Abstract
Collective creativity in organizations is generally considered to involve the convergence of divergent perspectives into a synthesis. While research has identified interactions that enable convergence, divergent perspectives are often taken for granted, and we know less about how they are fostered. To provide a more holistic understanding, this study examines the dynamic interplay between divergent and convergent interactions through a learning lens. It integrates insights from paradox research and collective learning theory with ethnographic research on a large art and theater project. In this project, characters, scenes, set designs, and organizational practices evolved through two interdependent cycles of collective learning. Through consensus learning, individuals incorporated each other’s ideas, resulting in interwoven collective expressions that reinforced the norm of collaboration and thereby promoted convergence. Through conflict learning, individuals asserted their own ideas, resulting in more fragmented collective expressions that reinforced the norm of autonomy and thereby promoted divergence. This paradoxical and organic learning process encompassed cognitive, material, and affective dimensions. The findings suggest that accepting fragmentation is essential for fostering divergent perspectives, while a culture of dialogue plays a critical role in synthesizing these perspectives.
Introduction
The meeting takes place in a coffee lounge, where people come and go, sit briefly for a piece of cake, and then leave. A baby whines and an artist sits in a corner on the floor, building a chandelier out of birch chips, pieces of bone and mirror shards. Some sit around the table with coffee cups and others hang out on the sofas. They take rounds, telling each other what they are doing and what they need help with. Everyone is very helpful and comes up with ideas and offers of assistance. Sometimes people are so helpful that the meeting itself dissolves into several parallel discussions. Sometimes it resumes again, other times people disappear—into the joy of creation. (Field note from a large art and theater project)
In this article, we explore how people can be creative together, drawing on insights from the world of art. The quote above portrays a somewhat chaotic meeting, reflecting a combination of spontaneous individualism and collective coordination. Throughout the article, we argue that this combination is key to understanding collective creativity in various sectors. Organizations increasingly rely on groups of individuals being creative together (Adler and Chen, 2011; Mengis et al., 2018) to achieve creative outcomes (Dovey et al., 2017; Moirano et al., 2020). Collective, team-based approaches are steadily gaining popularity and serve as valuable tools for changing practices, facilitating idea generation, and implementing innovative solutions (Anderson et al., 2014; Chauhan et al., 2017; Means and Mackenzie Davey, 2023).
However, collective creativity is challenging due to its paradoxical nature, involving persistent tensions between interdependent yet conflicting elements (Hunter et al., 2011; Smith and Lewis, 2011). Two paradoxical elements, particularly central to creativity, are convergence and divergence. For the individual, convergent thinking helps in refining and implementing ideas, while divergent thinking facilitates the generation of novel ideas and approaches (Eysenck, 2003; Guilford, 1967). In collective creativity, divergent qualities concern multiple ideas from individuals with different perspectives while convergence refers to these ideas coming together into a creative synthesis (Harvey, 2014). An imbalance toward divergence risks leading to fragmentation, while too much emphasis on convergence risks leading to conformity (Elshan et al., 2022). Thus, developing collective creativity involves learning how to navigate the paradoxical relationship between divergence and convergence, moving beyond simplistic either/or thinking to embrace a more integrative both/and perspective (cf. Lüscher and Lewis, 2008).
While we know that collective creativity involves both divergent and convergent interactions, research has often focused on interactions associated with convergence (Maier and Branzei, 2014). For example, Hargadon and Bechky (2006) argue that interactions such as help-giving, help-seeking, and reflexive reframing trigger moments of collective creativity in which new, unexpected solutions emerge. Here, the focus is on explaining convergence, while divergence is seen as an input rather than an integral part of the process. The underlying assumption seems to be that just having different perspectives is enough, without much explanation on how these differences are maintained. In fact, research on collective creativity has often portrayed divergent interactions as problematic, for example, when people with strong artistic wills are reluctant to take others’ ideas into their own creative processes (Elsbach and Flynn, 2013). We argue that this imbalance toward convergence risks limiting our understanding of collective creativity and how to foster it. An example of a balancing approach is Harrison and Rouse’s (2014) study which shows how creative groups oscillate back and forth between focusing on convergent and divergent interactions, thereby advancing the creative process.
We build on these insights, elaborating on the learning processes associated with convergence, divergence, and their interplay. To do this, we draw on Lüscher and Lewis (2008), who argue that managing paradoxes is a skill that can be learned by embracing both opposing sides and their inherent tensions, and by exploring potential connections between them. In addition, to emphasize the importance of learning in fostering collective creativity, we draw on theories of collective learning, that examine how individuals engage with one another to build shared understandings and enhance their ability to coordinate actions effectively (Crossan et al., 1999; Dixon, 1994). This broad view of learning is able to capture the organic and emergent development of creative capabilities at different levels of an organization, which complements previous research that has often focused on managers and organizational design (e.g. Andriopoulos and Lewis, 2010; Lüscher and Lewis, 2008). To further highlight the emergent nature of the creative process, we also draw on recent studies that emphasize the role of non-cognitive dimensions such as materiality and affect (Beyes and Steyaert, 2021; Leclair, 2022).
Against this background, the aim of this study is to advance our knowledge on collective creativity by examining the dynamic interplay between divergent and convergent interactions through a learning lens. Three questions are addressed: (1) How do convergent and divergent interactions manifest in collective creativity? (2) How are tensions between divergence and convergence managed by individuals and groups? (3) How are these interactions learned in an organizational setting? We investigate these questions drawing on an ethnographic study of a large art and theater project. While collective creativity appears in many settings, its complexities are especially evident in artistic practice. Thus, lessons from the arts can help us understand other sectors (Patrick, 2018; Simpson et al., 2021).
In the next sections, we review relevant research on collective creativity and outline our theoretical framework. We then present the methodology of our case study, followed by a presentation of our findings, thematically organized as individual contributions, emerging artistic expressions, and coordinating norms. The analysis reveals two modes of collective learning: consensus learning and conflict learning. Finally, we discuss our findings and their practical implications.
