristotle the process of making and creating something new and useful was
distinct from existing practical wisdom (Wall, 2003). Adam Smith (1776) suggested that the
ingenuity of invention, combined with the skill, dexterity and judgement of labour would
bring prosperity and wealth to nations and society through positive economic value (Ville,
2011; Goldbard, 2006). For psychologists, creativity is presented in the context of the
individual and their cognitive approach to idea generation (Glaveanu, 2010; Runco, 2004;
Hennessey, 2003; Csikszentmihalyi, 1996; Nijstad & Paulus, 2003; Simonton, 2003). Much
has been published on the thought processes of creative individuals and how this is influenced
and understood (Guilford J. , 1950; Barron & Harrington, 1981).
Creativity should generate advances by producing something novel and original (Whitehead,
1933; Amabile, 1996; Barron & Harrington, 1981; Guilford J. , 1950; DiLiello & Houghton,
2008). The ideas of creative people should hold novelty outside the sphere of conventional
thought. The unique idea must however also possess some appropriate use. It will require a
practical application in some context in order to be creative (Amabile, 1996; DiLiello &
Houghton, 2008; Sternberg & Lubart, 1999).
More recently, there is evidence that an emergent ‘creative class’ makes a positive
contribution to businesses and communities through workplace innovation, consumption of
arts and other cultural activities (Florida, 2004; Howkins, 2002). Twenty-first century
developed economies increasingly value creativity over more traditional factors of production
such as manufacturing (Florida, 2004; Lundvall & Johnson, 1994). This is particularly
significant to the relationship between social intelligence and the creative process. In
knowledge and experience economies such as Australia where manufacturing has declined in
favour of cheaper overseas imports there is an increased consumption of experiences and
leisure activities (Kollmeyer, 2009). The delivery of such experiences is the remit of the
creative industries (Caves, 2000; Cunningham, 2002; Hartley, 2005). Such socially derived
and socially consumed experiences harness the power of social intelligence.
Finally creativity is subjective. Some ideas are considered more novel and useful than others.
This will depend on the context and environment in which these ideas are created and
expressed (Bourdieu, 1984). Such novelty in creativity for the pursuit of useful ideas has
become important for maintaining our quality of life. Einstein or Darwin’s initially abstract
work has proved to have practical significance (Gruber & Wallace, 2001). Individuals and
societies are inextricably linked through this creative process, each contributing to the other’s
development and wellbeing. Creative imaginations establish links between activities and the
answers to multi-faceted questions (Pérez-Fabello & Campos, 2011). Creativity is concerned
with how idea generation can impact on society such as through art, science or medical
research (Gardner, 2006). However, creativity also occurs on a smaller but widespread scale
as people try to solve day-to-day problems and challenges such as how to save household
water (Gardner, 2006). Creativity in society can further be seen as a process of renewal and
replacement. Creative destruction (Amin, 1994; Bullen, Robb, & Kenway, 2004; Schumpeter,
1934) occurs as creativity transforms the old into something new. The refrigerator replaces the
icebox. The Apple iPod replaces the Sony cassette Walkman.
This section has identified the significance of creativity and how this significance relates to
social intelligence as the subject of this paper. The next section discusses the dimensions of
creativity and in particular the creative process. Understanding more about the creative
process from the literature will validate the relevance and significance of this process to social
intelligence.
1.2 The Dimensions of Creativity
The dimensions of creativity have been a subject of academic discourse for decades and have
been discussed in a range of contexts, including business and management, sociology,
philosophy and psychology. The creative process is identified as a method and approach to
thinking and ideas. This paper seeks to understand more about this method in relation to social
intelligence.
Thoughts on the dimensions of creativity have been widely published. The work on creativity
is broadly categorised into four dimensions also known as the Four Ps of Creativity (Drazin,
Glynn, & Kazanjian, 1999; Rhodes, 1961; Simonton, 1988). These dimensions are explained
as follows:
Creative products. Creative products are by implication more unusual than other products.
As such they deviate in some manner from a normal or ordinary solution to an issue or
problem (Amabile, 1996; Sternberg, 1999). The creative product is anything that produces
‘effective surprise’ in the consumer or audience (Bruner, 1962, p. 5). In order to be creative,
this product must demonstrate some form of originality (Runco & Sakamoto, 1999). This
originality does not only refer to the newness of a creative product, rather also to its usefulness
and value (Ekvall, 1997). The creative product is only of value if it responds to a particular
problem or situation. This value is likely to exist within a specific situation and for a specific
person, group or organisation (Besemer & O'Quin, 1987). For example, a system of water
delivery for a desert village is unique and of value to that group and situation. It will not hold
the same value for another group in another situation such as a modern city by a freshwater
river. The creative product therefore is an idea, action or object held as both original and
useful in a particular context (Mayer, 1999). Another aspect of the creative product relates to
the realisation of that product. How viable is it for the creative idea to emerge as something
physically novel and useful? The capability and capacity to transform a conceptual idea into a
tangible outcome is considered when defining a product as creative or not (Paulus, 2000).
