Skip to main content

Understanding and Fostering Collective Ideation: An Improvisation-Based Method

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Knowledge Management, Arts, and Humanities

Part of the book series: Knowledge Management and Organizational Learning ((IAKM,volume 7))

  • 1021 Accesses

Abstract

Although the collective view is receiving increasing attention in research, this perspective is missing from the approaches for fostering creativity and ideation. The present study aims to fill this research gap by understanding ideation as a collective phenomenon and by introducing a novel method for fostering collective ideation. The study builds on current research on knowledge creation, collective creativity, idea generation, and collective theatrical improvisation to introduce an approach for fostering collective ideation. In addition, as a secondary goal, the study provides empirical findings about the implementation of collective ideation in 13 distinct cases. The study builds links between knowledge creation and collective theatrical improvisation and, thus, highlights social and affective aspects of collective ideation as a knowledge creation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(2), 357–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amin, A., & Roberts, J. (2008). Knowing in action: Beyond communities of practice. Research Policy, 37(2), 353–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bakeman, R., & Beck, S. (1974). The size of informal groups in public. Environment and Behavior, 6(3), 378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bantel, K., & Jackson, S. (1989). Top management and innovations in banking: Does the composition of the top team make a difference? Strategic Management Journal, 10(S1), 107–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barry, D., & Meisiek, S. (2010). Seeing more and seeing differently: Sensemaking, mindfulness, and the workarts. Organization Studies, 31(11), 1505–1530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartunek, J., Gordon, J., & Weathersby, R. (1983). Developing “complicated” understanding in administrators. Academy of Management Review, 8(2), 273–284.

    Google Scholar 

  • Björk, J. (2012). Knowledge domain spanners in ideation. Creativity and Innovation Management, 21(1), 17–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Björk, J., Magnusson, M., Sukhov, A., Magnusson, P., & Olsson, L. E. (2016). The what, who, when, where, and how of idea assessment. Paper presented at the ISPIM Innovation Forum, Boston, MA, USA on 13–16 March, 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, V., Tumeo, M., Larey, T., & Paulus, P. (1998). Modeling cognitive interactions during group brainstorming. Small Group Research, 29(4), 495–526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Catmull, E. (2008). How Pixar fosters collective creativity. Boston: Harvard Business School.