The challenges of collective creativity
In recent decades, creativity research has increasingly emphasized collective aspects (Cirella, 2021; Fischer and Vassen, 2010; Paulus and Nijstad, 2003), moving beyond the concept of the solitary genius and instead highlighting the role of social interactions in fostering new ideas, innovations, and artworks (Sawyer, 2017). This shift encompasses various approaches, examining organizational (Fortwengel et al., 2017), collaborative (Adler and Chen, 2011), and group (Harvey, 2014) creativity. Studies have identified creative acts as embedded in specific socio-cultural contexts (e.g. Csikszentmihalyi, 1998) and developed through situated learning (Stierand, 2015). This perspective highlights the importance of interactions between people, tools, and environments (Stierand et al., 2017), while also suggesting that creativity is reflected in subtleties such as micro-gestures, nonverbal communication, and affective attunement (Satama et al., 2022). Furthermore, the creative process often unfolds in unforeseen ways, as embodied and affective perspectives reveal how interactions between materials and bodies generate “atmospheres” that shape its trajectory (Leclair, 2022).
While many of these studies have focused on settings where creativity is at heart of the operations (such as the arts), collective creativity occasionally plays a role in many types of organizations. Studies have shown how specific practices and contexts trigger collective creativity in groups, such as structured brainstorming sessions, or spontaneous coordination, arising when individuals with complementary experiences collaborate to create something greater than what anyone could achieve alone (Hill et al., 2014). Hargadon and Bechky (2006) illustrate how such results are dependent on three key interactions. Help-seeking and help-giving involve individuals contributing to each other’s work, while reflective reframing involves collectively reinterpreting existing knowledge to perceive old problems in new ways. These interactions are mutually reinforcing and thus learned organically as a part of the creative process. The joint interpretation can be seen as a form of learning, as interdisciplinary creative collaborations integrate diverse knowledge and perspectives to solve complex problems (Mengis et al., 2018; Moirano et al., 2020; Tanggaard and Wegener, 2016). These collaborations often lead to emergent shared interpretations, which then guide subsequent interpretations (Maier and Branzei 2014). In view of this discussion, we define collective creativity as creation of novelty through interaction between people, in processes where cognition, embodiment, materialities, social relations, and institutional practices are inextricably entangled.
In its archetypical form, a creative outcome requires that seemingly incompatible elements are combined in unexpected ways (Amabile, 2018), which in a group context means that individuals’ divergent ideas converge into a synthesis (Harvey, 2014). For this to be possible, individuals need to interact in ways that gives space for multiple perspectives as well as allowing these perspectives to merge. Paradoxically, this means balancing threats from two different sides. On the one hand, there is the threat of fragmentation, indicating too little convergence, which results in difficulties in collaborating (Florida, 2012; Mumford, 2000), for example, when people refuse to be influenced by others (Elsbach and Flynn, 2013). On the other hand, there is the risk of conformity, which indicates too little divergence and neglects the exchange of ideas based on group pressure (Janis, 1982). Harrison and Rouse (2014) suggest that creative groups manage this balance by shifting back and forth between divergent and convergent interactions. In this process of elastic coordination, the group comes together to find common ground (convergence), separates to explore multiple possibilities (divergence), comes back together to select and combine the best ideas (convergence), and so on in multiple iterative cycles.
From a paradox management lens, the ability to balance and combine contradictory demands can be enhanced by organizational design. For example, Andriopoulos and Lewis (2010) have found that reward systems, team composition, and work spaces can be arranged so that both diversity and cohesiveness in teams are encouraged simultaneously, by valuing each side of a tension as well as their synergy. Leaders’ ability to embrace paradoxical thinking have also proven to enhance their teams’ ability to do so (Lüscher and Lewis, 2008; Zhang et al., 2022). Although organizational design and leadership are examples of affordances for learning (Billett, 2008), a number of other factors are likely also at play. Furthermore, learning is not a straightforward process of adapting to external demands. Against this backdrop, there is a need for further understanding of how people in interaction develop the ability to be creative together and to manage paradoxes in an organizational setting.
The theoretical lens of collective learning
Collective learning is defined as ongoing processes of interaction, joint reflection, and creation of shared understandings that facilitate the coordination of action (Dixon, 1994; Ohlsson, 2013). It links the theory of experience-based individual learning (Kolb, 2015) to theory of social interaction (Goffman, 1990) and organizational development (Argyris and Schön, 1978). Analyzing creative processes through this learning lens enables us to capture various aspects of convergent and divergent interactions, such as how these abilities are developed and used collaboratively. According to Kolb (2015), learning departs from the individual process of experience, reflection, understanding, and acting, where people actively intervene in their own conditions to carry out their intentions. When the experiential learning of many individuals is intertwined in an organizational setting, collective learning occurs. This learning process includes a dynamic interplay which can be depicted as cycles between individual and collective levels. On the one hand, individuals adapt to prevailing norms and practices through feedback loops. On the other hand, these norms and practices also emerge from the actions and interactions of individuals, and can thus be changed through feed forward loops (Crossan et al., 1999). A key insight that we build on is that individual and group learning eventually becomes embedded in culture and symbolizes “the way things are done around here” (Spender, 1996: 68).
Dixon (1994) emphasizes dialogue as the central communicative process through which people learn collectively. Dialogue provides opportunities for people to listen to each other, to exchange experiences, and to create shared understanding by encouraging people to share their views, learn from others, and reflect critically on both their own and others’ perspectives (Wilhelmson, 2006). Emerging collective learning processes occur when people generalize from their experiences, make their private thoughts public, and coordinate their actions (Ohlsson, 2002). The transfer mechanism between the individual and the collective level is shared understandings, which play a crucial role in coordination within organizations (Dixon, 1994).
The development of shared understanding is a continuously growing and emerging outcome and starting point, which allow for further learning. According to Crossan et al. (1999), it is through coordinated collective action that shared understanding is manifested and reinforced. New learning that reshapes these action patterns emerges from a deviation in the flow of activity that cannot be explained by existing understanding (Argyris and Schön, 1978; Dixon, 1994), such as a problematic situation or conflicts between members. When conflicting interests and other forms of tension or contradiction become explicit, the institutionalized shared understanding is questioned and potentially altered through negotiation.