Creative Person. There is much written about the dimensions of creativity (Runco, 2003;
Sternberg & Lubart, 1995; Rentschler, 2001; 2002). As such it can be overlooked that despite
these different dimensions, the protagonist of creativity is invariably still a person: ‘In its
narrow sense, creativity refers to the abilities that are most characteristic of creative people’
(Guilford J. , 1950, p. 144). The creative person in the literature is characterised by a range of
specific attributes (Martinsen, 2011; King, McKee Walker, & Broyles, 1996). Personality,
cognitive styles and motivation variables play a role in defining what extent a person is
creative (Barron & Harrington, 1981; Lubart, 1994). From a personality perspective the
literature suggests that those who are open minded about new experiences, have a desire to
grow and succeed, have a willingness to take risks and have high levels of self-esteem are
more likely to be creative (Abuhamdeh & Csikszentmihalyi, 2004; Martinsen, 2011). Equally
an above average level of dominance, hostility and impulsiveness in creative people balances
the more positive personality traits (Feist, 1999). This suggests the creative person is a
contradictory and complex phenomenon. One clear view relates to the common theme of
originality present across much of the literature on creativity (Lack, Kumar, & Arevalo, 2003).
In this context the originality of thinking driven by the cognitive style of the individual is
impacted by other factors such as external influences, milieu and personal ability (Helson,
1999; Martinsen, 2011). This originality is derived from openness to new ideas alongside
divergent thinking styles (Csikszentmihalyi, 1999).
Creative Place. There is an attraction attached to the creative place or field (Bourdieu, 1993;
Drake, 2003). People invest effort in seeking out what they consider different to the everyday
spaces they occupy. This can be for a range of reasons. First in the context of visitation,
tourists and locals will visit places of creative interest such as art exhibitions or aesthetically
pleasing design environments (Förster, 2009). In terms of habitation, certain communities will
migrate to creative spaces to live, work and contribute (Florida, 2004). Others still will gain
creative benefit from the mere suggestion of a place. The image or memory of a creative place
is enough to invoke creative thought (Drake, 2003). There is a range of reasons why certain
places facilitate creative ways of thinking. To be accepted and to gain influence from a more
diverse community which demonstrates an original and non-conformist approach (Barron F. ,
1955; Negus & Pickering, 2000). The building of networks to share ideas, to gather input from
other creative persons, or to develop a team for a particular goal or project is at the core of
social intelligence. The setting in which an individual or group is situated can catalyse
creativity (Scott, 2000). Particular kinds of project and knowledge based workers such as
those in the creative industries will be attracted to these environments (Scott, 2000). There is a
perception that the creative space will be a prompt for individual and group levels of
inspiration and creative buzz (Syrett & Lammiman, 1997). The space forms a backdrop for a
series of collective activities all of which serve the creative purpose. Individuals are
‘surrounded by a concoction of rumours, impressions, recommendations, trade folklore’
(Grabher, 2002, p. 209) incorporating diverse thinking, new trends, ideas and fashions
(Ekinsmyth, 2002). These creative networks are relevant to the more transient based collective
or cluster of creative persons as they work on a project in a setting whilst connected to a
temporary creative hub. This collective effect will be substantially impacted through the key
aspects of social intelligence and ‘soft skills’.
Creative Process. The creative process requires high levels of social intelligence through
personal judgement, flexibility and autonomy (Hall & Johnson, 2009). This open-ended view
of the creative process as more of an art than a science implies a paradigm that is difficult to
define or standardise through traditional management processes (Hall & Johnson, 2009). The
collaborative and organic nature of the process is difficult to structure when it predominantly
takes place in people’s heads and is shared by diverse groups (Davenport, 2005). The mental
and cognitive processes used in creative thought become unique as ‘principles and elements of
knowledge and insights that have not been connected before’ (Ekvall, 1997, p. 195). New and
viable solutions for creative and original outcomes can only emerge from activity with action.
It is necessary for meetings and exchanges to take place for unknown and new information to
be shared (Förster, 2009; Kristensson, Gustafsson, & Archer, 2004). This social process
becomes the catalyst for creative thought. Divergent thinking has been used to describe these
thought processes (Guilford J. P., 1967; McCrae, 1987; Runco, 1991). Such thinking creates a
flexible and unstructured platform for combining a vision of alternative realities with the
practical aspects of established and current principles. This combining and reorganising of
socially derived knowledge and information to advance the thinking process and in turn to
generate new ideas appears to be key to the creative process and is a vital aspect of social
intelligence (Mumford, 2000). The creative process can be summarized in 8 stages as follows:
Fig. 1. The Creative Process Funnel
Creative options start at the top with the most relevant and refined distilled at the bottom. The
top of the funnel represents the broad construction of the problem in stage one. Situations
requiring creative ideas are often poorly defined or complex. Developing a framework for
understanding the problem can enhance creative performance (Isaksen, Dorval, & Treffinger,
2010). Often framework development is conducted in a social context such as a workshop or
brainstorming session. Searching for information relevant to the creative problem commences
in stage two. Information gathering before generation of new ideas is more likely to produce
creative output (Hunter & Cushenbery, 2011). Again, information gathering can be a socially
driven process with various team members bringing different aspects and views of the
information gathered to the table. Given the large amount of data possibly collected by this
stage, the concepts most relevant to the task can be selected and organized in stage three
(Wierzbicki, 2007). Combining the relevant concepts in stage four will generate new and
unique concepts for exploration (Unsworth, 2001). Once concepts have been recombined as
unique then ideas can be generated from these unique concepts in stage five (Girotra,
Terwiesch, & Ulrich, 2009). The ideas at this stage will be new but need to be evaluated in the
context of the task during stage six so workable activities emerge (Kobayashi & Higashi,
2010). As ideas move from abstract concepts to tangible and workable actions a plan of
implementation in stage seven is required to move towards execution (Byrne, Mumford,
Barrett, & Vessey, 2009). The final and eighth stage is managing a process of feedback from
the implementation of ideas. The creative process can evolve and improve as a result of such
monitoring (Stamm, 2008).