    Google Scholar 

  • Choi, J., Sung, S., & Cho, T. (2014). Creative contribution of individuals in groups: Effects of goal orientation and participative safety. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 42(3), 407–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1994). Fortune favors the prepared firm. Management Science, 40(2), 227–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook, S., & Brown, J. (1999). Bridging epistemologies: The generative dance between organizational knowledge and organizational knowing. Organization Science, 10(4), 381–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1988). Motivation and creativity: Toward a synthesis of structural and energistic approaches to cognition. New Ideas in Psychology, 6(2), 159–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). Implications of a systems perspective for the study of creativity. In R. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (p. 313). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denzin, N. L., & Lincoln, Y. Y. (1994). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diehl, M., & Stroebe, W. (1987). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward the solution of a riddle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(3), 497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diehl, M., & Stroebe, W. (1991). Productivity loss in idea-generating groups: Tracking down the blocking effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(3), 392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dodgson, M., Salter, A., & Gann, D. (2005). Think, play, do. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drazin, R., Glynn, M., & Kazanjian, R. (1999). Multilevel theorizing about creativity in organizations: A sensemaking perspective. Academy of Management Review, 24(2), 286–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ekvall, G. (1996). Organizational climate for creativity and innovation. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5(1), 105–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elsbach, K. D., & Kramer, R. M. (2003). Assessing creativity in Hollywood pitch meetings: Evidence for a dual-process model of creativity judgments. Academy of Management Journal, 46(3), 283–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erden, Z., Von Krogh, G., & Nonaka, I. (2008). The quality of group tacit knowledge. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 17(1), 4–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eriksson, P., & Kovalainen, A. (2015). Qualitative methods in business research: A practical guide to social research (2nd ed.). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, E. P. (1992). The impact of play on development: A meta-analysis. Play & Culture, 5(2), 159–181.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gadamer, H. (1989). Play as the clue to ontological explanation. Truth and method, crossroad. New York: Crossroad.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grant, A. M., & Berry, J. W. (2011). The necessity of others is the mother of invention: Intrinsic and prosocial motivations, perspective taking, and creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 54(1), 73–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grawitch, M., Munz, D., & Kramer, T. (2003). Effects of member mood states on creative performance in temporary workgroups. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 7(1), 41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guzzo, R., & Dickson, M. (1996). Teams in organizations: Recent research on performance and effectiveness. Annual Review of Psychology, 47(1), 307–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammond, M., Neff, N., Farr, J., Schwall, A., & Zhao, X. (2011). Predictors of individual-level innovation at work: A meta-analysis. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5(1), 90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Handzic, M., & Chaimungkalanont, M. (2004, December). Enhancing organisational creativity through socialisation. Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, 2(1), 57–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hargadon, A. B. (2002). Brokering knowledge: Linking learning and innovation. Research in Organizational Behavior, 24, 41–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hargadon, A., & Bechky, B. (2006). When collections of creatives become creative collectives: A field study of problem solving at work. Organization Science, 17(4), 484–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrington, D. M. (1975). Effects of explicit instructions to “be creative” on the psychological meaning of divergent thinking test scores 1. Journal of Personality, 43(3), 434–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, D., & Klein, K. (2007). What’s the difference? Diversity constructs as separation, variety, or disparity in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1199–1228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, S. (2013). A different perspective: The multiple effects of deep level diversity on group creativity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(5), 822–832.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, S. (2014). Creative synthesis: Exploring the process of extraordinary group creativity. Academy of Management Review, 39(3), 324–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, S., & Kou, C. (2013). Collective engagement in creative tasks: The role of evaluation in the creative process in groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 58(3), 346–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hatchuel, A., & Weil, B. (2009). CK design theory: An advanced formulation. Research in Engineering Design, 19(4), 181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heslin, P. (2009). Better than brainstorming? Potential contextual boundary conditions to brainwriting for idea generation in organizations. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 82(1), 129–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hjorth, D. (2004). Creating space for play/invention – Concepts of space and organizational entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 16(5), 413–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hjorth, D. (2005). Organizational entrepreneurship: With De Certeau on creating heterotopias (or spaces for play). Journal of Management Inquiry, 14(4), 386–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huizinga, J. (1949). Homo Ludens. A study of the play-element in culture. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • James, K., Clark, K., & Cropanzano, R. (1999). Positive and negative creativity in groups, institutions, and organizations: A model and theoretical extension. Creativity Research Journal, 12(3), 211–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • John-Steiner, V. (2000). Creative collaboration. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnstone, K. (1979/2015). IMPRO. Improvisation and the theatre. New York: Routledge/Theatre Arts Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohn, N., Paulus, P., & Choi, Y. (2011). Building on the ideas of others: An examination of the idea combination process. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(3), 554–561.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koppett, K. (2001). Training to imagine: Practical, improvisational techniques to inspire creativity, enhance communication and develop leadership. San Francisco: Stylus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kurtzberg, T., & Amabile, T. (2001). From Guilford to creative synergy: Opening the black box of team-level creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 13(3–4), 285–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Litchfield, R., Fan, J., & Brown, V. (2011). Directing idea generation using brainstorming with specific novelty goals. Motivation and Emotion, 35(2), 135–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Locke, E., & Latham, G. (1990). A theory of goal setting & task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacKinnon, D. W. (1962). The nature and nurture of creative talent. American Psychologist, 17(7), 484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mainemelis, C., & Ronson, S. (2006). Ideas are born in fields of play: Towards a theory of play and creativity in organizational settings. Research in Organizational Behavior, 27, 81–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montuori, A. (2003). The complexity of improvisation and the improvisation of complexity: Social science, art and creativity. Human Relations, 56(2), 237–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moorman, C., & Miner, A. (1998). The convergence of planning and execution: Improvisation in new product development. The Journal of Marketing, 62, 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nemeth, C. (1986). Differential contributions of majority and minority influence. Psychological Review, 93(1), 23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nijstad, B., & Stroebe, W. (2006). How the group affects the mind: A cognitive model of idea generation in groups. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(3), 186–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nijstad, B., Stroebe, W., & Lodewijkx, H. (2002). Cognitive stimulation and interference in groups: Exposure effects in an idea generation task. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38(6), 535–544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nisula, A. M., & Kianto, A. (2018). Stimulating organisational creativity with theatrical improvisation. Journal of Business Research, 85, 484–493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nisula, A. M., Kallio, A., Oikarinen, T., & Kianto, A. (2014). Fostering team creativity and innovativeness with playfulness: A multi-case study. International Journal of Innovation and Learning, 17(1), 79–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka, I., & Toyama, R. (2003). The knowledge-creating theory revisited: Knowledge creation as a synthesizing process. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 1(1), 2–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka, I., & Von Krogh, G. (2009). Perspective—Tacit knowledge and knowledge conversion: Controversy and advancement in organizational knowledge creation theory. Organization Science, 20(3), 635–652.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oikarinen, T., & Kallio, A. (2012). Absorption and creation of new knowledge: A multi-case study of different forms of knowledge impacting on absorptive capacity. Presented at OLKC, Valencia, 25–27 April 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oldham, G., & Baer, M. (2012). Creativity and the work context. In M. Mumford (Ed.), Handbook of organizational creativity (pp. 387–413). London: Elsevier Academic Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Orlikowski, W. J. (2002). Knowing in practice: Enacting a collective capability in distributed organizing. Organization Science, 13(3), 249–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osborn, A. (1953). Applied imagination. Oxford: Scribner’s.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paulus, P. B., & Brown, V. R. (2003). Enhancing ideational creativity in groups. In Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration (pp. 110–136). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Paulus, P., & Yang, H. (2000). Idea generation in groups: A basis for creativity in organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 76–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, N. (1995). Telling organizational tales: On the role of narrative fiction in the study of organizations. Organization Studies, 16(4), 625–649.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roos, J., & Roos, M. (2006). Play is the key. In J. Roos (Ed.), Thinking from within. A hands-on strategy practice. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Runco, M. (2010). Divergent thinking, creativity, and ideation. In J. Kaufman & R. Steinberg (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 413–446). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sawyer, R., & DeZutter, S. (2009). Distributed creativity: How collective creations emerge from collaboration. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 3(2), 81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sawyer, R., Csikszentmihalyi, M., John-Steiner, V., Moran, S., Feldman, D., Gardner, H., Sternberg, R., & Nakamura, J. (Series Eds.). (2003). Creativity and development. Counterpoints: Cognition, memo. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shalley, C. (1991). Effects of productivity goals, creativity goals, and personal discretion on individual creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(2), 179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simonton, D. K. (1999). Creativity as blind variation and selective retention: Is the creative process Darwinian? Psychological Inquiry, 10, 309–328.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spolin, V. (1983). Improvisation for the theater: A handbook of teaching and directing techniques. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Unsworth, K. (2001). Unpacking creativity. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 289–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Dyck, C., Frese, M., Baer, M., & Sonnentag, S. (2005). Organizational error management culture and its impact on performance: A two-study replication. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Knippenberg, D., & Schippers, M. (2007). Work group diversity. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 515–541.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wageman, R., Gardner, H., & Mortensen, M. (2012). The changing ecology of teams: New directions for teams research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(3), 301–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin, R. W. (1993). Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Academy of Management Review, 18(2), 293–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Appendices