Although learning requires some deviation from established understandings, a recurring criticism of collective learning research is its unrealistic emphasis on consensus and harmony, and its neglect of power asymmetries, friction, and conflicting interests (Collien, 2018; Coopey, 1995; Field, 2017). We acknowledge that learning is triggered by including different perspectives and promoting a dialectical interaction between various actors, ideas, and opinions. Our theoretical point of departure is that both individual and collective learning processes in organizations emerge in a socially constructed context, where aspects of participation, power, and negotiations are important affordances which enable or restrain learning (Billett, 2008; Hong and Fiona, 2009; Ohlsson, 2014). The role of tensions and conflict in collective learning is in line with our argument of the importance of divergence. We seek to understand collective aspects of learning and creativity, while still making use of knowledge about individual learning and experience, exploring how internal frames of reference can become (more or less) shared (cf. Mitchell, 1986).
The integration of cognitive and social perspectives can be contrasted to another strand of theories taking a more purely social orientation. For example, situated learning theory downplay the role of individual cognition, instead focusing on how individuals learn to participate in communities of practice (Wenger, 1998), thinking together and sharing tacit knowledge (Pyrko et al., 2017). Similarly, practice theories have a less cognitive approach and give more attention to what is done than to what individuals think (Crevani and Endrissat, 2016; Nicolini, 2009), and typically avoid separating between individual and collective levels (Stacey, 2000). These social perspectives react against earlier theories that focus solely on individual cognition. While we agree that cognition and individual agency have been overemphasized, dismissing them entirely risks losing the first-person perspective with its visions, struggles, and interpretations. This could repeat the issue we address: prioritizing convergence over divergence. By distinguishing individual and collective levels of analysis, we aim to explore their connections. We also draw on socially oriented theories to understand how ideas emerge between people (Stierand et al., 2017). In addition, we hold that the interplay between individual and collective levels is likely mediated by non-cognitive elements, as seen in how embodied and affective dynamics shape learning processes (Beyes and Steyaert, 2021) and how atmospheric materialities influence creativity (Leclair, 2022). Specifically, practices such as straying, drifting, and witnessing show how engaging with the material world fosters unexpected divergent insights, encouraging exploration, serendipity, and sensitivity to sensory and affective surroundings (Beyes and Steyaert, 2021).
Methods
Drawing inspiration from Harrison and Rouse’s (2014) and Patrick’s (2018) studies on the interactions of individuals in creative groups, we base our analysis on an ethnographic case study of a large art and theater project. This approach allows us to capture and conceptualize the reality experienced by the people in the organization (Spradley, 1980).
Study context
The art and theater project took place in Sweden between 2015 and 2017, initiated by three artists who gathered around a joint vision of performing immersive theater productions (cf. White, 2012; Worthen, 2012). Over time, a network organization developed, attracting hundreds of artists and actors to collaborate on set design and performing theater. The majority of them participated sporadically and voluntarily, but an inner circle of about 25 professional cultural workers was involved extensively on the project during the 3 years in close collaboration with the initiators. The project allowed the audience to explore art installations and parallel theatrical performances in 150 rooms of a deserted office building. Three productions were created and attracted in total 15,000 spectators. This multidisciplinary and complex artistic organization offers a suitable context for addressing our research questions.
In the fall of 2016, the opening night of the second production was approaching and around 100 people were working together, although often separately. It was then that the first author began to spend time in the building. Walking up and down the corridors, he saw artists working in their own rooms and the project as a whole seemed to be quite fragmented and individualistic. In some rooms, actors rehearsed and improvised scenes. Everyone seemed to work on their own part. Still, when looking at the rooms and the scenes, there was a sense of coherence binding all the unique contributions together. This puzzling observation was the starting point of the study and its analysis of collective learning in the creative process.
Data collection
Data were gathered by the first author from approximately 300 hours of participant observation, 18 recorded in-depth interviews, and various written sources (Table 1). The researcher occasionally spent whole days in the house, observing and noting the activities, asking questions, listening to stories, attending meetings, and constantly learning how the organization worked.
Summary of data in terms of format and scope.
Interviewees were selected with the aim of grasping multiple perspectives on the project. Table 2 provides information about the interviewees in terms of role, year(s) of participation, background, occupation, and financial conditions for participation. Given the use of the ethnographic method, the interviews should not be seen as isolated events. Instead, both the questions and interpretations were based on the researchers presence in the studied context, providing a deeper pre-understanding than which had been possible through sporadic visits (Spradley, 1980). The interviews, lasting between 45 and 120 minutes, focused on the interviewees’ thoughts about creativity, social interactions, and coordination. They were asked to describe their work process from the moment they first became involved with the project and share their views on their own roles in relation to other participants as well as the relationship between their own part and the overall vision.
Information about interviewees in terms of role, year(s) of participation, background and occupation, and conditions for participation.
I = initiator, Ar = artist, Ac = actor, C = composer, P = production assistant.
Analysis
To explore the collective learning processes within the organization, an interpretive and abductive analysis was employed, integrating both inductive insights from the data and deductive guidance from theoretical frameworks (Sætre and Van de Ven, 2021; Swedberg, 2012). Thus, the theoretical framing was developing over the course of the analysis, guided by puzzling empirical observations, and research questions were continuously reformulated. Based on the original research question “How can a large number of people be creative together?,” the analysis unfolded from a preliminary phenomenon, gradually theorized to its final shape (Alvesson, 2023).
The analysis began with an open coding process, where data from participant observations, interviews, and documents were meticulously examined to identify recurring patterns (Charmaz, 2006). Each segment of data was coded based on its relevance for the study. Some examples of codes were “spontaneous brainstorming sessions,” “negotiating different interpretations,” “improvised scenes in corridors,” “changing conditions create frustration,” “helping others to get building material,” and “focusing on one’s own part.” This first stage was mainly inductive, with observations serving as an anchoring point for theorizing, but simultaneously guided by sensitizing concepts (Blumer, 1986), grounding the analysis in creativity research and theory of collective learning. Three such concepts were dialogue, creative synthesis, and culture which helped us group a large number of codes into three themes, reflecting different levels of analysis, and potential links between them: (1) individuals incorporate others’ ideas, (2) contributions are interwoven in the collective expressions, and (3) coordination is guided by the norm of collaboration.
However, certain observations appeared to conflict with this consensus-oriented process and did not align with the initial themes, which triggered us to consult other theories and concepts that could provide a more comprehensive explanation. Paradox theory enabled us to see how elements of consensus and conflict could coexist in creative collaboration, with groups being simultaneously diverse and cohesive (Andriopoulos and Lewis, 2010). This also resonated with theories about the creative process involving both convergent and divergent aspects (Guilford, 1967), which spurred the idea of convergent and divergent interactions and their paradoxical relationship. Integrating these insights into our collective learning framework, we found that our first three themes captured different aspects of convergent interactions, and that the misfitting codes could be grouped into three mirroring themes representing different aspects of divergent interactions: (4) individuals assert their own ideas, (5) contributions are fragmented in the collective expressions, and (6) coordination is guided by the norm of autonomy. Using the concept of learning loops (Crossan et al., 1999), we theorized the relationships between the themes, constructing the aggregate dimensions of consensus learning and conflict learning (cf. Gioia et al., 2013). Figure 1 illustrates the relationships between codes, themes, and aggregate dimensions. Even at later stages of the analysis, new inconsistencies triggered the need for new theoretical input, such as the role of materiality and affect in shaping the emergent, self-reinforcing processes, linking individual and collective levels. This is in line with an abductive approach and the gradually changing view of the studied phenomenon (Alvesson, 2023).
Relationships between codes, themes and aggregate dimensions.
Ethics
The study falls outside the scope of the Swedish law on ethics pertaining to human subjects (Etikprövningslagen, 2003), as it did not entail the retrieval or management of sensitive personal information. The aim of the study was not to expose individual differences, but rather to examine collectively held, socially constructed representations composing a contextual system. Despite this emphasis, ethical considerations and principles played a pivotal role in shaping the research design in order to safeguard the integrity, autonomy, and privacy of the participants (Beauchamp and Childress, 2019). During the process of obtaining informed consent, we imparted information and actively listened to participants, ensuring their comprehension and voluntary decision to take part. The studied organization was also kept confidential and code names were used for participants.
Findings
The analysis identified two collective learning modes, consensus learning and conflict learning, drawn from the dynamic interplay between divergent and convergent interactions manifested in the immersive theater production. Consensus learning captures convergent aspects, having to do with finding commonalities and creating synergies, while conflict learning captures divergent aspects having to do with identifying friction, re-thinking assumptions, and fostering diversity. The two learning modes are explained across six aspects: three linked to consensus learning and three to conflict learning. These aspects encompass different forms of shared understandings and illustrate how they emerged through interaction, subsequently influencing further interactions. Two aspects capture patterns of creativity on the individual level describing how individuals engaged with others in their own creative process, alternating between incorporating others’ ideas into their own contributions (consensus learning), and asserting their own ideas (conflict learning). Another two aspects capture the emergence of collective creative expressions, showing how individuals’ contributions were interwoven in these expressions (consensus learning), yet also retained elements of fragmentation (conflict learning). The final two aspects capture norms guiding the coordination, sometimes promoting collaboration (consensus learning) and sometimes supporting autonomy (conflict learning). Figure 2 illustrates our analysis. The arrows between the aspects illustrate potential relations which are further theorized in the Discussion section.
The shaping of shared understandings through consensus learning and conflict learning.
Individuals incorporate others’ ideas and assert their own ideas
When individual contributors entered the project, they brought ideas, intentions, and visions into the collective creative process. In their social interaction, they met each other’s perspectives, which triggered new ways of thinking. The artist Hilma describes how conversations with other artists could lead in different directions, sometimes highlighting similarities and sometimes differences: Then, I might say something that makes the person I’m talking to think in new ways [. . .] you air different ideas and that can awaken new ideas in yourself. Or maybe you feel that “no, I don’t want to do that, I want to do this.” So, the communication brings out more clear directions and ideas. (Artist Hilma)
This dual role of communication in the creative processes shows that interaction between individuals involved both convergent and divergent qualities. Sometimes, individuals incorporated other’s ideas into their own understanding of the artwork, thus making the different styles merge. Other times they asserted their own ideas, making their own unique style stand out.
The participants engaged in dialogues, exchanged perspectives, and left imprints on each other’s work. Mutual adaptation was sought as a means to “fit the jig-saw puzzle pieces together,” to use a phrase often echoed in the interviews. The artists had their own rooms and did not necessarily have to coordinate with or relate to others, but they often did so anyway. One artist who spent much time in the house, socializing with other artists, was Ofelia. During the third production, of 2017, she arranged coffee break events every Tuesday, where the artists came together to engage in informal dialogues. For Ofelia, incorporating other’s ideas was crucial for her own process: I think my idea is important, but if I only talk about my idea, I can’t let in other people’s ideas and thoughts, because if I’m determined that this is what it should look like—a certain specific idea—I’ll be stuck with it. [. . .] I try to take in what others say and their view of the performance. (Artist Ofelia)
As the quote illustrates, incorporating other’s ideas did not mean that the individuals did not care about their own ideas. Rather, it was a matter of giving and taking; balancing convergent and divergent qualities. However, conflicts arose when interpretations clashed. The actor Volde, who participated in the first and second production, describes how he (and his co-actor) came into conflict with another actor who wanted to impose his interpretation of their character: We didn’t like [his interpretation of] our character. Then, we had a meeting with the person who pulled it off, and the [initiators], where we came to an agreement. [. . .] It was difficult because the other actor was a powerful person and is, in his way, a tremendous asset. (Actor Volde)
The quote illustrates how Volde asserted his own ideas instead of incorporating the ideas of the other actor. By facing the other actor’s divergent interpretation, Volde learned something about himself and what was important to him. This episode is a typical example of what we call conflict learning, as identification of friction and contradictions triggered changes. In the interaction between the participants, the decision-making processes often lacked clarity, which resulted in a somewhat chaotic process and a constant negotiation, as illustrated in the above quote.
However, there was a clearer division of power and responsibility in the relationship between initiators and participants. The initiators presented their visions and asked the participants to pitch ideas, such as what room they wanted to design or which role they wanted to play. In this process of interpretation, participants naturally needed to adapt to the initiators’ visions in order to make their own part fit into the whole. The initiators created a framework, within which participants had artistic freedom. This involved the participants relating the initiators’ ideas to their own artistic ambitions. The artist John describes how he was inspired by the initiator Margot to join the project: Margot presented her idea to the whole school and many people joined in [. . .] One of [the themes] touched on what I was doing artistically at the time so I was hooked. I spoke to Margot straight away. I wanted to be involved and I knew exactly what I would do. (Artist John)
According to the quote, John became attracted to Margot’s ideas because it was easy to incorporate her ideas into his own artistic style, which he had developed long before he joined the project. This episode can be seen as an example of consensus learning because it involved convergent interactions through which John’s and Margot’s ideas merged.
Sometimes, the participants also stretched the framework and developed their ideas in opposition to the initiators’ visions. We find an example of this in an interview with the actor Doris, who played a doctor in the first and second production. When reading the novel that the play was based on, she made a different interpretation than the initiators: I think I did the Doctor a bit against what they had intended, but they were open to it. I think initially they wanted me to be a bit more disgusting, but I took her from the book. (Actor Doris)
Such stretching can be seen as refusing to incorporate the initiators’ ideas and instead assert one’s own ideas, thus an example of conflict learning. The initiators tended to encourage stretching and often picked up ideas from the participants, integrating these ideas into their overall vision. For example, during the first year, the actors were explicitly instructed not to interact with the audience, but some actors began doing so anyway—a practice that became a central part of the performance during years 2 and 3. These examples illustrate the dynamic interplay between conflict learning (participants stretching) and consensus learning (initiators integrating).
However, not everything could be stretched and it happened that the initiators rejected participants’ ideas. When this happened, it was mostly for practical rather than aesthetic reasons, such as when an artist wanted to let a homeless person live in the house as a part of her artwork. Overall, the participants tended to incorporate the initiators’ ideas to a larger extent than the other way around; in other words, consensus learning had an asymmetric distribution.
Contributions are interwoven and fragmented in the emergent collective expressions
As the participants influenced each other’s ideas, unforeseen and shared understandings of artistic expressions emerged. Such understandings were not about specific contributions, but rather about the underlying ideas that related these contributions to each other. The collective artwork gained coherence but was never fully unified as convergent and divergent processes constantly intertwined. These synergies generated new ideas that enriched the work of multiple individuals. Nazim, an artist who constructed a plastic jungle and a junk cave, spoke of how a shared visual language gradually emerged: There were quite a few working with white plastic, eventually. In the forest, white plastic was hanging in loops from the ceiling. Then there was also white fiber cloth on the ground. In the next room—the coral room—there was originally some kind of neon, but it became a lot of plastic scrap later. It also became like a cave made of junk. She crushed old CDs and made patterns, in a similar way that I had previously taken crushed glass from bus stops and made some mosaic [. . .] It was different ways of working with plastic and foil to create something organic. (Artist Nazim)
The above quote shows how mutual influence tended to blur the lines of the ownership of ideas; as stated in the project’s documentation book “the boundaries between mine and yours were blurred.” These examples show the emergent outcomes of consensus learning, where individuals’ contributions came together into combinations that no one could have foreseen.
However, the collective learning process was not unidirectional, coming to a harmonious merger. Instead, the collective artistic expressions emerged through a dynamic interplay between the interweaving and fragmentation of contributions. The many individual contributions can be seen as threads woven together in an emerging fabric. Artists in adjacent rooms influenced each other, which resulted in a shared visual language. Similarly, when actors improvised together, new scenes developed as ideas synthesized in unexpected ways. Actor Victoria describes how new scenes emerged in the interactions between her and other artists over the course of the rehearsal period: . . . I discover I’m meeting the doctor. /. . ./ in the first rehearsal, we might just nod lightly. The next time, we might still talk a little and then finally, after a few rehearsals, I start begging for pills from her. There were a lot of scenes that were added in meetings in corridors and staircases. (Actor Victoria)
This improvised scene can be seen as an example of how individual contributions were interwoven into the emerging collective expressions, or in other words, outcomes of consensus learning. Victoria and the other actor both contributed with their respective characters and ideas, but when they met, something new emerged that no one could have foreseen, the result of a developed improvisational attitude sensitive to individual expression. While these examples represent relatively local emerging expressions, together they formed the whole which constantly evolved and changed. The initiators had their initial vision, but it evolved as they were influenced by the participants and had to deal with what emerged, such as when actors started to interact with the audience as described in previous section. In the following field notes from a meeting during the beginning of the third year, we see an example of how shared understandings about the collective expressions developed through dialogue: Chairs are arranged in a circle and about ten people sit on them, two of the initiators, artists active in the house and some actors. The meeting begins with Marcus [initiator] talking about his experience of a theater and dance performance he recently saw in New York and his desire to do something similar in the third year’s production. He also stresses that he does not want to direct the conversation, but that what the initiators have talked about so far is portraying themes such as hope, death and rebirth, and that they want to do something radically different from previous years. [. . .] In subsequent discussion, several participants say that they are interested in working with audience interaction and participatory theater, inspiring the audience to take an active part in the development of society and to become more creative. Some say that they would like to see a less linear production. [. . .] Someone suggests that they could even create multiple productions and premieres. Someone else suggests that there could be a shop where artists could sell their work. Marcus affirms these ideas, but adds that they still need to be able to deliver an artistic product and guarantee an experience. So, it can’t be too much of a festival or activity center, he says. (Field notes from the third year)
The quote illustrates Marcus’ ambition to allow for diverse interpretations and emergent ideas, but still preserve a degree of coherence. While the emerging fabric generally developed coherently, some threads did not fit well together, resulting in fragmented emergent expressions. Moreover, theoretical compatibility of artistic ideas did not always translate to practical harmony. Some participants also experienced frustration due to the flexible and often unplanned process. In the following quote, Artist Nazim describes the confusion she felt when trying to adapt her own artwork to a quickly changing ecosystem of artworks in her surroundings: There were quite a few artworks competing for this space. I could feel that a lot of stuff was being thrown in there without me knowing why or being prepared for it. Like “aha, in the jungle there will also be compost on the walls.” Why should they be there? (Artist Nazim)
The quote illustrates a fragmentation in the collective expressions emerging in the corridors of the house, that is, outcomes of conflict learning. Incompatible interpretations, misunderstandings, and tensions arising from conflicts and working conditions contributed to this fragmentation. Interestingly, these fragmented contributions triggered changes in the overall vision, for example, as with the development of audience interaction. At other times, misfitting threads found their place in the margins but still contributed to the whole. In the quote below, Initiator Gabriel discusses how he handled artists that went against his and the other initiators’ vision: I guess you have to try to find a place in the artwork. If it’s so important to you to do it this way, and it still rhymes pretty well, but not optimally. Then we have to put it in an environment where it has the least impact on the whole, but still works. If someone in the audience finds it, it’s still a work that the artist is responsible for. (Initiator Gabriel)
Gabriel’s strategy of putting misfitting threads in the margins reflect an ambition to combine interweaving with fragmentation, which reflects the dynamic interplay between consensus learning and conflict learning. The organic and often chaotic development of ideas through interaction between individuals was an essential part of the collective creative process.
Coordination is guided by the norms of collaboration and autonomy
The collective creative processes were coordinated by a set of norms associated with convergence as well as divergence. The program sheet from the second year portraying the atmosphere in the house some days before the premiere performance, help us identify these norms: Everyone is focused on their work. The artists with their windows. The actors trying to get their scenes right. They dance by, careful not to break anything. Everyone knows that the premiere is approaching, no one has time to move or wait for anyone. We all coexist, supporting the end result. No irritation in the air, only concentrated focus. (Program sheet from the second year)
The above excerpt highlights how individuals in the organization approached coordination, balancing two contrasting norms: the norm of collaboration and the norm of autonomy. Practices related to the collaboration norm involved working toward a shared purpose helping each other and find synergies, thus functioning as a condition for consensus learning. Practices related to the autonomy norm involved focusing on individual responsibilities and scope for action, functioning as a condition for conflict learning. These seemingly contradictory norms often coexisted harmoniously within the organization.
A common practice associated with collaboration was artists helping each other, and asking for help, when they needed it. In the below quote, the actor and artist Max describes the helpful atmosphere in the house: The people you have helped have also helped others. Certainly, there have been people who have shut themselves in their room until it’s finished, but I don’t think anybody has directly ruled out getting help from someone else if there’s a wall to be put up or if you don’t know how a machine works. (Actor and artist Max)
Although Max emphasizes collaboration, he acknowledges that some artists were quite individualistic. This illustrates how the norms of collaboration and autonomy coexisted. Through an Internet forum, questions, proposals, and suggestions were posted by and addressed by participants and initiators, which facilitated processes of consensus learning. The field notes below give some examples of requests posted by the artists during about 1 month of the third production: On 18/7, an artist asks for fleece, wadding or something else fluffy “in quantities and cheaply.” Several people respond and give tips on sources, both inside the house and in the outside world. On 19/5, an artist asks for dried herbs. Various people reply that they have frog leaves, thyme, mint and other herbs. On 19/7, an artist writes that she will create a room with scents (including gasoline) and light. She also asks for tips on where to buy cheap light strings. Several people offer tips and one person sends a link to an online shop. Someone comments on the petrol scent idea and a small discussion takes place. On 23/8 an artist posts a picture of soft plastic hanging from the ceiling of one of the rooms. She writes that she needs such “in quantities” and wonders if anyone knows where to buy or preferably get it for free. She gets several responses including that you can go to a factory and get “miles and miles” of leftover pieces. One person replies that he has a roll of construction plastic at home that he can bring to the house.
The field notes reveal how artists engaged in helping each other beyond simple answers. While these field notes focus particularly on requests, there were also a lot of other discussions and questions going on simultaneously.
The autonomy norm could be observed in the division of labor, where each person had their own space to create a room or play a role. For many participants, the opportunity to explore their own ideas seems to have been a major motivator for joining the organization. In the following quote, artist Siri emphasizes the importance of precisely this space: If there had been a lot of artists working in the same room, it probably wouldn’t have worked. It was based on everyone having their own little part and being given freedom within that framework. Because artists are a bit egotistical in a way—you want to explore your own ideas. (Artist Siri)
The rooms became a safe haven to which the artists could retreat and find their own way of contributing, something they needed in order to stay motivated during unexpected events and challenges. Because of this need, it was important for the initiators to safeguard the participants’ creative spaces and not micromanage or pressure them into consensus learning. Artist Roland describes how he experienced that trust was an important part of the initiators’ leadership: . . . they show trust very clearly. That they shouldn’t come in and micromanage. They gave it free rein. [. . .] They leave it up to me to figure it out, and rely on me to ask them when I have a problem or something I’m thinking about. (Artist Roland)
For Roland, this laid-back leadership style was empowering, making him take the responsibility needed both to create his own room and to contribute in other ways, such as bringing his own tools and lend them out when he didn’t need them, as well as serving as an audience host during the performances. Although both the collaboration norm and the autonomy norm seem to have been strong in the organization, they were not necessarily always in balance. More precisely, it happened that individuals raised concerns that one of them or the other was lacking. In the following field note from the third year, some artists discuss the sense of community in the organization and whether it was as strong as during the first year: It’s Thursday afternoon and a number of artists are gathered on the fourth floor to try out Ofelia’s vegan snickers bars. She always carries her notebook where she writes down recipes, such as coconut balls, and banoffee pie. The coffee room has windows facing the long corridor where someone has spray-painted a line running along the ceiling as far as I can see. The artist Miriam, points to the line and says, annoyed, that the person who painted it has unnecessarily destroyed fine building materials. Someone objects that perhaps the person didn’t see the removable roof tiles as building material. Miriam counters that this says a lot about how the person who made the line thinks. She is concerned that people who come to the house, without having been part of the community before, don’t feel they need to be involved in caring for the house together. In the first year it was more of a community, she says, and she wants it to be that way again. (Field note from the third year)
Miriam’s comment on the spray-paint in the ceiling can be interpreted as a concern about a lack of collaboration, or more precisely that people in the house cared more about themselves than about the collective. While example such as this suggests that autonomy and collaboration could be difficult to balance, other examples show that they actually often were in balance. We end this section with a quote from artist Siri, giving an idea of a culture of individualism without competition and collectivism without conformity that developed in the organization: There was something both forgiving and encouraging. When you see other people’s crazy ideas, you can go even further, but at the same time, you feel secure knowing it is part of a whole. (Artist Siri)
Discussion
Based on our analysis, we make two contributions to research on collective creativity. First, we theorize our findings, drawing on theories of collective learning, paradox, materiality, and affect, and propose a model of how the capacity for collective creativity develops organically. Second, we highlight our concept of conflict learning and its potential to reveal often taken for granted aspects of collective creativity and how it is fostered, as well as how it is balanced with consensus learning through a culture of dialogue.
Theorizing collective creativity through a learning lens
Through our case study of a large art and theater project, we uncover how creative groups develop and preserve the ability to interact in both divergent and convergent ways. We argue that this is learned in practice through an organic process that is intimately intertwined with the creative process itself, rather than by deliberate practices of paradox management. To demonstrate this, we interpret our findings using concepts derived from theory of collective learning, such as shared understandings and learning loops between different levels of analysis (Crossan et al., 1999; Dixon, 1994; Ohlsson, 2013).
From this perspective, the six aspects of consensus learning and conflict learning described in the findings section are associated with different forms of shared understandings and the dynamics through which these understandings emerge during interaction, influencing subsequent interaction. Incorporating others’ ideas and asserting one’s own ideas in the context of one’s own contributions reflect individual understandings under the influence of other individuals (Dixon, 1994; Kolb, 2015). This influence can help them to picture their own vision more clearly than before the interaction, sometimes in alignment with others and sometimes in opposition. Emergent collective expressions (being interwoven or fragmented) involves shared understandings of the products being created, while coordinating norms (promoting collaboration or supporting autonomy) reflect shared understandings of how to work together (Crossan et al., 1999). Thus, we make a distinction between two interrelated levels of the collective learning process relevant for creative collaborations: learning about what is created and learning how to work together. The relationships between these levels helps us explore how conditions for convergent and divergent interactions are established in an organization.
Consensus learning and conflict learning are portrayed as two separate but interrelated learning loops between these levels (see Figure 2 in the Findings section). In consensus learning, individuals integrate others’ ideas, leading to the interweaving of their contributions (e.g. the individual artists’ rooms in our study) into emergent collective expressions (e.g. common themes across various rooms). This integration, in turn, reinforces the collaboration norm and encourages the ongoing incorporation of others’ ideas. When individuals experience how their ideas merge into mutually beneficial results, the collaboration norm is reinforced. Through conflict learning, individuals assert their own ideas, leading to fragmentation of contributions in the emergent collective expressions. This process reinforces the autonomy norm, encouraging individuals to assert their own ideas. Experiencing that a certain degree of fragmentation is accepted, and even seen as a precondition for development, may make individuals value autonomy (Billett, 2008). In both these loops, learning about what is created precedes learning about how to work together. Furthermore, we show that both conflict and consensus learning have a potentially self-reinforcing character, which indicates that a creative climate can grow organically from people doing innovative work together.
These insights complement previous paradox research, which has often taken a more functionalist approach, focusing on management techniques, such as promoting both diversity and cohesiveness by optimizing team composition and workspaces (Andriopoulos and Lewis, 2010). Although formal and informal leaders may contribute to consensus learning or conflict learning (or both), the processes that we have described are emergent rather than results of leadership or organizational design. Furthermore, while authors like Lüscher and Lewis (2008) describe a process where managers learn to deal with paradoxical tensions in order to change organizational practices, our multilevel framework allows us to see how creative abilities and practices are developed through multiple learning processes distributed across an organization. This learning is not limited to particularly challenging situations or dilemmas, but also includes the everyday interactions through which individuals exchange ideas about what they do and relate to each other. Through such interactions, a capacity for collective creativity can emerge bottom-up in a process where convergent and divergent elements are naturally integrated.
While our results support Lüscher and Lewis’ (2008) argument that reflections and conversations are important in developing this capacity, we also suggest that non-cognitive elements such as materiality and affect play a vital role. Participants in our study did not merely discuss and think about their art as abstract ideas; they engaged in the act of building, painting, and moving their bodies. They did not simply manipulate the environment to materialize their ideas; rather, new ideas emerged from their encounters with materials, which resonates with Leclair’s (2022) concept of affective atmospheres. Consequently, exchanges of ideas happened in a shared physical space where individuals could see, touch and interact with each other’s work, making their own interpretations of it; being inspired or repelled. Emergent collective expressions are as much about doing similar things as they are about thinking similar thoughts. The sheer size and complexity of the house probably contributed to the emergent nature of these expressions, through random encounters and unexpected discoveries (cf. Beyes and Steyaert, 2021). Similarly, coordinating norms had their own material manifestations, such as the artists having their own rooms (autonomy norm), while the rooms were interconnected through corridors and actors moving between the rooms (collaboration norm). Both the rooms as safe havens and the house as a creative hub were associated with strong positive emotions, which motivated both divergent and convergent interactions. In line with this, integrating other’s ideas or asserting one’s own ideas should not be seen as purely rational, goal-oriented actions, but highly affective and influenced by the material surroundings (cf. Leclair, 2022).
Non-cognitive elements such as materiality and affect are likely to shape both individual and collective interpretations of what is being created and how collaboration unfolds. Nevertheless, by taking these interpretations seriously and examining how they develop and relate to one another, we can gain valuable insights into how outcomes and capabilities co-evolve. Therefore, shared understanding is the center of gravity in our analysis. This approach allows us to capture the wills of different individuals and what happens when they meet, something that is particularly important when it comes to making sense of potential clashes between these wills.
The importance of conflict learning in collective creativity
Our theorizing outlined above complements current theories of collective creativity, which has often paid more attention to convergence than divergence. For example, Hargadon and Bechky’s (2006) model seem close to what we have labeled consensus learning, focusing on how convergent interactions like seeking and giving help are reinforced over time by each other and by positive experience of such interactions. While their model presupposes individuals with divergent ideas, we argue that the mechanisms behind how divergence is preserved are underexplored. Our concept of conflict learning mirrors their model, by explaining how divergent interactions are reinforced in an analogous way. Paying attention to the dynamics of divergence can help us to see that collective creativity is not just a straightforward integration of different perspectives, but rather a messy process involving friction and clashes as well as agreement, mutually beneficial synergies and serendipity (Harvey, 2014; Mengis et al., 2018). This resonates with Harrison and Rouse’s (2014) concept of elastic coordination, through which creative groups oscillate between phases of divergent and convergent interactions in a process that drives creativity. We complement their model by focusing on what people learn in these different phases as well as how they learn to participate in them. The process of elastic coordination also suggests how consensus learning and conflict learning interact as previously held consensus is constantly put into question and reinterpreted into new consensus.
Insights about the dynamics of divergence, derived from our study, allows for a reinterpretation of certain divergent interactions. From a purely convergence-oriented perspective (cf. Hargadon and Bechky, 2006), behaviors such as reluctance to incorporate others’ ideas may be considered a threat to collective creativity (e.g. Elsbach and Flynn, 2013). However, we argue that the existence of divergent ideas in the first place requires a degree of fragmentation. Individuals are more likely to assert their divergent ideas in settings where fragmentation and conflicts are seen as acceptable, and even more so when others are already asserting divergent ideas. Taking our concept of conflict learning as a point of departure, reluctance to incorporate others’ ideas can actually be seen as a precondition for a culture of autonomy where divergent ideas can thrive. While acceptance of contradictions has proven to be central to coping with paradoxes (Lüscher and Lewis, 2008), our study suggests that acceptance of fragmentation may be particularly important in collective creativity. This means accepting that the creative process does not always move toward integration, but can also involve de-integration, even if only temporarily.
While this section emphasizes the importance of autonomy, our model ultimately underlines the central role of balance. In the studied art and theater project, autonomy and collaboration came together into a culture of dialogue, where the collective learning of diverse individuals formed the basis of the emergent organization (cf. Dixon, 1994). This involved flexible forms of organizing without numerous standard procedures, but where each situation was treated as unique and dealt with by the people directly involved. Unity was built from diversity, rather than from standardization (cf. Lüscher and Lewis, 2008). Decentralization to this degree seem to require participants able to take responsibility for their own part as well as the whole (Adler and Chen, 2011), and an ability to participate in dialogues (Wilhelmson, 2006). However, our findings suggest that such an unstructured and emergent process can also provide the conditions for developing these very abilities.
Whether this succeeds or not may depend on various factors, such as leadership, division of labor, and the physical work environment. In our study, each artist had their own room as a safe haven, but they had to work together to put the jigsaw puzzle pieces together. We argue that their ability to retreat from outside influences to this safe haven, maintain autonomy, and adapt on their own terms actually increased their openness to collaboration. Under these circumstances, collaboration not only led to the merging of ideas but also fostered a sense of ownership of the ideas developed under the influence of others, thus blurring the boundaries between “mine” and “yours.” The initiators encouraged autonomy by providing artistic space, but also collaboration by emphasizing a shared purpose (cf. Adler and Heckscher, 2018). Such paradox leadership (Lüscher and Lewis, 2008; Zhang et al., 2022) can help foster a culture of dialogue and the corresponding work environment, but the current culture and environment in the organization may also influence which leadership is likely to develop.
Limitations and suggestions for further research
In terms of generalization, the study’s results may be easier to transfer to certain contexts than others—particularly loosely structured, and newly established organizations within creative industries or start-ups. In organizations with strong established, formalized, and centralized structures, the balance between consensus and conflict learning may not have the same importance in facilitating coordination. The possibility to fall back on routines and plans is likely to decrease the necessity to develop a culture of dialogue, and conflict learning may be less salient because of limited space for fragmentation. Future research could investigate conditions for consensus learning and conflict learning in formalized and corporate organizations. The collective learning process we have described may also play out differently in artistic contexts where the division between levels of rank and mastery are more accentuated than in our relatively egalitarian case, for example, how the balance between convergence and divergence is handled in a master–apprentice relationship (cf. Stierand, 2015).
Another possible limitation is the reliance on theory in the analysis. Although the different aspects of consensus and conflict learning are grounded in our empirical findings, the proposed relationships between them in our model are largely based on theoretical assumptions. Future research could test these relationships, examining to which extent norms really are reinforced through the creative process, and how newcomers are socialized into creative interactions. Such investigation would probably gain from paying attention to the interplay between cognition, affect, social relations, materiality, temporality, and institutional practices. Finally, future research could explore the interplay between consensus and conflict learning, potentially connecting to Harrison and Rouse’s (2014) concept of elastic coordination.
Practical implications
Organizations with an ambition to foster collective creativity need to provide employees and managers with training in how to balance convergent and divergent interactions. For example, managers must learn to embrace divergence, facilitate collaborative self-organization, and incorporate what develops, but still take responsibility for the coherence of the emergent whole. Employees need training that empowers them to pursue their visions, while also developing sensitivity to each other’s work and a sense of shared purpose (Adler and Heckscher, 2018). We emphasize the importance of balance between convergence and divergence because we believe that the role of divergence may easily be underestimated or taken for granted in environments where collaboration is held high. During a brainstorming session, clinging to one’s own ideas is considered a deal-breaker because the goal is to build on each other’s contributions collaboratively (Osborn, 1979). However, these contributions are often developed through a long and deeply personal process, and being able to recognize some of one’s ideas in the synthesized outcome can be essential for fostering the motivation needed to bring the final product to completion. Collective creativity cannot always be a smooth process where everyone lets go of their egos. The ego, as an affective force, can drive innovation when harnessed constructively but must be carefully managed to prevent its destructive side from overshadowing collaboration.
Conclusion
In this article, we have explored how a large number of people can be creative together, and how the abilities to do so may develop organically in an organization. Drawing on a study of a large art and theater project, we identify two interdependent cycles of collective learning, through which different creative norms are enacted and reinforced in the creative process. Through consensus learning, individuals incorporate each other’s ideas, resulting in interwoven collective expressions that reinforce the norm of collaboration and thereby promote convergence. Through conflict learning, individuals assert their own ideas, resulting in more fragmented collective expressions that reinforce the norm of autonomy and thereby promote divergence. The findings suggest that accepting fragmentation is essential for promoting multiple perspectives, while a culture of dialogue plays a critical role for synthesizing these perspectives.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
We would like to express our sincere gratitude to all the participants of the art and theater project that formed the basis of this study. Their engagement and openness were invaluable. We also appreciate the constructive feedback from members of the Organizational Pedagogics research group at Stockholm University and participants of the 14th International Symposium on Process Organization Studies. Finally, we acknowledge the anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful critiques, which significantly improved this manuscript’s quality.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Data availability statement
The data supporting the results of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.