The eight-stage creative process is particularly relevant to this paper in that much of the
published work on social intelligence relates to the attributes required to engage in social
processes with other members of a group, team or society. This creative process will be
influenced by such group interaction. This paper argues that the social intelligence level of the
group will have significant impact on the final creative outcome. However, in order to
understand how social intelligence can impact on the creative process the generality of the
creative process must be considered. Does the nature of the task have an impact on the
creative process? Will the creative process in differ depending on whether it is product design,
science or other creative industries? The sub-processes identified in the eight-stage model may
have very different characteristics and influences depending on the nature of the task (Lubart,
2001). Much of the creativity literature suggests a small number of domain specific models
but one size may not fit all cases (Lubart, 2001). There are often many paths to solving a
complex or a simple task of cognition and therefore paths to creative outcomes may also be
varied (Isaksen, Dorval, & Treffinger, 2010). In understanding these paths those variables that
make the nature of the task unique will be considered here. The first consideration is the
internal variables that can impact the creative process. These internal variables are described
here as the characteristics of the creative process and will vary depending on the creative task,
the culture of the group and the skills and experiences of those involved in the process. This is
especially valid in the context of social intelligence skills. The second consideration is the
external variables that can impact the creative process. These external variables are described
here as the influences on the creative process and will vary depending on the creative task and
the broader environment within which the task is situated. Each of these internal and external
variables is now discussed.
Characteristics of the Creative Process. Many characteristics of the creative process are
discussed across the literature. Further to the literature, empirical, qualitative research
conducted on the group creative process at a festival organisation in Melbourne, Australia has
identified a number of characteristics impacting the creative process, in particular at a social
group level. Figure II indicates the main characteristics arising from a combination of this
original research and the literature. They sit within the funnel as intrinsic to impacting on the
creative process. They become the characteristics of that specific process depending on the
task at hand and will exist to varying degrees within.
Fig. 2. Characteristics as Internal Variables to the Creative Process
The first characteristic of the creative process is positivity. Despite the inner torment cited by
many artists and performers, evidence from original research suggests that the creative process
is enjoyable and fun (Henderson, 2004). Positive emotions such as joy and excitement can
expand a creative person’s range of cognitions (Amabile, Arsade, Mueller, & Staw, 2005;
Frederickson, 1998; 2001). Increasing the repertoire of feelings and actions is a component of
the original thinking required in the creative process: ‘experiences of certain positive emotions
prompt individuals to discard time-tested or automatic (everyday) behavioral scripts and to
pursue novel, creative, and often unscripted paths of thought and action’ (Frederickson, 1998).
This positivity can also be related to the frenetic energy that can accompany the creative
process. This was evidenced in the longitudinal study of a festival organisation. At the
ideation stage participants were engaged in a robust discourse with high levels of connection,
positivity and interaction. Such high energy levels are often seen in creative persons, groups or
organisations. This energy may be a collective feeling accompanying the accomplishment of a
task or the solving of a problem through social intelligence and creative skills. It may also
simply be the nature of creative people to have higher than average levels of energy. Building
on the energy of the creative process is irregularity (Steiner, 1965). This is characterised by
long periods of perceived hiatus followed by large and unpredictable leaps forward. This
irregular process is quite different to and distinct from those common day-to-day activities,
described by Caves as the ‘humdrum inputs’ of running a project (Caves, 2000, p. 8).
Furthermore such irregularity is unpredictable and difficult to manage or measure, posing
challenges for management. The softer attributes of social intelligence and the use of intuition,
empathy and communication skills can support this process. The irregular nature of the
creative process will also be coupled with an undisciplined exploration of possible creative
outcomes within the eight-stage process. This exploratory characteristic will be unique to the
task and creative persons and will comprise of expanding the possible options, divergent and
convergent thinking to generate new solution and validation from the individual and the group
in terms of idea quality. As exploration is undisciplined then a deferment of judgement over
the ideas emerging is a further characteristic of the creative process (Steiner, 1965; Osborn,
1963). This deferment is used during brainstorming to ensure that ideas go through the
validation process before being rejected. As groups collaborate socially to derive creative
outcomes they utilise the core skills of social intelligence through their ability to understand
others and to act wisely in human relations (Thorndike, 1920). The creative process further
suggests expertise is required as a characteristic in the delivery of creative outcomes. This
expertise often derives from the creative person but equally can come from the process itself,
alongside the flexibility and imagination of the thinking and the technical and intellectual tools
used.
These characteristics are typical of the creative process as internal variables but which of these
are dominant will change depending on the task. For example in the writing of a novel, the
characteristic of exploration may be a more emotional and erratic process than the same
characteristic applied to the creative scoping of a project to build a bridge. Next the external
forces exerting influence on the creative process will be discussed.