Appendix 1: Assignment for Collective Ideation

The task of your group is to create a business idea concept from incidental ingredients as described below.

1.1 Task

1.1.1 Part I: Ideation

Duration 25–30 min

You will get three random elements/words:

  1. 1.

    Object/artifact

  2. 2.

    Function

  3. 3.

    Target group (users for whom you create the solution)

These three words (elements) are ingredients for your ideation work, and all these elements need to be involved in your final solution in one way or another.

IA: Ideate and co-create

a product, process, or service concept by using the object/artifact and function elements (words 1 and 2) for your target group or users (word 3). Be imaginative!

IB: Illustrate and present

your idea on paper (pictures, sketch, text, etc.) and be prepared to pitch (explain and sell) it to the audience (class)—e.g., what the product or solution is, how it serves the target group, and what the business model is for commercializing it. Imagine that you are seeking funding for your product/solution (50,000 €) for further development and testing of your product and the related business model.

1.1.2 Part II: Pitch

In the pitch, describe and sell your solution to the audience (investors). Prepare a short presentation (2 min max) about your solution (by using sketches or other illustrations).

1.1.3 Part III: Crowd Evaluation

Peer-to-peer (or crowd) evaluation according to instruction

Appendix 2

Implemented collective ideation cases (2013–2017) (Author’s own illustration)

 

Case

Year

Participants

Respondents

Typea

1

Working adult university students/M.Sc. (Economics and Engineering)

2013

44

14

S

2

Adult working university students/MBA

2013

15

9

S

3

Working adult university students/M.Sc. (Economics and Engineering)

2013

28

27

S

4

Working adult university students/applied social sciences

2014

22

20

S

5

Working adult university students/M.Sc. (Economics and Engineering)

2014

25

24

S

6

City I/large

2015

75

65

O

7

City II/large

2015

28

25

O

8

University students/M.Sc. (Economics and Engineering), international

2015

27

27

S

9

Working adult university students/M.Sc. (Economics and Engineering)

2016

34

29

S

10

Large technology company

2016

48

44

O

11

Working adult university students/M.Sc.

