Creative individuals are considered an asset to
organizations that seek to develop new ideas and market approaches. Such
creativity encourages higher performing artists and scientists when compared to
average colleagues that do not have the same level of creativity (Csikszentmihalyi,
1996). Such people simply perform at a
higher level and are able to come up with more unique solutions that their
counterparts cannot.
Organizations face all types of environmental events
in a global market and will need to capitalize on such creativity in order to
overcome these challenges. Research indicates that creative individuals are
better able to solve complex problems and manage social situations (De
Dreu & Nijstad, 2008). This means that their abilities give them unique
advantages in the world of work and life.
New research has come to light that helps us
understand why between two creative individuals one will perform at a high
level and the other will not. The research conducted by Roskes, De Drue and
Nijstad helps organizational leaders understand the differences between
approach and avoidant type creative individuals and how this impacts their
output. It also further discusses how approach type creative people are more focused
on goals and use less energy in achieving them.
Creativity can be defined as the generation of
ideas, understandings and solutions that have useful outcomes (Hennessey & Amabile,
2010). Creative people use goals in
order to keep their focus and creative energy in an effort to attain particular
outcomes (Austin & Vancouver, 1996). It is through the generation of new
approaches and desired results that motivates creative individuals to achieve
their goals.
A predictor of creativity in the workplace is the
desire to use approach motivation, versus avoidance motivation, to engage potential
positive outcomes (Mehta & Zhu, 2009). The duel-pathway model to creativity
indicates that such people engage in both cognitive flexibility as well as
cognitive persistence. This means that creative people are more willing to engage
potential outcomes and use both flexibility and persistence to achieve their
goals.
The use of fluid, divergent, and flexible approaches
that leads to higher levels of creative outcomes (Oppenheimer, 2008). Such
creative people often focus on the positive outcomes and seek multiple paths
from many perspectives in order to find appropriate connections of relevant
information to determine a potential solution. It is through this higher level
of processing that creative people can develop additional solutions that
outperform their colleagues.
A study conducted by Roskes, De Drue and Nijstad
(2012). attempted to determine avoidance and approach orientated mental
processes of creativity. A series of five different
studies were conducted on students and further helped to determine the overall
costs and benefits of each style. The research helps highlight some key
findings that are beneficial in innovative markets:
-Avoidance motivated individuals used much more
energy when compared to approach motivated people.
-Approach motivated individuals found tasks easier
than avoidance motivated individuals.
-Approach motivated individuals maintained their
effort with near goal completion feedback while avoidance motivated people
reduced their effort.
-Approach motivated individuals engaged more in the
process of being creative while avoidance-motivated individuals focused more on
the achievement of the goal.
-Avoidance motivated individuals suffer more from
cognitive loads in their working memory than approach motivated people.
The results helps leaders understand the creative
individuals that have learned to approach problems and the potential outcomes
tackle problems using all of their abilities. This means that they not only do
not shy away from challenge but have more mental faculties and approaches to
finding solutions. Such individuals are also able to have higher levels of
energetic performance because they use less energy in their mental faculties. They
are persistent, efficient, flexible, and competent.
Austin, J. & Vancouver, J. (1996). Goal
constructs in psychology: Structure, process, and content. Psychological
Bulletin, 120, 338–375.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity, flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New
York, NY: HarperCollins.
Hennessey, B. , & Amabile, T. (2010).
Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 569–598.
Mehta, R., & Zhu, R. (2009, February 5). Blue or
red? Exploring the effect of color on cognitive task performances. Science,
323, 1226–1229.
Oppenheimer, D. (2008). The secret life of fluency. Trends
in Cognitive Sciences, 12, 237–241.
Roskes, M., De Drew, C. &
Nijstad, B. (2012) Necessity Is the Mother of Invention: Avoidance Motivation
Stimulates Creativity Through Cognitive Effort. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103 (2).