Influences on the Creative Process. There is a range of influences on the creative process,
both positive and negative discussed in the creativity literature and identified and explored in
the original empirical work conducted in a festival organisation . Figure XI indicates the main
influences as they arise in the published work and from the empirical study. They sit outside
the funnel as extrinsic to impacting on the creative process. They become the influences on
that specific process depending on the task at hand and will exist to varying degrees both as
constraints and enablers to the creative process.
Fig. 3. Influences as External Variables to the Creative Process
The creative process is a complex interaction between people, places and situations
(Woodman, Sawyer, & Griffen, 1993). It can be influenced by the historical as well as current
context of these factors. Furthermore chemical reactions in interacting humans can enhance
the creative process through the release of the ‘happy hormone’ oxytocin (De Dreu, et al.,
2013). In this context the core intuitive skills of social intelligence play a significant role in
influencing, managing and mediating the outcome. In terms of the creative people involved in
the creative process, knowledge and skills, personality and cognitive styles will be of
influence. In terms of the group more social influences and the resultant impact of social
intelligence can be considered (Kurtzberg, 2005). These social influences will be a
combination of the various individual inputs, along with influences such as group size, group
composition and group leadership style (Shalley & Gilson, 2004). These influences can be
attributed to fostering a sense of trust and justice in the group as well as performance
measurement and feedback on the part of supervisors or managers (Janssen, 2005). The social
network of a group or person can impact profoundly on the nature, type and frequency of their
creative process (Perry-Smith, 2006). Highly localized and tightly connected networks can
facilitate the creative process. Social intelligence factors can further enhance this and support
structure and confidence (Gocłowska, Baas, Crisp, & De Dreu, 2014). However if the
connectedness is too strong it may be difficult to break out from the collective mindset (Uzzi
& Spiro, 2005). The nature of the task as well as the perceived time constraints or time space
allowed to complete the task will influence the creative process. If the group is part of a
broader structure, organisational culture and the cognitive and communication styles adopted
to approach the task will impact the process. Furthermore the current context of the creative
task, the historical context of the group and how cohesively they work together will affect the
level of perceived fear or safety associated with ideas generation. Social intelligence can be
used to mediate the emotional aspects of group creativity and to facilitate trust and
understanding (Castelfranchi & Miceli, 2009). This in turn is a determinant of the level of
creative contribution (George & Zhou, 2007). The creative process and the creative outcomes
of that process will therefore be impacted by the internal characteristics of the creative task,
persons and place. Furthermore, external forces will shape and influence the process. These
impacts will make each creative process unique to the creative task at hand. The previous
funnel based model can be evolved in this context and is illustrated by Figure XII as a
‘vortex’. This metaphor has been used to emphasise the unique and dynamic nature of each
creative process and is subsequently explained.
Fig. 4. The Creative Process Vortex
The term ‘vortex’ has been used to convey the multi-faceted and freewheeling nature of social
creativity. The Oxford English Dictionary (2014) defines a vortex as ‘whirling mass of fluid
or air, especially a whirlpool or whirlwind.’ The model remains a funnel through which
creative options are refined. However, the subtleties of the process are determined by internal
characteristics and external influences. These forces will shape and distort the funnel in unique
ways and as such the funnel is represented as a vortex. The internal characteristics will
determine some aspects of its shape and velocity while the external influences enabling or
constraining the creative process will determine other aspects of that shape and velocity. This
model proposes that a creative process, whilst possessing clearly defined stages of activity,
will be highly unique and influenced by a range of forces. Research in groups with high levels
of creativity demonstrates that creative synthesis occurs through the combining of a range of
these forces. The combination will be unique to the group and task but social intelligence
factors play a significant role in the management, navigation and mediation of the process
(Harvey, 2014). Empirical research, alongside the literature, suggests that not all is black and
white in the creative process. While mathematical algorithms or quantitative studies can
explain certain phenomena with clarity and authority, the human nature of the social creative
process suggests a less binary approach to understanding is required. The model is informed
by a combination of extant literature on the creative process and social intelligence supported
by research evidence from a qualitative exploration of the social creative process in a festival
organization. Whilst this is a ‘narrow and deep’ longitudinal study of one organization it does
allow initial broad conclusions to be drawn alongside the literature to form a framework for
future research. Given that there is little broad empirical research into the relationship between
the group creative process and social intelligence the model suggests this is worthy of further
investigation.
1.3 Conclusion and Implications for Future research
This paper explores the relationship between the creative process and social intelligence.
Creativity has been established as having value in modern, knowledge-based economies.
Social intelligence is seen as a way of connecting with fellow humans using the ‘right brain’
skills of intuition, communication, collaboration and empathy. This form of intelligence is
demonstrated as being particularly useful in navigating the complexities of the creative
process and it’s various influences. A ‘creative vortex’ model (derived from original PhD
thesis research into the group creative process at a festival organization in Melbourne,
Australia) has been proposed as a way of understanding the complexities and variables at play
in the creative process.
It is recommended that future empirical research could use the vortex model as a basis from
which social intelligence skills and their impact on creativity could be evaluated.
Social intelligence in the conceptual age of creativity and innovation is an essential form of
intelligence in 21st Century humans. Further, detailed exploration of this notion would enable
a deeper understanding of how human interaction can facilitate the creative process.
The author acknowledges the complexity of the subject area and as such does not attempt to
draw specific conclusions from the evidence presented, rather seeks to initiate discourse on the
validity of social intelligence in the context of the creative process in this under-researched
area.
References
1. Abuhamdeh, S., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2004). The artistic personality: a systems perspective. In
R. J. Sternberg, E. L. Grigorenko, & J. L. Singer (Eds.), Creativity: from potential to realization
(pp. 31–42). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
2. Allen, J., O'Toole, W., Harris, R., & McDonnell, I. (2008). Festival and special event management
(4th ed.). China: John Wiley & Sons Australia.
3. Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: update to the social psychology of creativity.
Boulder, CO, US: Westview Press.
4. Amabile, T. M., Arsade, S. G., Mueller, J. S., & Staw, B. M. (2005). Affect and creativity at work.
Administrative Science Quarterly , 50 (3), 367-403.
5. Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work
environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal , 39 (5), 1154-1184.
6. Amin, A. (1994). Post-fordism: a reader. Oxford: Blackwell.
7. Amin, A., & Thrift, N. (2002). Cities: reimagining the urban. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
8. Auslander, P. (2008). Liveness: performance in a mediatized culture. New York: Routledge.
9. Barron, F. (1955). The disposition towards originality. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, , 478–485.
10. Barron, F., & Harrington, D. M. (1981). Creativity, intelligence and personality. Annual Review of
Psychology (32), 439–76.
11. Besemer, S. P., & O'Quin, K. (1987). Creative product analysis: testing a model by developing
judging instruments. In S. G. Isaksen (Ed.), Frontiers of Creativity Research (pp. 341–357).
Buffalo, NY: Bearly Limited.
12. Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: a social critique of the judgement of taste. London: Routledge
and Kegan Paul.
13. Bourdieu, P. (1993). The field of cultural production. Cambridge: Polity.
14. Bruner, J. S. (1962). The conditions of creativity. In H. E. Gruber, G. Terrell, & M. Wertheimer
(Eds.), Contemporary approaches to creative thinking: a symposium held at the University of
Colorado (pp. 1-30). New York: Atherton Press.
15. Bullen, E., Robb, S., & Kenway, J. (2004). Creative destruction: knowledge economy policy and
the future of arts and humanities in the academy. Journal of Education Policy , 19 (1), 3-22.
16. Byrne, Mumford, Barrett, & Vessey. (2009). Examining the leaders of creative efforts: what do
they do, and what do they think about? Creativity and Innovation Management , 18 (4), 256–268.
17. Castelfranchi, C., & Miceli, M. (2009). The cognitive-motivational compound of emotional
experience. Emotion Review , 1, 223-221.
18. Caves, R. E. (2000). Creative industries: contracts between art and commerce. Boston: Harvard
University Press.
19. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New
York: HarperCollins.
20. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). Implications of a systems perspective for the study of creativity. In R.
J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 313–335). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
21. Cunningham, S. (2002). From cultural to creative industries: theory, industry, and policy
implications. Culturelink (Special issue 2001), 19-32.
22. Davenport, T. H. (2005). Thinking for a living: how to get better performance and results from
knowledge workers. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
23. De Dreu, C. K., Baas, M., Roskes, M., Sligte, D. J., Ebstein, R. P., Chew, S., et al. (2013).
Oxytonergic circuitry sustains and enables creative cognition in humans. Social cognitive and
affective neuroscience .
24. Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS). (1998). Creative industries - mapping
document. London: DCMS.
25. DiLiello, T. C., & Houghton, J. D. (2008). Creative potential and practised creativity: identifying
untapped creativity in organizations. Creativity and Innovation Management , 37-46.
26. Drake, G. (2003). This place gives me space: place and creativity in the creative industries .
Geoforum , 34 (4), 511-524.
27. Drazin, R., Glynn, M. A., & Kazanjian, R. K. (1999). Multilevel theorizing about creativity in
organizations: a sensemaking perspective. Academy of Management Review , 24, 286–307.
28. Druskat, V. U., Mount, G., & Sala, F. (Eds.). (2013). Linking emotional intelligence and
performance at work: Current research evidence with individuals and groups. Psychology Press.
29. Ekinsmyth, C. (2002). Project organisation, embeddedness and risk in magazine publishing.
Regional Studies , 36 (3), 229–243.
30. Ekvall, G. (1997). Organizational conditions and levels of creativity. Creativity and Innovation
Management , 6 (4), 195–205.
31. Förster, J. (2009). The unconscious city: how expectancies about creative milieus influence creative
performance. In P. Meusburger, J. Funke, & E. Wunder (Eds.), Milieus of creativity, knowledge
and space 2 (pp. 219-233). Amsterdam: Springer Science + Business Media B.V.
32. Förster, J., & Denzler, M. (2006). Selbst-regulation. In W. Bierhoff, & D. Frey (Eds.), Handbuch
der psychologie: vol. 3. sozialpsychologie (pp. 128–132). Berlin: Hogrefe.
33. Fairholm, M. R., & Card, M. (2009). Perspectives of strategic thinking: from controlling chaos to
embracing it. Journal of Management & Organization , 15 (1), 17-30.
34. Feist, G. J. (1999). The influence of personality on artistic and scientific creativity. In R. J.
Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 273–296). New York: Cambridge University Press.
35. Fischer, G. (2005). Distances and diversity: sources for social creativity. 5th Conference on
Creativity & Cognition (pp. 128-136). New York: ACM.
36. Flew, T. (2009). Democracy, participation and convergent media : case studies in contemporary
online news journalism in Australia. Communication, Politics & Culture , 42 (2), 87-109.
37. Florida, R. (2004). Rise of the creative class. St Louis, Missouri: San Val.
38. Ford, C. M. (1995). Creativity is a mystery: clues from the investigators’ notebooks. In C. M. Ford,
& D. A. Gioia (Eds.), Creative action in organizations: ivory tower visions & real world voices
(pp. 12-52). London: Sage Publications.
39. Frederickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology. American
Psychologist, , 56, 218-226.
40. Frederickson, B. L. (1998). What good are positive emotions? Review of General Psychology , 2,
300-319.
41. Galloway, S., & Dunlop, S. (2007). A critique of definitions of the cultural and creative industries
in public policy. International Journal of Cultural Policy , 13 (1), 17-32.
42. Gardner, H. (2006). Five minds for the future. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
43. Garnham, N. (2005). From cultural to creative industries: an analysis of the implications of the
“creative industries” approach to the arts and media policy making in the United Kingdom.
International Journal of Cultural Policy , 11 (1), 15-29.
44. George, J. M. (2007). Creativity in organizations. The Academy of Management Annals , 1 (1),
439-477.
45. George, J. M., & Zhou, J. (2007). Dual tuning in a supportive context: joint contributions of
positive mood, negative mood, and supervisory behaviors to employee creativity. The Academy of
Management Journal , 605-622.
46. Getz, D. (2005). Event management and event tourism. New York: Cognizant Communication
Corporation.
47. Gilson, L. L., & Shalley, C. E. (2004). A little creativity goes a long way: an examination of teams'
engagement in creative processes. Journal of Management , 30, 453-470.
48. Girotra, K., Terwiesch, C., & Ulrich, K. T. (2009). Idea generation and the quality of the best idea.
Paris: INSEAD Business School Research Paper.
49. Glaveanu, V.-P. (2010). Principles for a cultural psychology of creativity. Culture Psychology , 16,
147.
50. Gocłowska, M. A., Baas, M., Crisp, R. J., & De Dreu, C. K. (2014). Whether Social Schema
Violations Help or Hurt Creativity Depends on Need for Structure. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin .
51. Goldbard, A. (2006). New creative community: the art of cultural development. Oakland,
California: New Village Press.
52. Goleman, D. (2007). Social intelligence. Random house.
53. Grabher, G. (2002). Cool projects, boring institutions: temporary collaboration in social context.
Regional Studies , 205– 214.
54. Graetz, F. (2002). Strategic thinking versus strategic planning: towards understanding the
complementarities. Management Decision , 40 (5), 456-462 .
55. Gruber, H. E., & Wallace, D. B. (2001). Creative work: the case of Charles Darwin. American
Psychologist , 56 (4), 346-349.
56. Guilford, J. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist (5), 444–54.
57. Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill.
58. Hahn, M. H., Kun, C. L., & Choi, D. Y. (2011). Effects of Social and Emotional Intelligence on the
Creative Process and Individual Creativity. In U-and E-Service, Science and Technology (pp. 217-
226). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
59. Hall, J. M., & Johnson, M. E. (2009). When should a process be art, not science? Harvard Business
Review , 87 (3), 58-65.
60. Hamel, G., & Prahalad, C. K. (1994). Strategy as a field of study: Why search for a new paradigm?
Strategic Management Journal , 15, 5–16.
61. Hanlon, C., & Jago, L. (2000). Pulsating Sports Events: an organisational structure to optimise
performance. Events Beyond 2000 (pp. 93-104). Sydney: UTS.
62. Hartley, J. (Ed.). (2005). Creative industries. Melbourne, VIC, Australia: Wiley-Blackwell.
63. Harvey, S. (2014). Creative Synthesis: Exploring the Process of Extraordinary Group Creativity.
Academy of Management Review .
64. Helson, R. (1999). Personality and creativity. In M. Runco, & S. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of
creativity vol. II (pp. 785–793). New York: Academic Press.
65. Henderson, S. J. (2004). Product inventors and creativity: the finer dimensions of enjoyment.
Creativity Research Journal , 16 (2-3), 293-312.
66. Hennessey, B. A. (2003). Is the social psychology of creativity really social? moving beyond a
focus on the individual. In P. Paulus, & B. Nijstad (Eds.), Group creativity: innovation through
collaboration (pp. 181–201). New York: Oxford University Press.
67. Hesmondhalgh, D., & Pratt, A. C. (2005). Cultural industries and cultural policy. International
Journal of Cultural Policy , 11 (1), 1-13.
68. Hilgard, E. R., & Bower, G. H. (1975). Theories of learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
69. Howkins, J. (2002). The creative economy: how people make money from ideas. London: Penguin.
70. Hunter, S. T., & Cushenbery, L. (2011). Leading for innovation: direct and indirect influences.
Advances in Developing Human Resources .
71. Isaksen, S. G., Dorval, K. B., & Treffinger, D. J. (2010). Creative approaches to problem solving:
a framework for innovation and change. London: Sage.
72. Jago, L. K., & Shaw, R. N. (1998). Special events: a conceptual and differential framework.
Festival Management and Event Tourism , 5 (1/2), 21-32.
73. Janssen, O. (2005). The joint impact of perceived influence and supervisor supportiveness on
employee innovative behaviour. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology , 78 (4),
573–579.
74. King, L. A., McKee Walker, L., & Broyles, S. J. (1996). Creativity and the five-factor model.
Journal of Research in Personality , 30, 189–203.
75. Kobayashi, M., & Higashi, M. (2010). Method for analyzing individual differences in idea
evaluation and interpretation. The First International Conference on Design Creativity. ICDC.
76. Kollmeyer, C. (2009). Explaining deindustrialization: how affluence, productivity growth, and
globalization diminish manufacturing employment. American Journal of Sociology , 114, 1644–74.
77. Kristensson, P., Gustafsson, A., & Archer, T. (2004). Harnessing the creative potential among
users. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 21, 4–14.
78. Kurtzberg, T. R. (2005). Feeling creative, being creative: An empirical study of diversity and
creativity in teams. Creativity Research Journal , 17 (1), 51-65.
79. Lack, S. A., Kumar, V. K., & Arevalo, S. (2003). Fantasy proneness, creative capacity, and styles
of creativity. Perceptual and Motor Skills , 96 (1), 9–24.
80. Landry, C. (2000). The creative city. London : Earthscan Publications.
81. Leadbeater, C., & Oakley, K. (1999). The independents: Britain’s new cultural entrepreneurs.
London: Demos.
82. Liedtka, J. M. (1998). Linking strategic thinking with strategic planning. Strategy and Leadership ,
26 (4), 30-35.
83. Lubart, T. I. (1994). Creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Thinking and problem solving. Handbook
of perception and cognition (pp. 289–332). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
84. Lubart, T. I. (2001). Models of the creative process: past, present and future. Creativity Research
Journal , 13 (3), 295—308.
85. Lundvall, B. Å., & Johnson, B. (1994). The learning economy. Journal of Industry Studies , 23-42.
86. Martinsen, Ø. L. (2011). The creative personality: a synthesis and development of the creative
person profile. Creativity Research Journal , 23 (3), 185-202.
87. Mayer, R. E. (1999). Fifty years of creativity research. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of
creativity (pp. 449–460). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
88. McCrae, R. R. (1987). Creativity, divergent thinking, and openness to experience. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology , 52 (6), 1258-1265.
89. McKeon, R. (1973). Creativity and the commonplace. Philosophy & Rhetoric , 6 (4), 199-210.
90. Mintzberg, H. (1994 йил Jan-Feb). The fall and rise of strategic planning. Harvard Business
Review , 107-114.
91. Montuori, A., & Purser, R. (1996). Social creativity: prospects and possibilities (Vol. I). Cresskill,
NJ: Hampton Press.
92. Mumford, M. D. (2000). Managing creative people: strategies and tactics for innovation. Human
Resource Management Review , 10 (3), 313–351.
93. Näsi, J. (1991). Arenas of strategic thinking. Helsinki, Finland: Foundation for Economic
Education.
94. Negus, K., & Pickering, M. (2000). Creativity and cultural production. International Journal of
Cultural Policy , 6 (2), 259–282.
95. Nijstad, B., & Paulus, P. (2003). Group creativity: common themes and future directions. In P.
Paulus, & B. Nijstad (Eds.), Group creativity: innovation through collaboration (pp. 326–339).
New York: Oxford University Press.
96. OECD. (1998). Content as a new growth industry working party on the information economy.
Paris: OECD.
97. O’Connor, J. (2007). The cultural and creative industries: a review of the literature. London: Arts
Council England.
98. Osborn, A. F. (1963). Applied imagination: principles and procedures of creative thinking. New
York: Scribeners and Sons.
99. Paulus, P. B. (2000). Groups, teams, and creativity: the creative potential of idea generating groups.
Applied Psychology—An International Review , 49 (2), 237–262.
100. Pedersen, E. L., & Burton, K. L. (2009). A concept analysis of creativity: uses of creativity in
selected design journals. Journal of Interior Design , 35 (1), 15-32.
101. Pérez-Fabello, M. J., & Campos, A. (2011). Dissociative experiences, creative imagination, and
artistic production in students of Fine Arts. Thinking Skills and Creativity , 6 (1), 44-48.
102. Perry-Smith, J. (2006). Social yet creative: The role of social relationships in facilitating individual
creativity. The Academy of Management Journal , 49 (1), 85-101.
103. Pink, D. H. (2006). A Whole New Mind: Why Right-Brainers Will Rule the Future. USA: Penguin.
104. Potts, J., & Cunningham, S. (2008). Four models of the creative industries. International Journal of
Cultural Policy , 14 (3), 233-249.
105. Potts, J., Cunningham, S., Hartley, J., & Ormerod, P. (2008). Social network markets: a new
definition of creative industries. Journal of Cultural Economics , 32 (2), 167-185.
106. Rahim, A. M. (2014). A Structural Equations Model of Leaders' Social Intelligence and Creative
Performance. Creativity and Innovation Management (23.1), 44-56.
107. Rentschler, R. (2001). Is creativity a matter for cultural leaders? International Journal of Arts
Management , 3 (3), 13-24.
108. Rentschler, R. (2002). The entrepreneurial arts leader : cultural policy, change and reinvention.
St. Lucia, QLD: University of Queensland Press.
109. Rhodes, M. (1961). An analysis of creativity. The Phi Delta Kappan , 42 (7), 305-310.
110. Richards, G. (2010). Increasing the attractiveness of places through cultural resources. Tourism
Culture & Communication , 10 (1), 47-58.
111. Richards, G., & Wilson, J. (2006). Developing creativity in tourist experiences: a solution to the
serial reproduction of culture? Tourism Management , 27 (6), 1209-1223.
112. Roodhouse, S. (2001). Have the cultural industries a role to play in regional regeneration and a
nation’s wealth? In J. Radbourne (Ed.), 6th International Conference on Arts and Cultural
Management. Brisbane: AIMAC, Queensland University of Technology.
113. Runco, M. A. (2004). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology , 55, 658–687.
114. Runco, M. A. (1991). Divergent thinking. Creativity research. Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing.
115. Runco, M. A. (2003). Education for creative potential. Scandinavian Journal of Educational
Research , 47, 318–324.
116. Runco, M. A., & Sakamoto, S. O. (1999). Experimental studies of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg
(Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 62–93). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
117. Rutherford-Silvers, J., Bowdin, G. A., O’Toole, W. J., & Nelson, K. (2006). Towards an
international event management body of knowledge (EMBOK). Event Management , 9, 185-198.
118. Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development: an inquiry into profits, capital,
credit, interest, and the business cycle. Chicago: Urbana-Champaign's Academy for
Entrepreneurial Leadership Historical Research Reference in Entrepreneurship.
119. Scott, A. (2000). The cultural economy of cities. London: Sage Publications.
120. Seidel, S., Muller-Wienbergen, F. M., & Rosemann, M. (2010). Pockets of creativity in business
processes. Communications of the Association for Information Systems , 27 (1), 415-436.
121. Shalley, C. E., & Gilson, L. L. (2004). What leaders need to know: a review of social and
contextual factors that can foster or hinder creativity. The Leadership Quarterly , 15 (1), 33-53.
122. Shaw, S., Bagwell, S., & Karmowska, J. (2004). Ethnoscapes as spectacle: reimaging multicultural
districts as new destinations for leisure and tourism consumption. Urban Studies , 1983-2000.
123. Simonton, D. K. (2003). Creative cultures, nations, and civilizations. In P. Paulus, & B. Nijstad
(Eds.), Group creativity: innovation through collaboration (pp. 304–325). New York: Oxford
University Press.
124. Simonton, D. K. (1988). Scientific genius: a psychology of science. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
125. Simonton, D. K., & Ting, S.-S. (2010). Creativity in eastern and western civilizations: the lessons
of historiometry. Management and Organization Review , 6 (3), 329–350.
126. Smith, A. (1776). An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. London: Strahan
and Cadell.
127. Smith, E. A. (2001). The role of tacit and explicit knowledge in the workplace. Journal of
Knowledge Management , 5 (4), 311-321.
128. Stamm, B. V. (2008). Managing innovation, design and creativity. NYC: John Wiley and Sons.
129. Steiner, G. A. (1965). The creative organization. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
130. Sternberg, R. J. (1999). Handbook of creativity. (R. J. Sternberg, Ed.) Cambridge, MA: Cambridge
University Press.
131. Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1995). An investment perspective on creative insight. In R. J.
Sternberg, & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), The nature of insight (pp. 535–558). Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
132. Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1999). The concept of creativity: prospects and paradigms. In R. J.
Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity. NY: Cambridge University Press.
133. Syrett, M., & Lammiman, J. (1997). The art of conjuring ideas. Director , 50 (9), 48-54.
134. Thorndike, E. L. (1920). Intelligence and its use. Harper's Magazine (140), 227-235.
135. Throsby, D. (2001). Economics and culture. Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.
136. Toffler, A. (1990). Future shock. New York: Bantam Books.
137. Townley, B., Beech, N., & McKinlay, A. (2009). Managing in the creative industries: managing
the motley crew. Human Relations , 62, 939-962.
138. Tushman, M. L., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1997). Winning through innovation: a practical guide to
leading organizational change and renewal. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
139. Unsworth, K. (2001). Unpacking creativity. Academy of Management Review , 289–297.
140. Uzzi, B., & Spiro, J. (2005). Collaboration and creativity: the small world problem. American
Journal of Sociology , 447-504.
141. Ville, S. (2011). Historical approaches to creativity and innovation. In L. Mann, & J. Chan (Eds.),
Creativity and innovation in business and beyond: social science perspectives and policy
implications (pp. 64-81). New York: Routledge.
142. Wall, J. (2003). Phronesis, poetics, and moral creativity. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice , 6,
317–341.
143. Welling, H. (2007). Four mental operations in creative cognition: the importance of abstraction.
Creativity Research Journal , 19 (2-3), 163–177.
144. Whitehead, A. N. (1933). Adventures in ideas. Cambridge: MacMillan.
145. Wierzbicki, A. P. (2007). Interfaces with other disciplines modelling as a way of organising
knowledge. European Journal of Operational Research , 610-635.
146. Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffen, R. W. (1993). Toward a theory of organizational
creativity. Academy of Management Journal , 8, 293– 321.
147. Zhou, J., & George, J. M. (2001). When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: encouraging the
expression of voice. Academy of Management Journal , 44, 682–696.