2017

35

29

S

12

Adult working university students/MBA

2017

10

8

S

13

Working adult university students/M.Sc. (Economics and Engineering)

2017

50

48

S

 

Total

 

441

369

 
  1. aS = Student case; O = Organization case

Appendix 3

Positive experiences (Author’s own illustration)

 

Second round concept

First round concept

Sample expressions

Positive experiences

Emotionally positive experience, playful, joy, fun, inspiring, pleasure

Fun

“Fun,” “lot of fun,” “great fun,” “Nice and fun co-creation event, usually people utilize humor to manage this kind of co-creation events”

Nice

“Nice,” “nice co-creation event,” “it was nice,” “nice experience”

Interesting

“Interesting,” “Interesting and creative! Some brilliant ideas can be triggered here!”

Inspiring

Inspiring

Good/great

“Good,” “good co-creation event,” “great,” “The pitches part is really good. Really timely and helps to test and stimulate one’s potential”

“Well organized, it kept the attention well”

Pleasurable

“pleasurable experience,” “enjoyable,” “I like,” “I liked,” “I love this experience”

New and fresh experience

Refreshing

Different

Variation

New

Surprising

“Variation from familiar work,” “Nice variation,” “I experienced this as new compared to on what I am familiar with,” “Awesome,” “Different way to ideate and make impossible possible”

“Different exercise is good for you”

“New co-creation event, new wonderful companionship”

“Energizing”

Expanding experiences

Breaking boundaries

Creative thinking

Liberating

First difficult – then inspiring

“triggers thinking,” “eye-opening,” “out of the box,” “open-minded,” “Breaking one’s boundaries,” “Stimulates thinking,” “Creates thinking and how to sell quickly your items,” “Creative – let it go, fly!”; “First difficult – then I got inspired”

Contradictory experiences

Unpleasant experiences

Difficult

“Difficult,” “Difficult (I am not familiar with this)”

Not for me

Too fast

Didn’t like

“I like larger groups,” “We must have been on different wavelength, or at least we could not connect [at the cognitive level]. As a human she is certainly ok”

“We had too little time”

“Boring – took too much time,” “a little bit foolish,” “Business oriented, not used in social and health care sector”

Appendix 4

Social and cognitive aspects (Author’s own illustration)

 

Second round concept

First round (concept)

Examples of expressions

Social interaction

Communication

Communicative

“Communicative,” “it lead us to a good conversation,” “Supports familiarization,” “Communicative and egalitarian”

“Led to good conversation”

Socialization

Get to know each other

“Interactive – I got to know a new person”

“This is fun way to get to know new people and generate new ideas”

Transcended interaction

Break barriers between people

“It’s a great way to broke barriers between persons and inside group”

Interactive

“It was even easier to start working with an unknown person than it sometimes tend to be with known person”

“Interactive….”

Trust

Trust

“You have to trust. You have to trust your creativity and your team members’ creativity”

“new way to facilitate creativity and turn it into a product”

Cognition

Makes knowledge and skills visible

Reveals skills

“I learned to make decision in short time of period”

Reveals abilities

“This co-creation event demonstrated well mine and my team member’s ability to start working quickly and exchange ideas boldly without knowing her personality”

Brings knowledge and skills accessible

“counterpart can be surprisingly innovative,”

“You can learn about other person quite a lot in short time”

“facilitates knowledge sharing and ideation. It gives a good feeling when shared idea is found”

“It was great to change ideas wit someone unfamiliar to you”

“You learn to know other persons’ logic of thinking, which makes communication easier”

Collective creativity

Stimulates creativity

“This can really get your creativity going,” I thought I wasn’t creative, but with collaboration with another you may be!” “Thanks for remaining to be innovative and open mind!”

Appendix 5

Collective processes (Author’s own illustration)

 

Second round concept

First round (concept)

Examples of expressions

Collective processes

Attention

Attention

“It kept well attention”

Engagement into collective ideation

Forces to throw into ideation

“A nice and positive way to force one into ideation and innovation”

“It was nice to let ideas flow—we had very appreciative and humorous climate”

“Effective in throwing into action and in opening group work”

Mutuality

Support each other building on others’ contributions

“We encouraged each other”

“Point of view was broader and other person one said something other than what I had thought about and the ideas was further developed in my head”

“We were very good team and inspired each other. It seemed as if we have been working together for years”

Shared view

Shared understanding

“Showed, how easy it was to find a shared understanding”

“Natural and fluent – it was easy to find a shared practice and language”

Commitment shared idea

Shared outcome

“it was good and creative solutions here made in the class”

“given words were difficult, but we succeeded to invent nice solution”

“new way to facilitate creativity and turn it into a product”

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Nisula, AM., Blomqvist, K. (2019). Understanding and Fostering Collective Ideation: An Improvisation-Based Method. In: Handzic, M., Carlucci, D. (eds) Knowledge Management, Arts, and Humanities. Knowledge Management and Organizational Learning, vol 7. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-10922-6_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics