This document summarizes a study investigating how creativity and innovation are fostered within advertising agencies. It conducted research at two Italian advertising agencies using participant observation and questionnaires. The study aims to develop a collaborative thinking model that can enhance group creativity and be applied to any advertising agency regardless of context. It explores practices from innovative companies like Pixar and how their approaches to group collaboration could be adapted for advertising agencies. The document also discusses how technology and digital media have transformed advertising and the importance of collaboration and interaction between people for generating new ideas.

1. 1

2. 2
To
my
Mentor.:
The
only
person
able
to
narrow
my
thoughts.
To
my
other
Mentor:
the
one
who
never
stop
to
support
me.
GRAZIE

3. 3
Abstract
This study investigates how creativity and innovation are fostered within advertising agencies. It
shows how the implementation of a collaborative thinking model founded on effective
communication, the well-being of the group, the design of the environment and a culture of
innovation can be a practical alternative to lead an organisation to succeed. It considers effective
collaboration as one of the most important measures that define a successful advertising
organisation against an ordinary one. In consequence a definition of the optimal conditions to
foster team’s creative collaboration is required. The reason why I developed this concept is because
the terms ‘groupthink’ and ‘collaborative thinking’ have entered in the organisational world but no
attention, though, has been directed straight towards the standard way advertising agencies should
treat creative collaboration. My aim is to create a collaborative thinking model that can fit in every
advertising agency, free from context boundaries and socio-demographical influences.
I have conducted an anthropological comparative analysis of two Italian advertising agencies to
understand the internal structure and structural inner tensions using an emic approach, participant
observation, and a semi structured questionnaire addressed to all the professional figures in the
agency. I have considered two completely different type of advertising agencies, in terms of
accounts and visions, in order to have a clearer idea of the basic structure that combine agencies.
This article also covers practical examples from the most innovative organisations that have shaped
the structure of the industries and their way to treat group collaboration with particular interest to
group creativity. For example, inspired by the multi award-winning computer animation company,
Pixar, producer of films such as Toy Story, Up and Finding Nemo, and aware of the consistently
more numerous constraints advertising agencies have to face, I will explore their method of
enhancing group creativity and see how it can be adapted to the structure of advertising.
The project demonstrates that a collaborative thinking approach can be used in advertising to
overtake the limits it presents today and follow the step of Pixar’s success.
The concepts of field and habitus theorised by Bourdieu (1979-1984) are used to bring to the light
some of the constraints the industry is affected by. It focuses on the review of the traditional way of
doing advertising and it offers an alternative approach to foster group creativity, free from the idea
of ‘departments’ and ‘job specific tasks’. We are a group, we work together to achieve a common
object: the success of the organisation.
The methodology employed is that of a long-term participant observation (Milan), consisting of a 6
months period of fieldwork in the shoes of a creative account in the agency, followed by occasional
visits. In the case of the agency in Rome due to time restrictions, the period of analysis was
considerably shorter (2 visits).

4. 4
Methodology of analysis
As Lett (1990) explains, from an anthropological perspective “Emic constructs are accounts,
descriptions and analyses expressed in terms of the conceptual schemes and categories regarded as
meaningful and appropriate by the native members of the culture whose beliefs and behaviours are
being studied” (p. 130).
In taking an emic approach, I have tried to put aside prior theories and assumptions in order to let
the participants and data “speak” to allow themes, patterns, concepts and structural tensions to
emerge. This arises from the fact that many dynamics are hidden on the inner life of an
organisation. Only by watching what people do instead that of recording what they say (object of
customary discrepancy, Moeran, 2009) reveals some of those hidden patterns. For example, an
anthropological method of analysis enables the fieldworker to recognise the use of cultural and
social capitals (Bourdieu, 1977 in Sweetman, 2009) to draw more accurate conclusions (dress code,
language, facilitations, expectations and tastes are some of the dimensions that can be explored
through an anthropological research method).
Supported by the compilation of a semi-structured questionnaire (in Appendix n.5) including 25
questions with multiple choices answers this experience gave me knowledge to suggest
improvements and create an advertising - customised model. The questions are concentrated on:
• Personal perception of the current working space (How would you describe the geography
of your office space?; How would you define the degree of collaboration with your
colleagues?; How would you describe your work environment in terms of structure and
interaction with your colleagues?;)
• Investigation of the perception of the ideal working conditions (Which is for you the optimal
condition to produce a high standard of creative work?; How would you define your ideal
physical working space?; What entertainment would you like to find in your ideal working
place?)
• Degree of experience with the collaborative thinking model (How often have you found
yourself into this working situation during the idea generation stage?; Have you ever
experienced this model in an advertising agency? If usually or sometimes, how do you judge
this experience?)
• Personal feelings (Do you feel threatened to share your ideas in front of a large group of
people; Do you work better in a group or individually? To what extent would you like to be
involved in a collaborative creative thinking model?)
Also, to identify the dimensions to take the best out from group collaboration, a wide range of
theoretical approaches have been explored: from organisational theories, group dynamics studies,
sociology, behavioural sciences, to environmental design proofs and leadership journals. The
anthropological method fits with my analysis because of the need to observe and considerate multi
level aspects, from increase my knowledge of the industry to define the conditions to develop a
model that considers group collaboration as the potential tool to overcome advertising industry
tensions.

5. 5
Introduction
The literature concerning team collaboration has grown in the last 20 years and the focus on the
well being of the individual has moved towards a focus on the well being of the group. Maybe
because, nowadays more than before, the human being grows up in a new social context, free from
geographical and temporal borders. His or her social life is shaped and supported by technological
devices. We are more social than ever and despite the fact that social conditions have changed
dramatically due to the digital revolution, the motivation underneath social needs has not: humans
generally organize their social life in terms of their relations with others in order to satisfy a
personal social need. (Fiske, 1992)
Supposedly, the advertising industry has taken all the benefits from the digital revolution: the
advertisers attention has moved from traditional media to a full immersion on digital contents. As a
result Digital, Media and Web agencies have born since the global audiences have migrated toward
new media platforms. The speed of information as well as a the personalisation of the message, the
effective costs, the engagement at a personal level, the content co-creation with customers and their
direct experience with the brand (LoveMarks, 2009) are just few examples on the advantages the
digital revolution has brought with it. Inevitably, those massive changes have transformed the habits
of individuals as well as the inner reality of advertising agencies:
“Technology is advancing exponentially. It's transforming how people work, think, and connect. It's
transforming our cultural values. Organisations need people who can be innovative, who can think
differently to face everyday challenge. So being creative is essential to us; it's essential for our
economy”.
(Robinson, 2009)
To face the challenges of the digital economy, advertising approaches have to continually transform
and evolve to follow the trends. To produce high quality advertising contents there are more tools
available then ever before, the real matter is to recognise them. Charles Lumpkin (2012), social
media expert and advertising professional underlines, “Sometimes, the big brands have a reasonable
idea who their audience is. But a lot of times during the research stage, accounts can find different
segmentations or demographics that are really surprising to them: one example is that people that
are patriotic are more likely to like a particular brand of orange juice than other people.” Those are
the kind of breakthroughs contemporary advertising needs to develop to be competitive in the
marketplace. Unsurprisingly, it has been demonstrated that a greater number of discoveries come
from people interacting. (Allen 1977; Csikszentmihalyi 2003; Huysman & Wulf, 2004). When
people run into each other and make eye contact, things happen”. (Jobs, 2009) For this reason, to
provide the best conditions for the group to effectively collaborate, in this enormous field of action,
it is vital to unleash group’s creative outputs. Researches have shown that the ability to be creative
and in particular the ability of being creative in teams, is becoming the critical skill and competence
that the industry is looking for in employees. (West, 2009) Sawyer has defined collaboration as “
the secret breakthrough creativity”. Some advertising agencies, mostly American corporations such
as Wieden + Kennedy, Crispin Porter + Bogusky, Deutsch L.A have embraced the view that idea
generation comes from people interactinging “At Deutsch, is all about collaboration. And now, it’s
gotten to the point where it’s not just the art director and the writer sitting in the room coming up
with ideas. It’s everybody”. Eric Springer, creative director at Deutsch L.A. (in Berman and
Blakeman, 2009:36) “All department of the agency have creative talent and all contribute to the
generation of ideas” Tiffany Kosel & Scott Linnen, creative team at Crispin Porter + Bogusky (in
Berman and Blakeman, 2009:38). This need of networking, in particular, ‘learning by switching’
(Dornisch, 2002) is already in the air.

6. 6
In London, in 2012, the ‘Creative Swap’ initiative gained huge success by taking talented
individuals out of their comfort zone and swapped them with other professionals in the industry for
a short period of time. The idea is to encourage different ways of thinking and problem solving as
well as affording them an enhanced appreciation for creative processes outside of their own. The
creative business is all about taking in as many experiences, inspirations and new things to make the
most cutting edge and creative ideas can be produced.
Defining Collaborative thinking
The terms Group Think was devised in the 1980s by the American psychologist Irvin Janis, who
described it as a form of decision-making characterised by uncritical acceptance of a prevailing
point of view. (1982:12) His definition recommends a potential downside that affects the group
defective decision-making. (Rose, 2011) In particular, Janis (1982) underlines 3 dangerous
symptoms of groupthink:
Overestimation of the group: including illusion of Invulnerability and belief in group‘s inherent
morality.
Consequences: Members ignore obvious danger, take extreme risk, and are overly
optimistic. Members believe their decisions are morally correct, ignoring the ethical
consequences of their decisions.
Closed Mindedness: including collective rationalization and stereotypes of out-groups.
Consequences: members discredit and explain away warning contrary to group thinking.
The group constructs negative stereotypes of rivals outside the group.
Pressure towards Conformity: including self-censorship, illusion unanimity, direct pressure on
dissenters, self-appointed mind guards
Consequences: Members withhold their dissenting views and counter-arguments. They
perceive falsely that everyone agrees with the group's decision; silence is seen as
consent. Some members appoint themselves to the role of protecting the group from
adverse information that might threaten group complacency.
Together with problems, he identified solutions or better ‘prevention recommendations’:
the organisational leadership is responsible to protect the group from those threats; each member
should be a critical evaluator of the group‘s course of action; leaders should limit themselves
initially to fostering open inquiry; they should bring in outside experts to challenge the views of the
core members; Reconsider the decision in second chance meetings before going public.
In respond to this claim, groupthink can only work if properly managed, supported from the
leadership style (Susan Cain, 2012) and shared through the organisational values (Amabile, 1996):
An organisation aimed to establish its success from taking the best from the interactions of its
employee has adopted a collaborative thinking model. When it is willing to build the right context
to allow group creativity to happen and flourish, no matters what kind of organisation is (Jim
Collins in Hensen, 2009) or which country and culture embraces, it can lead the organisation to the
best desired achievements. (Hensen, 2009) Despite the “the very little consensus among researchers
on the validity of group think” (Park, 2000:837) since it was first published group thinking
approach has been widely accepted (Mitchell Eckstein, 2009:164) thanks to the fact that the most

7. 7
innovative organizations in the world have adopted it: Ideo, Google, Cisco, 3M, Toyota, W.L. Gore,
Apple, Pixar, You Tube, E-bay, Whole food, Procter and Gamble are just some examples.
Business Idea VS Creative idea
Creative thinking is not typically seen as having any real corporate value for the business.
(Schmetterer, 2003). Over creativity, strategy reins the business interests. This trend caused a shift
between business ideas and creative ideas. On the other hand, the creative product attracts the target
audience attention towards the message. Creativity in advertising is not just a method to achieve
strategic goals: in this document, strategic and creative thinking are treated as playing the same
inseparable role in the process. No effective strategy can work without an appealing creative
content, no appealing creative content can work without an effective strategy.
Effective strategy + appealing creative content = Innovation.

8. 8
1. The internal structure of advertising agencies
advertising agencies are a complex reality where professionals from different backgrounds, mind-
sets and skills collaborate to create creative contents for advertising purposes. However, they do not
always feel they lead the organisation to success.
By collecting data on the range of job positions available within the industry, it is easy to see that
the internal structure of advertising agencies is more or less the same, even if the agency culture,
size and style is different. (Source: IPA and Prospects.uk)
A full service advertising agency is traditionally organised around 4 key departments (Leiss, Kline,
Jhally, Botterill, 2005)
- Account/research department
- Financial department
- Creative department
- Digital Marketing / Media department
Development / Production department can be internal in larger corporation but most of the time, the
agencies hire professional outsiders and locations to accomplish production work (Moeran,2009).
In the majority of cases, an agency provides a 360 degree service to its clients and covers the entire
process from the concept generation stage to post production, going through to market research
(internal in larger agencies) and the actual development of the idea and media placement.
The risk of working in departments is that by working with a stable set of colleagues, members
develop team, rather than agency, loyalty (Grabher, 2002).
1.1 Culture
Theories of organization design are concerned with the fundamental problem of establishing
coherence between organizational structure processes and goals and purposes for which the
organization exists (Galbraith, 1977). There is no secret formula or process for being creative. As I
have already stated, creativity and collaboration practices are fostered according to the singular
vision of the agency. For example, the number of departments an advertising agency is divided into
depends upon the values the agency embraces. Also, the vision which defines the nature of the
agency can be the distinctive tract that will lead a client to choose for one agency over another one.
My vision is that the collaborative thinking model, free from job constraints and communication
barriers can lead the industry towards the next level following what Pixar has done with the
Animation industry.
The top 10 Agencies with the Best Company Culture, 2010, share the vision that the happiness of
the employees and the design of the environments support creativity and innovation. (The Agency
Post, 2010). Their unique approach is the key to be the very best workplace for employees. In
nurturing their employee’s satisfaction, those agencies offer:
• Brainstorming sessions at founder’s apartment, inviting their staff for dinner. (Chandelier
Creative, NY)
• Playful and funny Team-building exercises. (Chandelier Creative, NY)
• Open communication, supported by no door’s offices. (Red Door Interactive, CA)
• Half days off for summer games (Red Door Interactive, CA)

9. 9
• Surf sessions, races in the parking, bowling leagues (BFG, South Carolina)
• $200 health care credit for a gym membership, workout gear or anything else that keeps
every single employee moving. (Saatchi, LA)
• $2,000 in tuition to continue to learn about new industry trends. (Saatchi, LA)
• Community and family support, together with Subarus for employee to use! (Carmichael
Lynch, MI)
• One entire week off for the best creative performance (Switch, MI)
• Entrepreneurial inspiration: learning by touching. Employees are PUSHED to experiment
and free their creativity in the labs and to enjoy a relaxing massage! (KBS+, NY)
• Rewards for collaboration (Team One, CA)
• Agency-wide happy hour every Friday and Wexley Symposium lunch hours to spark
creativity. (Wexley School for Girls, WA)
The basic assumption is that the most innovative organisations in the world are associated by almost
the same vision: From Google, to Ideo, Pixar and Procter Gamble. They believe their success
depends on the effective collaboration of their teams and on the conditions the company provides to
the employees to get the best out of their interactions. They recognise that creativity is just a matter
of circumstances: everybody can be creative. It has nothing to do with art and special people, it
might be an attitude, but creativity can be taught, developed, enhanced and supported (Robinson)
and if it is done in group’s conditions the results are simply much better.
1.2 Job Division
According to IPA (Institute of Practitioners in advertising) the main positions present in the
majority of advertising agencies are:
ACCOUNTS:
In the agency is the figure that represents the client. Their job is to maintain a positive relation with
them, ensuring its satisfaction, providing support and assistance. They are the link between the
agency and its clients;
Included in this position there are the account planners, the account directors and account
executives, responsible to oversee all aspects of a campaign from start to finish and focus on four
essential things: Finance, timing, process and quality without forget to facilitate the work flow.
STRATEGIC PLANNERS:
They are the voice of the consumers in the agency. They are responsible for developing the key
strategic insights, which lies behind the advertising idea. They get under the skin of the consumer
and understand as much as possible about their thinking. This includes targeting the right audience
as well as setting the tone and message of the campaign.
They combine market data, qualitative research and product knowledge, within a brief to enable the
creative team to produce innovative ideas that will reach consumers.

10. 10
MEDIA PLANNERS/BUYERS:
They map how to connect the consumer to the creative idea. They ensure that client messages
appear in the right place at the right time to reach the maximum target audience to achieve client’s
marketing objectives. They tend to be rooted in qualitative, ethnographic approaches to the study of
consumers. (Grabher, 2002)
The media research department is responsible to identify which media platform would best
advertise a client’s brand or service, according to their budget, recommending the most appropriate
types of media to use, as well as the most effective time spans and locations.
Media buyers are responsible for negotiating with the media owners of the relevant channels in
order to get the best position, timing and price for their client’s exposure and therefore guarantee
the maximum value and impact from the client’s budget.
CREATIVES:
The creative department is where all the insights from the accounts, the researches, the client’s
needs come together to make up the actual campaign.
Creatives are generally hired in pairs: Copywriters Art directors. They usually answer the
creative brief typically prepared by planners to explain the advertising objectives, target audience,
and creative task. (Hackley, 2005) Once the get the ‘OK’ from the creative director, they work with
the media planners, buyers, and the production department in order to turn those ideas into a reality.
They create ideas based on the client brief and they work together for days or even weeks. Their
task has to do with creative thinking rather then realisation. They are the brains behind great
advertising campaign (Berman and Blakeman, 2009)
CREATIVE DIRECTORS:
The creative director, practice a function of control over the direction that the ideas take. They
decide if an idea proceeds or not. It is his or her job to ensure that the work the teams are doing is
both on brief and of the required quality. The creative director also decides who will work on which
project together with the account executive, and will often be there to present the work to the client
together with the team who devised the campaign. They are the heroes turn things great, they make
the decisions, they call the shots, they are the geniuses (Hansen, 2009).
DESIGNERS:
They ensure the advertising contents are made to the highest quality, on time and within budget.
They assist copywriters and art directors with campaign materials and their graphic, production and
post-production skills. They take the idea to the next level and give the finished work a polish that
the creative team could not add. They must create eye-catching advertisements or a memorable
theme.
They edit and manipulate advertising presentation according to clients and superiors specifications,
and are responsible for the final layout of the campaign: typography, composition, digital
publishing, digital imaging and illustrations.
In this category are included web designers, graphic designers, engineers and all the professionals
that bring the ideas to the reality thanks to their visual skills and creative design abilities.
Advertising professionals, though, are highly interactive and collaborative for the nature of their
job. They continually have to demonstrate their communication and technical skills to ensure the
work flow of their colleagues. Wide range of personalities, skills, and mind-sets bring their different
prospective and work (together) on title’s attached tasks: the creative director directs, the
development team develops, the creative team creates, the designer design, the account team plans.
Their established roles often collapse in the process (Moeran, 2009:976) but their contribution in
the project depends upon their job title.

11. 11
1.3 Agency Work Flows
We are going to have a look now on the process of creating advertisements which is different from
agency to agency, but the basic steps are more or less the same:
1. The account manager (and team) meets with the client to identify the problem that needs to
be solved.
2. The account manager writes a creative brief based on that problem. This will include
competitive analysis, research, the assistance of the planner and/or creative director, and
eventually, sign off from the client.
3. Once the overall marketing strategy and creative brief have been determined and approved
they are presented to the agency’s creative team and includes timeline, budget, proposed
media and other factors.
4. The creative team works on the project for several days (or weeks if they’re lucky) and
brings the first round of ideas to the creative director.
5. The creative director will cull the ideas that are not working, and direct the team to explore
the good ideas.
6. The creative team will continue to work on the ideas, but bring in the production department
(if needed), account manager and other members of the agency to make sure the work is on
track. If there are printed pieces, or a shoot is required, this is when the production
department will begin estimates.
7. The creative director approves the final ideas, and the creative team presents (hopefully)
them to the client.
8. The client will go away and discuss the ideas, before giving feedback to the agency. This
may result in a reworking of ideas (repeat steps 3 to 7) or a green light to move into the
execution of the ideas. At this point, a budget and timeline will once again be approved.
9. The creative team works closely with the account team, media buying, production, and the
creative director to produce the ads, whatever form they may take.
10. The final ads are placed in front of the client for approval. Once the client approves, the ads
are published, be it online, in print, outdoor, on the air, or any other media.
11. The agency will monitor the success, and ROI, of the ads and give the feedback to the
client.
12. The client pays the agency. And then the whole process is repeated.

12. 12
The internal structure of advertising agencies and the flow of the ideas can be synthetize in this
way:
1.4 Or not Flows?
The account planning role is to form marketing strategies that at least appear to be based on
objective and scientific criteria derived from in-depth qualitative and quantitative data, revealing a
consumer need that other brands or products are currently not satisfying. Copywriters and art
directors usually work according to intuitive, artistic ideas that may have little actual relationship to
the expressed marketing aims then transform this data into creative images. Sometimes conflicts
between the two types of agency employees occur and it adversely affects the work of the account
team which, ideally needs to blend harmoniously to achieve its client’s aims (Malefyt, Waal
Moeran, 2003:5).
The above points, such as: “once the strategy have been determined, the account manager briefs the
creative team” (3) and “the creative team bring the first round of ideas to the creative director that
will cull the ideas that are not working and direct the team to explore the good ideas” (5) as well as
“this is when the production department will begin estimated” (6) and “the creative team presents
(hopefully) the idea to the client” (7) involve a loss of precious amount of time, and the flow of
communication is irremediably split and fragmented into passages. When the creative teams work
in pairs, the amount of information and ideas constantly flow and is shared between the two minds
to come up with practical solutions (Berman Blakeman, 2009). Then they present the idea to the
creative director. At this point the flow is blocked: they need their idea to be checked and accepted
by a figure that has a clearer idea on what the final product has to be. The creative director practices
a function of control over the teams’ ideas at early stage. After the Creative Director’s consent, the
teams’ ideas start to flow again, but it has been irreparably interrupted.

13. 13
1. 4 Advertising industry constraints
An innovative and creative business as advertising is not free from systematic constraints: it is
smothered under certain standards, norms, expectations and conventional ways of doing things
(Becker, 1982). The industry is enclosed in the Bourdieu’s definition of ‘Habitus’ and ‘Field’
(1979) described in the next session.
Advertising was first conceived as a means of ‘generating demand in a capitalistic system by
offering specific information on a product, service or brand, often in a persuasive format’. This
traditional view of advertising to some extent is based on Marxist theories of economic exchange,
has now been replace by one that is more concerned with advertising’s role as a vehicle of social
communication. Various networks are essential to its operation: cooperative, social, personal and
financial arrangements among suppliers, clients, advertising personnel, consumers and so on.
Tichenor, Donahue, and Olien (1973) argued that all communication is produced under systems of
social control: in this view, patterns of private ownership, trends toward centralization of
ownership, the development and appropriation of new media technologies and globalization
structurally influence the form, content and ideology of the media.
The action field of the advertising industry deals with: First, the media institutions in which
advertising is placed: television and radio stations, networks, Internet domains, newspaper and
magazine publishers. Some of these are large conglomerates with global reach (International media
companies, global digital platform) others are extremely local (Local newspapers or radio FM).
Second, the public permissions, the transportation and billboards companies as well as advertising
agencies subcontracting: models, photographer, actors, print shops and recording studios. Not to
forget, the endless restrictions and censorships that form legal constraints. Then, there are the
organizations that pay for the advertising to be produced. These are the clients; the ones who make
the world of advertising go round and round. They tend to be very different from one another, so
that their only real connection with the advertising industry is the fact that they have chosen to
advertise their product or service. As Chavez noted, clients remain the ultimate gatekeepers of
advertising and shape its development (2014:33). They also decide the budget to invest in
advertising communication, therefore, they set the economic limit to the development of the idea.
Finally, there are those organizations that plan and create the actual advertising campaign. The most
important of these is the advertising agency. The advertising agency is an independent service
company, consisting of business, marketing and creative people who develop, prepare and place
advertising solutions in media for their clients. Agencies are the link between industry, media and
consumers. The agency–client relation can also turn out to be a weak point. In fact, it might end for
several reasons: because of social difficulties (the account planner cannot get along with the product
manager of the client company); or because of incompetence revealed at some stage during the
creation of an advertising campaign (creatives refuse to listen to their marketing colleagues’
advice); or because of conceptual weakness (a campaign ‘bombs’); or because of organisational
changes (a product manager is transferred, and her successor adopts a totally different approach to
marketing); or because there is an economic downturn and a client’s advertising budget is suddenly
cut. When a client is loyal to the agency it trusts in the team and insofar, does not allow any
disposition (apart from unpredicted economic downturns) to ruin this positive relationship. This is
possible only, if they share common values and sense of mutual commitment.

14. 14
1.5 Internal constrains
Like other creative industries, advertising suffers from a number of tensions arising from what
Richard Caves (2000: 6–7) has described as ‘the motley crew’. Such tensions arise from the
different tasks and sets of expertise that different members bring to the conception of an advertising
campaign. In their cross-cultural ethnographic study, Malefyt and Moran (2003) noted that different
kinds of people are ‘obliged’ to come together – from both client and agency sides – to work on a
specific problem. This fusion of people involves ‘all kinds of delicate social negotiations and
strategies, so that every account is fraught with potential disruption’(2003:6) . In his participant
observation study, Moeran (2009) noted how participants in a production team do not decide things
afresh every time they produce an advertising campaign. Rather, they respect roles and positions.
“Social order is progressively inscribed in people’s minds’ through ‘cultural products’ including
systems of education, language, judgements, values, methods of classification and activities of
everyday life. (Bourdieu, 1986: 471). Although the idea of creativity tends to be associated with
individual agency and freedom of action, it is clear how creativity itself is shaped by – and itself
comes to shape – numerous constraints and conventions that affect the work of the motley crew.
(Moeran, 2009:980)
Advertising agencies’ internal issues, lie in the fact that the ‘world outside’ is unrepresented by the
people inhabiting its locals. In his analysis of the Super Bowl 2011 commercials, Lapchick (2011)
has pointed out the underrepresentation of non-American culture in the actual commercials: The
Super Bowl is different from any other game. In that it attracts a diverse viewing audience,
including millions who do not usually watch a football game on Sunday. Unfortunately, advertisers
are not taking this into consideration when creating their spots for the Super Bowl. There was also a
lack of ethnic diversity featured as main characters in the advertisements. According to Nielsen
demographic data, there were 12.5 million African-American viewers and 10 million Latino
viewers of the 2011 Super Bowl, up from 11.2 million and 8.3 million, respectively, in 2010. Also,
there were 51.2 million female viewers, up from 48.5 million female viewers in 2010. Experts have
noted the same underrepresentation trend in the leading roles of the agencies: 93% of the 58 ads
used white creative directors, while 100 % of the commercials in 2010 used white creative
directors. In terms of gender, 94 % of the creative directors were male, while only 6 % were
females, equal to the 94 % and 6 % breakdown in 2010. (2011:2-8). “America is not
overwhelmingly white. Or male. Women make up 52 per cent of our citizenry and non-white babies
are the majority in births today. We’re a mixed-race society, with new notions of marriage, and with
women being the majority of the workforce for the first time in American history”. Kat Gordon,
creative at several large agencies, expert in marketing to woman embraced this cause and in her 3%
conferences witnessed how women weren’t in senior leadership positions and were often absent
from pitches, especially on the creative side. The white-male-dominated workplaces issue
(Cockburn 1983, Elliott, 2006; Rotfeld, 2003) is a recurring matter in advertising articles. Maybe
because has been demonstrated that homogeneity is dangerous for creativity magnificence.
This is why the variable to include new professional profiles in the reality of advertising agencies
should be considered: To include more specialised figures in the practice of generate and develop
advertising ideas should be the key to overtake homogeneity evident disadvantages: Diversity leads
to greater variance in ideas, creativity, and innovation, thus generating better group performance
(Cox, 1993; Jackson, May and Whitney, 1995). Team diversity is a major indicator of creative
performance. (Delbecq Van de Ven, 1971; Lobel, Cox, 1996; Austin, 1997; Guzzo and
Dickson, 1996; McLeod, Lobel, Cox, 1996; Kurtzberg, Amabile, 2000-2001 Kostoff 2003;
Johansson, 2004, Lapchick, 2011). In particular, heterogeneous groups defined by low correlation
in personality profiles and producing members with substantially different perspectives on a
problem, where found to produce a higher proportion of high-quality, high acceptance solutions

15. 15
than homogeneous groups. (Van de Ven Delbecq 1971:208). Gary Kirton’s (1991) study of
creative teams in engineering firms found that teams tended to comprise two distinct, opposing
types of thinkers: innovators (inventive, independent thinkers) and adapters (flexible team players
who are good at picking up and adapting other people’s ideas). The teams, which included a
mixture of both inventors and adapters, were the most successful. Homogeneous teams, while
ensuring quick solutions and instant consensus, do little to stimulate creative thinking (Amabile
1999:14).
This idea of diversity around people with different perspectives is the key of group creativity.
(West, 2009) And when groups don’t work is because some of those perspectives are suppressed or
people feel threatened to express their view: more details are included in the ‘Effective
Communication’ content.

16. 16
2. Field and Habitus: Advertising reality analysis
In his sociologic theory of culture, Bourdieu (1984) defines organisations as social institutions in
which people express and reproduce their dispositions. He calls those spaces “fields”.
A field is a network, structure or set of relationships, which may be intellectual, religious,
educational, cultural, etc. (Navarro 2006: 18) characterised by the social context where the network
takes place.
For Bourdieu, a cultural field is ‘based on a particular form of belief concerning what constitute a
cultural work and its aesthetic or social value’. (1993:9) Moreover, the cultural field is structured by
the distribution of available positions and by the objective characteristics of the agents occupying
them.
The concept of field is strictly related to the concept of “Habitus” (Bourdieu, 1979 in Swartz,1997).
He explains those as internalized dispositions associated with the cultural orientations and social
practices of a particular field. According to his definition, those dispositions are ‘durable’: they last
throughout an agent lifetime but are adjusted to specific situations. The habitus can be seen as the
key to the cultural codes of professionalism and authority. Bourdieu emphasizes the way that
possible positions define the thinkable and the unthinkable, the do-able and the impossible for
agents in the field, depending on the way that ‘the categories of perception constitutive of a certain
habitus’ (1996-1992: 235) allow them to see possible courses of action and intervention.
Advertising agencies are a type of cultural field in which people respect certain conventions and
regulations (Bourdieu 1979, 1984) just because they are established and taken for granted. He
reveals the way that taken-for-granted social practices, tend ultimately to serve the interests of the
dominant class. This trend is located within a historical framework. (1993:254-266). The concept of
hierarchy of power relies in this definition. Social order is progressively inscribed in people’s
minds’ through ‘cultural products’ including systems of education, language, judgements, values,
methods of classification and activities of everyday life (1986: 471).
These all lead to an unconscious acceptance of social differences and hierarchies.
In particular, employees accept the power the leader practice over them in responds to cultural
codes that have become instinctive and habitual.
He describes this attitude as ‘Homology’: the performance of act in accordance with one's desires
rather than reason or moral duty.
This enhanced the expectation of rule following and underestimated the degree of creative disorder
from which advantage might be derived (Fowler,
B.
1997: 4)
In the structure of advertising offices there is a clear separation between authorities and
subordinated and a standard hierarchy of decisions is embedded in the job title (executives,
directors are the figures in position to give the last word and direct the whole concept). Most
importantly, employees and managers are divided into two classes of power, information,
responsibility and reward. Managers are in class of have’s and employees are in class of have not’s.
Reproducing or transforming their social structures, people act within specific social conditions,
including those that are internalised as part as their habitus. (Fowler, 1997:23). Domination and
subordination, therefore, occur through a variety of means, from the acceptance of certain
conditions to symbolic intimidation. The class organisation, the difference between the upper class
and working class and the perception of command practiced by the first over the second, is
supported by the recognition of certain habitus.
Most people believe that centralised control is especially important in leading a team (Waldron,
1994). By contrast, Amabile (1983) confirmed Ricchiuto’s theory (1952) that creativity is
associated with low-pressure work environment and group flow tends to fade in the presence of
strict high-pressure deadlines. In contrast, group flow increases when people feel autonomy,

17. 17
competence and relatedness: Team autonomy is the top predictor of team performance (Sawyer,
2007:49).
2.1 Ufficio Comunicazione Regione Lazio – Roma
This agency develops the campaigns for an institutional organisation the ‘Regione Lazio’. They
mostly produce social awareness campaigns.
The work they produce reflects the high authority of the organisation as well as the surrounding
environment: with three rooms welcomed by 2 receptionists in blue suits, the Director of
Communication office, and 2 other offices shared between the employees.
The crew, composed by one art director / designer, one graphic designer and one creative assistant,
mostly works on tasks attached to their job titles: Basically, they carry out tasks they are told to do.
The briefing, commissioned and developed by the institution itself is discussed with the creative
team (everybody takes part in the generation of the idea) and the chief of communication gives the
directions, defines the budget and the deadline. These meetings take place in the chief of
communication’s office. One mediator is responsible to illustrate the salient points of the briefing to
the crew. The chief of communication sits on his desk, while everybody else spread around the
office. The atmosphere of the meeting is colloquial and mostly informal which reflects the
particularly typical attitude of the local people. As Kemper states in his essay ‘How Advertising
Makes its Objects’ (in Malefyt Moeran, 2003) the culture where those meetings take place,
incredibly defines and affects the nature of the interactions that follow. On the other hand, the
culture of this agency is efficiency and maniac practice of control by the leader:

18. 18
While I was in the chief of communication’s office, one graphic designer entered the office. He
knocked the door and waited for permission to entre. Once the chief allowed him to enter, the
copywriter showed him a draft of his commissioned work. Without saying a word, he waited for the
chief’s consent / disapproval. The work showed was ok. “Good job, go for it!”. He then
immediately left the room. After a while, another copywriter knocked the door. He needed approval
for a layout. He didn’t even enter the room. He stayed on the entrance. He showed the layout from
there. “Do I go for it? he asked. Even if with a ‘snob’ expression, the copywriter received the
consent and went away.
In the 45 minutes interview, I asked him his opinion about a less structured approach to manage a
group of experts free from job assigned tasks and specific roles. He openly stated that “the use of
this kind of model ridicules the profession of the advertisers and the way Pixar and Google act
cannot be taken into consideration because they produce different kind of contents”.
“Advertising has nothing to do with art, most of the time copy writers and art directors are not able
to elaborate strategic plans: it is not true that everybody can do everything, even if supported by the
organization. The ingredients for creativity are attitude and willing to work under the structure of
competence!”
I was not surprised to hear this kind of comments from him. He plays and enjoys the authoritarian
role within the agency, he would never leave his position to adopt a collaborative thinking model
where every voices count.
The design of the Director’s office reflects his authoritative position: A big black desk in front of
the window, formal space for short meetings, plants, few illustrations on his wall, mostly produced
campaigns.
The Director is the only person in the office who has his own space. This condition reinforces the
perception of authority and leads employees to accept and conform to subordination.
Another dimension to consider while supporting this position of leadership, is the use of linguistic
capitals that operates as an independent aspect of social interchange: the hegemony of certain
linguistic codes, when viewed as cultural capital is linked to the dominant class (Fowler, 1997:28).

19. 19
This is why in advanced societies high linguistic capital brings high symbolic profits and high profit
of distinction (1991:55). The Director of Communication’s linguistic style suggested practice of
power. The expressions he used and the attitudes he showed during the interview were symbolic of
a person in position of control.
As an extension of his authority, he is the only member of the agency to have a private parking
space.
Surprisingly, the results of the survey showed all staff members (3) positively rated this agency’s
working environment. In particular, all of them stated their relationship with the leader was open
and friendly (Quest,.4) and the interaction between colleagues was informal (2) or supported by the
organisation. (1) They indicated to be well connected to each others and considered their
collaboration to be absolutely relevant.
Thanks to this analysis I can summarise how the culture of the organisation influences the
perception of the workplace: In this small agency the rules are clear, established and shared by the
employees: they have clear directions on how to do things, they feel safe and protected by the
organisation that provide them all the conditions to perform in the way they do have to do.
Network Comunicazione - Milano
Network Comunicazione is a communication agency sited in Milan since 2005. This is a small size
agency specialised on content creations for multimedia platforms. They deal mostly with well-
established International and Italian brands: Dove, Nescafe’, Fox, Findus Mulino Bianco to name
a few. I had a chance to interview one of the co-founders of the agency thanks to a previous
collaboration. Network Comunicazione campaigns are developed according to this model:
• Brief: definition of the mission and clients objectives
• Concept: creation of the strategy to adopt
• Contents: development of strategy-related content
• Format: transformation of concepts in real formats
• Brand activation: spread the format on a wide range of media.
The agency occupies one floor of a building, situated in Porta Romana, a central district in Milan.
The décor is warm and comfortable, red is the dominant colour.

20. 20
Ten people work for Network Comunicazione. 3 Accounts, 1 Account Executives (co-founder), 3
Art Directors, 2 Creative Directors (1 is CEO), 2 Administrators / accountants, 1 Director of
Strategy (CEO).
The 3 Art Directors share a studio space, where everybody has a desk and a personal computer. I
have found the structure of their workspace a bit ‘unconventional’:
- CEO’s (2), co-fonder (1),
Creative Director (1) have
their own office
- Art Directors (3) share the
office
- Accounts (3) do not have an
office
- 2 meeting rooms
- 1 printing room
- Reception

21. 21
They mostly work on different projects and they consider the degree of collaboration between each
other mostly irrelevant (quest.15), even if they believe collaborative production to be the most
important condition to produce a high standard of creative work (quest. 12). The geography of this
space does not support their creative collaboration.
In this agency, the difference between leaders and regular employees is obvious. Apart from the
private offices, they have much more flexibility of the work schedule, the CEOs are the only
members allowed to leave their car in the private carpark of the building, which in the centre of
Milan is a big deal!
The CEO’s offices are surrounded by glass walls and are located in front of the accounts desks in a
way that the work carried out by the administrators / accounts can be constantly monitored by the
chiefs.

22. 22
Those are the 2 CEO’s offices from a general view:

23. 23
And in the specific:

24. 24
My interview with the Chief of Strategy was conducted at her office (Picture 2), she observed that
some staff members were having a non job-related conversation. She left her office, went in the
meeting room, clapped her hand in sign of disappointment and they instantly came back to their
desks. Not surprisingly, the answers from the survey revealed, 2 of the Art Directors (3 in total)
and 1 of the account (4 in total) described the interaction with the colleagues to be threatened by the
organisation. (Question No 6).
It was interesting that the only figure that considered the interaction with the peers to be supported
by the organisation was the Account Executive.
Thanks to the participant observation method it was possible to identify a standard tendency toward
fashion maintained by the people in this agency. Milan’s cultural style is reflected in the work place
where fashion and the way individuals dress are embodied in everything they do. In Rome’s agency
the cultural style was represented by the kind of interaction performed. It is important to remember
that Milan is one of the fashion capitals of the world. People from Milan have a concept of ‘casual’
which is extremely different from the people Rome. In Milan to make a mistake with a pair of shoes
would decrease a person status. That would not happen in Rome.

25. 25
Considerations
In the light of all these facts, the conditions to maximise the result of group collaboration follow:
- Foster a culture of innovation.
- Communication is vital to innovation. It has to flow and to be supported by the organisation.
- Group identity. Personal success entails group reward. Group success entails personal
reward. The group is motivated to reach the organisational overall success.
- The group requires high perception of autonomy of decisions, trust, and acceptance for
failure to perform at the top efficiency.
- A team of highly specialized figures, with different background of experiences and mind-
sets, should co-create the entire campaign from the beginning to the end of the project.
- The collaborative culture has to be embraced by the leadership style.
- The physical design of the work place affects the group creative performance: organisational
practices can be translated into physical structures (Grabher, 2002).
- The well being of the group is prior to organisational commitment that, presumably, leads to
the success of the organisation.
- Consider play as integral part of the working daily routine.
- Provide the group all the tools available to learn new abilities (internal seminars on
communication, animation courses, class owned by employees, even a University!).

26. 26
Vision
If we accept creativity as a process, it will not be enough for managers simply to identify and
nurture talented individuals. To achieve creative outcomes, individuals have to stay connected to
other ideas and other people. “Creativity brokers do not necessarily possess the talent themselves,
but they know how to broker other people’s abilities into productive relationships” (Bilton, Leary
2002). The creative process is not the result of one person or even the insights from one group of
people, but is the product of the intersecting and interacting relationships between them and others
(Csikszentmihalyi, 1989; Simonton, 1999). From here it is necessary to describe the circumstances
underlying an effective group collaboration, which may represent the key to business success
(Cross and Parker, 2004). Furthermore, this model aims to give a theoretical overview of the
consequences of effective collaborations. It is a model that can be used in any organisation and fits
in any context, precisely on the structure of advertising agencies and in particular the way they
manage creativity. In considering group dynamics, I see how fundamental is to keep under control
the level of cohesiveness and size of the group in order to overcome social pressure and loss of
important information.
Uzzi and Spiro, (2005), and later Skilton (2008) wanted to explore if social intimacy impacted on
artistic performances. They developed the Q indicator as a result of analysing the social network of
the Broadway musical industry, a study that comprising 2,258 different productions (Uzzi in
Leherer, 2012:140). The results of this study completely exceeded their expectations; people who
worked on Broadway shows where part of an extremely interconnected social network, when the Q
level was low, the musical were more likely to fail, at the same time, when the Q level was too high
the work also suffered. Most importantly, when the shows had too many people that were too
intimate with each other, that stifled creativity. The best Broadway shows where produced with
intermediate levels of social intimacy. These teams had some old friends but they also had newbies.
They were easy with each other, but they were not too comfortable. Under 1.7 the level of Q is too
low: not enough familiarity with each other’s language and working style. Up to 3.2, the level of Q
is too high; familiarity resulted in similar ways of thinking which lead to conformity. The ideal
level of Q is 2.6, with a mix of old friends and newbies. Under the optimal condition of social
intimacy (Q), people can learn and be inspired from others. This mix of abilities and styles then
push talents to match with others to create something completely new and different.
I believe within the advertising industry currently, this idea of network is usually enclosed by the
concept of departments. Compared with the US, the European and Japanese culture tends to be
more consensual and collegiate (Britain is positioned in the middle). “US capitalism is
extraordinary disruptive; old paradigms die quickly, and new ones rise to take their place” (Rhymer,
2011:28).
As a result, the opportunities available within the agencies are shaped by conventional
tasks attached to job titles and in the majority of the case, advertising professionals have limited
field of action to determine their role within the agency. I consider this measure to be a complex
“blind spot” embedded in the formal ‘habitus’ of how to manage an advertising agency. Hopefully,
this model will raise the interest of advertising professionals towards the adoption of a more
representative approach of the modern society, where a more social perspective is considered.

27. 27
Pixar
The analysis of the Pixar case history, together with the data collected under the compilation of the
questionnaire and emic observations, covers a fundamental source of inspiration in the creation of
this model. Particularly interesting is the way they foster group creativity (Catmull, 2008). This
successful example is taken as proof of how a vision can lead an organisation from a common
animation studio to become a master in innovation. Pixar’s vision is so strong that even Disney
(which absorbed Pixar in 2006 for 7.4 billion dollars), has reviewed its way of doing things to
embrace Pixar’s culture: the new that shape the classic, the innovation that wins over the tradition.
These are the facts of Pixar:
• In 28 years, the studio has won 27 Oscars featuring 14 blockbuster movies.
• They were the first animation studio to produce an entire computer animated film.
• They draw the animation using pencils to pixels and took computer animation from a
novelty to a fine art.
• The community of its artists internally produces all the stories, world, and characters
featured in its blockbusters.
• They are the developer of RenderMan, a rendering software system for high quality,
photorealistic image synthesis
• They established a “New Work Order” that helped them produced 14 box office hits
• During the early 1990s, the studio was forced to create computer animated television
commercials to cover the company’s great loss of money. Advertising agencies were
attracted by the idea to have computer-animated commercials. Most advertising agencies
produced their own scripts and storyboards, and the animation company was usually not
much more than work for hire. But Pixar was only interested if they would be a part of the
creative development of the spots (Paik, 2007:108-116). They produced the campaigns for
Listerine, Tropicana and Trident.
Their vision is the reason of the studio success; you get great and specialised people, you bet big on
them, you give them enormous leeway and support and you provide them with an environment in
which they can get honest feedback from everyone. The result of this exchange is a community of
talents loyal to one another and most importantly, loyal to the organisation. Everyone feels part of
something extraordinary. This is the case when community matters.
The things in common between computer animation and advertising are several:
• They both aim to produce high quality creative work
• They both hire highly skilled professionals
• They both sell their products to the creative industry market
• They both produce work for the consumer’s entertainment (even if this is not the
first advertising purpose)
• They both engage with the customer on an intimate level (the level of engagement
with an advertising campaign can shape people’s behaviours and attitudes - Coca
Cola is pretty expert in doing that - as well as cartoons characters are more then
computer animated characters).
• Emotions come first, beyond technology and development. The level that advertising can
engage at an emotional level is summarised in the ‘LoveMarks Theory’ spread by Saatchi
and Saatchi agencies around the world (Roberts, 2013) that have been supported by the

28. 28
following research: Watzlawick et al. (1967); Zajonc (1980); Zajonc Marcus (1982,
1985); Damasio (1994); Elliott (1998); Shiv Fedhorikhin (1999); In Pixar movies, every
action contributes toward the overall impact of the story. This is why the movies appeal to
such a broad spectrum of people.
This is why I believe the adoption of a similar approach adapted for the structure of advertising
agencies will follow in the same manner of Pixar’s success. The use of this case history, together
with other business reports (Semco, Ideo, Google) illuminates the present to the way to the future.
Innovation
An effective use of collaboration has an effect on innovation, efficiency and customer satisfaction.
In business, managers and academics use ‘creativity’ to indicate an organisation’s capacity for
innovation, flexibility and autonomy; these ‘creative’ values have replaced operational efficiency
and strategic planning as the primary source of ‘competitive advantage’ in business. (Bilton, Chris
Leary Ruth, 2002) Leaders now look at innovation as the principal source of differentiation and
competitive advantage. The performance of innovation brings to life something that has never
existed, or at least, hasn’t being explored before. In it’s way, the Swiffer concept is innovation.
Procter and Gamble brought to life something that didn’t exist before but the people needed it
without knowing it. No industry more than advertising needs a constant flow of breakthroughs,
insights, inspirations, intuitions, ideas that flow. A key issue the group orientated to innovate faces is
finding the right amount of structure to support improvisation, but not so much structure that it
smothers creativity.
Practical implementation
Innovation is not product related. The Institute for Research and Innovation Social Services (IRISS)
describes the opportunities for innovations in social services in the following areas: Product
innovation- Process innovation - Service innovation - Organisation structure innovation - Policy
innovation.
Changes in the structure of daily routines can improve the overall business outcomes. In today’s
reality it is impossible to not consider bureaucracy in the practice of work. At Semco, employees
and leaders noticed that bureaucracy prevented innovation from emerging. After an accurate
business review and numerous group meetings the manufacturer corporation decided to get rid of
the bureaucracy: they avoided long term planning, never looking ahead for more than six months.
In 2003, the company celebrated the 10th
anniversary since the leader Ricardo Semler, made the
decision. “This is not a lack of structure, just a lack of structure imposed from above”. Basically, he
lets the workers run the business, like in an industrial democracy (Rhymer, 2011:177).
Staff set their own salary, they play an active part in any decision-making and their staff titles are
abolished. This organisational culture allowed Semco’s annual revenue to rise from $4 million to
$212 million and it is considered the world’s largest collaborative organisation in the world.
Google, W.l. Gore and 3M adopted a massive change in the way time management is conceived:
the 20% rule. Like other companies, Google uses external motivators (rewards for performance) but
they mostly rely on intrinsic motivations: the company recognises that employees are motivated by
more than money (Girard, 2009:64). Employees are allowed to spend the 20% of their working
schedules to explore unplanned new projects of their own choice, with 80% of the time working on
official planned projects. This strategy, together with positive results on motivation also enhances
productivity. The 20% rule, has been the source of several highly profitable products, including

29. 29
Gmail, Google Suggest, AdSense for Content, Orkut, Scotchgard Fabric Upholstery Protector,
Scotch Masking Tape, and the highly profitable Post-it Notes. “If you want a radical innovation,
you need your organization to be at the improvisational extreme” (Sawyer, 2007). Google assumes
that the 20% free time given to its employees will be returned to the company in information,
innovation, and increased loyalty. The possible networks of connection available are the real
essence of creativity. This is innovation at a pure state.
Communication
The structure of communication networks within an organisation affects the performance of
creative problem-solving solutions (Bouchard, et all.1969). When the network of communication is
centralised it requires any communication to pass through certain members before going to other
members. The peripheral members of a centralised networks may feel powerless and
underappreciated, so they become dissatisfied with the group’s communication.
On the other hand, in decentralized networks people have equal access to information.
Collaborative organisations aimed at creative excellence cannot afford to miss out on even one
person’s contributions. “Such open lines of communication are necessary to create a creative
environment where good ideas can be freely shared without worrying that things have to go through
the proper channels”. (Cadmull. 2011)
It has been demonstrated that members of effective teams have strong feeling of inclusion,
commitment, pride and trust in their peers. These feelings are developed by a communication
climate that is open, supportive, inclusive and rewarding (Gibb, 1961) and communication patterns
are evenly distributed between everyone (Levi, 2011:97). Communication needs to be between
anybody at any time, which means it needs to happen out of the structure and out of order. The
problem with this vision is the misleading link between ‘out of order’ and ‘lack of structure’
standard of the current dominant but regressing view.
The role of technology
The easy access to numerous updated communication tools has transformed how companies
communicate with employees and what channels are most effective to reach them (Men, 2014). To
support the network of connections between colleagues and managers it is highly recommended to
use digital platforms tools such as blogs, bulletin boards, and social networking sites, which are
interactive, social, communal, and relational by nature (Crescenzo, 2011) despite having limited
capacity to carry social information compared with face-to face communications. (Parker Wall,
1998; Sheer, 2011). Face-to-face communication is the richest medium and an optimal channel for
communicating complex information because it facilitates immediate feedback, the use of natural
language and multiple cues, and personal focus (Daft Lengel, 1984-1986).
Brainstorming and communication
The original brainstorming design, as Osborn invented it, simply didn’t work in generating the most
original new ideas. In the practice process of this technique lays a communication problem.
In fact, brainstorming activities inhibit criticism between the participants. Tersely (in Van de Ven,
Delbecq, 1986) summarised those inhibitions in:
1) A “focus effect” – the pursue of a single train of thoughts for a long period.
2)“Self weighting” effect – the participation of the single in condition of equal competence.
3) Covert judgements are made but are not expressed as overt criticism.

30. 30
4) Status incongruities – in low status participants may be inhibited and go along with opinions
expressed by high status participants, even though they feel their opinions are better.
5) Group pressures for conformity.
6) The influence of dominant personality-types upon the group.
7) Maintain group interaction over quality of solutions.
8) Tendency to “speedy decisions”.
In the same direction, in his study conducted on 32 volunteers neuroscientist Gregory Berns
discovered that in the 41% of the cases the group changed the individual perception.
In particular, when the volunteer played alone, the brain scans showed activity in the region
associated with visual and spatial perception, and in the frontal cortex which is associated with
conscious decision making. In the group condition the members deliberately gave the wrong answer
to a simple problem, the scans showed that the volunteer had less brain activity in the decision
making area and more in area associated with visual and spatial perceptions. The peer pressure, in
other words is not only unpleasant but it can change a person’s view of a problem. Brainstorming
facilitates conformity. To overtake those problems a communication culture based on constructive
criticism should be considered.
Practical Implementation
Pixar makes use of ‘Plussing’, ‘Constructive criticism’ and ‘Brain trust’ techniques to ensure
communication to flow. These can be effectively carried out only if the group experiences a sense
of trust in an environment in which they can get honest feedback from everyone. Put smart,
passionate people in a room together, challenge them with identifying and solving problems, and
encourage them to demand for ‘candour’ (flow). The brain trust is not fool proof, but when we get it
right, the results are phenomenal. Discussions still involve challenging problems, like possibly
rejecting initial ideas, but this is done always with a view to replacing them with a better solution.
These techniques involve communication strategies that liberate the director to listen, seek help and
fully consider the advice Ed Cadmull (2008:9). In the particular case of advertising agencies the
group members should be pushed to freely interact in casual encounters. In this environment
colleagues are considered the most effective source of information: pushed by sharing thoughts,
new connections are created just because of the fusion of different personal dispositions. “The more
people are involved into the thinking process and are invited to critique, enjoy and modify our ideas
the more unlimited our mind becomes”. (Ricchiuto1952:45). The systematic use of this fusion is the
essence of effective group communication that is the top priority to lead employees to engagement.
(Charles Woodruffe, 2006 in CIPD)

31. 31
Group condition
Employees in ‘group condition’ “get a communal mind going. People’s minds interact as
components of a larger mind”. (Shrage, in Ricchiuto 1957:72)
As stated in the Johnson and Johnson Annual report (2009) a group exists for a reason and has a
shared common goal pursued by all the group members. In group condition people who have some
type of relationships, see connections among themselves, or believe that they share a common fate:
They establish a group goal, clarify the objectives to achieve it, they focus on the task, they listen to
what the other have to say, they talk about it, they find solutions. Furthermore, the organisation
exerts a considerable amount of influence on how the team is able to work: “Being better together is
the strength of the organisation” claimed Steve Jobs “Sharing the view of the company means
working together towards the interest of it”. Evidently from his company business examples - Apple
and Pixar - there is a lot to learn from this approach. To an extreme, when the organisational values
are clearly defined, shared, accepted and pursued by the workforce the level of engagement and
commitment makes a great deal of difference to the organisation overall success. Insofar this leads
the group to prioritize the interests of the organisation over and above their own self-interests (Bass,
1999). When employees perceive that the organisation is focused on promoting the well being of
the member as part of its community the level of motivation increases more then if the organisation
attention is focused on the single individual. (Cameron, Dutton, Quinn, 2003). As a result, the
reward system is also group-oriented: employees are more likely to experience pro-social
motivation when organisations maintain collectivistic rather than individualistic norms and rewards.
(Ajzen, 1991; Hackman, 1992, Chatman Barsade, 1995, Batson, 1994; Miller, 1999, Perlow
Weeks, 2002 ; Grant Berg 2010). On the other hand, individual recognition has to be taken under
control to prevent social loafing (cause of productivity loss, together with social inhibition and
production blocking)
Practical implementation
In the advertising agencies, employees (highly specialised figures industry related and non) are not
seen as single individuals with specific skills and attitudes. Their strengths (and weaknesses) are
interconnected to all other’s strengths (and weaknesses). Collectively they are the greatest networks
of abilities on earth. They learn from each other, they inspire and are inspired by others in the
group. They continually learn new abilities to improve the communication with other professionals
from different backgrounds to be able to give competent advices. “The challenge is to put forth their
creativity in a harmonious way”, said Brad Bird Director at Pixar. Otherwise, it’s like ‘an orchestra
where everybody’s playing their own music. Each individual piece might be beautiful, but together
they’re crazy’. In advertising organisations, the group’s goal should correspond with the
organisation interests: to guarantee the creation of the most relevant and innovative custom-made
advertising campaigns possible to attract more clients and sell more benefits. In return the
organisation will provide the group with everything they need to create better quality of work and
support their well being: seminars, classes, creative playground, group rewards (holiday, daily
experiences, food experiences), professional equipment, software. The group is free of action, they
are trusted and the members are even allowed to transform and reinvent their workspaces according
to the auto-perceptive project-related requirements. (Parker Wall, 1998) (Question number 17 of
the questionnaire reveals that 4 on 13 of the interviewed defined a not assigned position working
space as their ideal working space).

32. 32
Group Authority
The most efficient way to resolve the numerous problems that arise in any complex project is to
trust people to address difficulties directly, without having to get permission of execution.
Managers understand they don’t always have to be the first to know about something going in their
realm, and it’s ok to walk into meetings and be surprised. (Lassater, 2003)
Cross Parker (2004) in a study of over three hundred professionals found that the group will
perform at the top level of ability if it shares a focused goal; it is fully engaged to the cause and has
no preconceived idea of how to reach the goal; it completely concentrates on the task; it perceives
self control (autonomy of decision), equal participation and blending egos; experiences familiarity;
deals with potential for failure; moves the conversation forward and constantly builds
communication possibilities. Most importantly, the group should be able to decide their own
method of working; the roles should be multifunctional and multiskilled; variances in the work
process should be handled at the source; redesign should be continuous to achieve high standard
performances. This is an extract from the radio interview with Richard West on group creativity
(link in appendix n.1):
In the animation studio at Birmingham University, instead of working on individual projects, the
students take part in group projects. They have priorities, they have boundaries but they get to
choose the role they want to play within that. A student told to the director of the project: “I would
really like to learn how to animate hair and be the hair animator for this project”. And the director
said “This is awesome, nobody wanted to do hair last time we had really good rocks really good
leather but we had terrible hair! This is going to be great, we are going to have good hair for this
project, this is going to be awesome!” The student gained intrinsic motivation and sense of safety in
expressing her idea, which are two important predictors of organisational commitment and job
satisfaction. Thomsett (1980) in his study conducted to investigate the influence that organisational
cultures plays on individual’s and team’s performances, confirmed that teams need to be allowed to
operate with a certain amount of autonomy and confidence that their membership will stay
reasonably consistent for a period of time. Creativity may be destroyed by close monitoring and
requires a degree of autonomy and experimentation (Amabile, 1996; Townley et al. 2009).
Moreover, low social anxiety due to minimum perception of subordination increases group
performance. (Camacho Paulus, 1995). This assumption has been confirmed by the most of the
researches in the field (see group diversity in the Internal constructions content).
The concept of failure is a fact of life in collaborative organisations and has a great potential to
innovation (Perry, 1992:52) The best way to great results is to generate a lot of ideas and then select
the best one. According to this statement, the members of the group need to feel comfortable in
sharing these ideas with colleagues and supervisors. The organisational management has to be on
the risk’s side. Employees need to recognise in the leader’s figure a supporter and a listener, a
mentor. They do not need to feel embarrassed or stressed about his or her judgements. (Bayles and
Orland 1993; Amabile 1999). There is a correlation between frustration, conflict and group
performance: stress experienced for a sustained period of time seems to reduce individual’s and
team’s ability to perform well on creative tasks (Norword, Zbigniew, Fafrowicz, Marek, 1993;
Suls, 2001). If not supported by the leadership style “the risk condition” remains on the aversion
side. The word ‘supervisor’ or ‘manager’ or ‘executive’ (especially in advertising) implies the
practice of control of someone over someone else’s work. This concept kills creativity. “With too
many rules or too much cohesion, the potential for innovation is lost” (Sawyer, 2007:56). Most of
the people are creative, most people want to do well. The issue is not ‘how do you make them more
creative’, rather it is ‘how do we remove the barriers in the blocks’? At Pixar, the journey to the top
hasn’t always been a smooth ride. The studio went through hard times, impossible challenges, like
completely rewriting Toy Story 2 in ninety days and consistent losing money. Steve Jobs lost 1
million dollars a year for 5 years before his investment started to gain positive results. The fact that

33. 33
Pixar went through many failures, this has become their strength. They have learned how to treat
failure and not just accept it, but taking the best from it. The acceptance of failure as part of the
process is one of the values Pixar stands for. During an interview in 2014 Ed Cadmull said “Every
Pixar movie sucks at the beginning. So, how do we judge the team? The way we do it is by how
well the team works together to find solution to the initial disaster. If they laugh together, if they are
able to rethink the whole process, then all the barriers to creativity disappear ”.
Highly specialized figures
Advertising ideas are insights that come from people who strategically translate the brand message
into visuals and sounds and direct it to the target audience. During the project, one person has a
point of view, two people have more, more people have many. People have more new ideas when
they talk with more people (Allen 1977:123). When the human being looks for solutions he is too
focus in solving the problem as it is. Most of the time he refers to previous standard safe solution
without considering the opportunity to reverse the problem and consequently its solutions. In the
world of the senses, reality is always a matter of perspective and acquired knowledge. This explains
why ten people in a meeting can describe the same problem in at least ten different ways
(Ricchiuto, 1952: 26) and why a collaborative thinking approach can benefit the structure of
advertising agencies.
Practical Implementation
In the model I propose, experts from different backgrounds of experience (from psychology to sales
experts, sociology, multimedia, graphic, production, post production, communication, even music
compositors) with different skills and perspective are pushed to co-create rather than co-operate the
entire adverting project. This variety of professional figures work together to explore the
possibilities, to find solutions, to learn from others, to listen to others, to add value, to freely
communicate needs and ideas, to choose the role they want to play on a project, with no job
position restrictions. Turning ideas into advertising contents requires a range of different types of
thinking and specialised expertise from different individuals, convergent and divergent thinking is
just one of the human dispositions. In involving more people and their views in the whole process,
supporting their interaction and group flow, the product of their ideas will improve dramatically just
because the myriad of new connections that occurs in casual and non-casual interactions. The
ability to ‘broker’ connections between different people, experiences, talents, technologies and
emotions becomes the principal function of both creators and managers in the creative industries.
“Why are we teaching film making to accountants? Well, if you treat accountants like accountants
they are going to act like accountants. But if you treat everyone in the studio as filmmakers (or
Admakers), everyone will understand each other and communicate better” (Palk, 2007). “There is
no line between technical or artistic professionals, at Pixar” Ed Cadmull states. “Technology and art
are both integrated in every part of the company. There are no boundaries between them. It more
reflects the reality of the society”. There is no difference between an artistic or a technical profile,
unless they are not treated as that. The power of collaboration is based on discoveries, complete
each other, and push the boundaries of what a group of expert with different mind-sets can create
together.

34. 34
Leadership
The myth of “individual creative genius” has dominated the managerial approaches to creativity and
popular culture for ages. (Montuori, 2003; Sawyer, 2007) The need for strict structures of control
over the workers and its management relies in the “classical” theorists, notably in Frederick Taylor
(“The Principles of Scientific Management”, 1913) and Max Weber (his theory of bureaucracy in
“Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft”, 1922). Taylor’s model sprang from factory production and Weber’s
from the offices of public administration, but they had a lot in common – in particular, a reliance on
standardization of work, control of quality, fine-grained division of labour and trust on a strict
hierarchy. Henri Fayol and later Luther Gulick Urwick (1937) and Mintzberg (1979) emphasized
formal authority and the role of direct supervision to accomplish organisational work. In the
development of organisational theories, this belief in closed, rational models (Scott 1987) gradually
came under attack after World War II. The Human Relations School of Management began by
Mayo and Roethlisberger during the 1930s, brought the individuals and the social relations between
them into focus. Simple as it is, they discovered that the way employee is treated by the
organisation directly affects his or her productivity and job satisfaction. The findings of this study
became known as the Hawthorne Effect. This view will change decades of research in
organisational theories and management, in favour to a more human-focused approach. The new
current of thought postulates the existence of an informal structure growing from the unofficial
contacts people in the organisation had with each other. The informal structure could be just as
important as the formal one in predicting the outcomes - sometimes even more important. It
constituted a major intellectual shift in the way of thinking about organisations (Scott 1987,
Hollway 1991). House et al. (2004) defined leadership as “the ability of an individual to influence,
motivate, and enable others to contribute toward the effectiveness and success of the organisation of
which they are members” (2004:15).
This concept of supremacy and hierarchy of power is extremely discouraged in managing group
creativity (Ancona Calwell, 1992; Mayer Amabile, 1996; Waldron,1994; Cross and Parker
2004, Sawyes 2007). “Power suggests influence, the potential to influence, and control over
outcomes” (Lukes, 1974; Fiske Berdhall, 2007). Even if the relationship between the “upper”
(the one who have) and the “lower” class (the one who have not) is open and based on trust, there
is, anyway the mutual perception of practising power (leaders) and accept power (employee).
Practical implementation
Who is the real innovative leader in business? The one who creates the strongest teams. In
collaborative thinking, formalization of work is strongly repudiated on the grounds that it is
detrimental both, to worker commitment and psychological wellbeing. Shared leadership style
characterized by emphasis on “trust, credibility, openness, relationships, reciprocity, network
symmetry, horizontal communication, feedback, adequacy of information, group-centred style,
tolerance for disagreement and negotiation” (Grunig, 1992, p. 558) is recommended in collaborative
thinking business. The aim is to facilitate dialogue between the company and its employees and to
get the best from this relationship. The managerial role is to “construct an environment that nurtures
trusting and respectful relationships and unleashes everyone’s creativity” (Richards and Engle,
1986). When information is shared through collaboration and decision-making is decentralised,
there is no need for a hierarchy to gather and channel of information to a single decision maker.
Instead, the manager is a catalyst facilitator, acting as a connector between groups, a ‘cross-
pollinator and carrier of knowledge’. (Sawyer, 2007:173).

35. 35
‘The trick is to act like a benevolent guardian’ (Hansen, 2009): grant the members the respect and
recognition they demand, protect them from organisational rules and politics, and give them room
to pursue private efforts and to fail. The payoff will be a flourishing crop of creative minds that will
enrich the whole organisation experience. The transformational leadership refers to a behavioural
style of inspirational motivation, idealised influence, intellectual stimulation, and individualized
consideration (Avolio, Bass, Jung, 1999). Scholars have highlighted that transformational leaders
motivate employees and team by linking their performances to the success of the organisation
(Bono Judge, 2003; Piccolo Colquitt, 2006; Shamir, House, Arthur, 1993).
According to Hansen, a management professor at the University of California and specialist in
collaboration, innovation and corporate transformation - collaborative leadership provides the
constructive conflict, buy-in and progress that are necessary to succeed in today’s fast-paced and
constantly changing world. In his book ‘Collaboration’, he introduces the concept of ‘disciplined
collaboration’: a surgical approach to getting collaboration right; in here, he underlines how the
collaborative leadership is characterized by the following:
• Tends to occur in dispersed and cross-functional networks.
• All member of that network have potentially relevant information that the group needs.
• Designated leaders have authority to make decisions to maintain the well being of the group.
Ibarra and Hansen in the issue of Harvard Business Review (2011), found the following common
characteristics of collaborative leaders:
• Act as connectors: collaborative leaders function is to connect experts to each other’s and
to the organisation. They drive attention and respect towards the core value of the company.
• Form Heterogeneous Teams: the significant difference between team members is a
necessary pre-condition to innovative change. Collaboration in heterogeneous teams feels
uncomfortable and puts everyone in the stretch zone. However, this level of discomfort is
necessary for innovation to flourish.
• Create Incentives: leaders need to lower the barriers to necessary collaboration by
rewarding team performance and results as much as they do individually
• Define Clear Decision Rights: Collaboration by its very nature requires a great deal of
dialogue, debate, and conflict. In order for collaboration to work, authority to make and be
held accountable for decisions must exist.
However, the leader does not practice a function of control over its employees. He or she is the
guiding light that ensures the team stays on track. “Even when a production runs into a problem,
we do everything possible to provide support without undermining their authority” (Ed Cadmull
2010:9). In so doing, employees can escape some of the suffocating traits of rigid managerial
structure, cited in Tim Sullivan and Ray Rishman’s recent book, The Org: The Underlying Logic of
the Office. The broader aim is to treat organisational decisions as something internal to the
organisation, custom-made according to the company’s core values perceived, shared and coo-
created with its employees. (Silverman 1970 p. 153). To sum up, it would be easy to conclude that
the best thing a manager can do for creativity is to do nothing, thereby reducing the old divisions
between creativity and management and practice of power. The key, according to Amabile, lies in
clearly defining the creative goal whilst not attempting to prescribe the means (Amabile 1999, 10).
In a more simple way, free them and let them go and be involved in the magic.

36. 36
Environment
The physical environment of an organisation delivers messages about its culture and core values.
The design of the environment plays a strategic role in defining the overall vision of the company
because ‘behaviour is dependent upon the context in which it occurs’ (Brown 2002:105) and that
there is a causal linear relation between structure and performance. (Raible, 2013 SCP paradigm).
The real organisational challenge is to create an environment in which the sense of trust is spread
between people, which are able to tell the truth to each other. According to Bilton, Chris and Leary,
Ruth (2002) creativity is person-centred, not process- oriented; innovation is privileged over value;
intuition is prized over rational decision- making; ideas emerge suddenly and ‘spontaneously’, not
from evolutionary ‘incremental’ processes. These assumptions lead managers to regard creativity
as a human resources issue (recruitment and training), rather than a matter of organisational design
(systems and processes). For example, many managers approach the problem of creativity by
sending individual employees on creative thinking courses, rather than examining the procedures
and systems within the organisation, which might inhibit or enliven creative processes and improve
group’s interactions.
Even if Leonard Swap (1999) stated that “the direct link between the design of physical space
and creativity is unproven” (pag.137) and Csikszentmihalyi confirmed saying that “there will never
be evidence that a delightful setting induces creativity”, (1996:135) the interest the companies show
towards this condition says the opposite.
The design of the workspace has become an integral part of innovation strategies to support
creativity and innovation-orientated behaviours in organisations. (Haner Bakke, 2004)
There is clearly a difference in designing a space to foster group creativity and collaborative
thinking or individual journeys. I will obviously take in consideration the conditions to optimise the
relationship between the group as a whole and the immediate ‘sociocultural context of their work’.
(Csikszentmihalyi,1996).
In creative organisations, creativity and innovation are the essence of daily agency work and people
in charge are aware that there is a relationship between social physical environment and level and
frequency of creative behaviours. (Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby, Herron, 1996).
Physical space can be a powerful tool for companies to support their strategy and improve
performance ( Levin, 2005; Lindholm and Levainen, 2006)
Practical implementation
At Pixar’s animation studio in Emeryville, the buildings are designed to maximize inadvertent
encounters. “It is a single vast space, an open area for people to always be talking to each other”
(Cadmull, 2011).
The space where those people meet is carefully planned and designed by Steve Jobs. The building,
named for him after his death in 2011, is conceived according to the Pixar’s philosophy: toilets
were deliberately placed in the communal central atrium to force creativity out to mingle with
others instead of staying cooped up in their offices. The atrium area was conceived as somewhere
improvised chats and meetings could take place to encourage collaboration. “We think a lot about
the geography of where people are sitting and how the offices are laid out” (Anderson, 2010).
The basic assumption is that to be inventive, people, especially workers have to have fun, maintain
a child-like devotion, enjoy what they do, and never stop learning. “Pixar locals are more like
college campus: swimming pool, football pitch, sand volleyball court, playing fields and people
going around with little scooters. Professionals working for them and engaging with the Emeryville
headquarter consider Pixar structure of work as a “Gift from God”.
At Google, swimming pools, gyms, pool tables and other spaces containing games are the best way
to maintain high standard of innovation and open interaction between the employees. They are

37. 37
allowed to bring their dogs to work, to get around by scooter, skate boards or rollerblades, to enjoy
massages or gourmet meals and take part in yoga or pilates sessions (Google, 2007, 2009;
Hoahalnd, 2006) (Kurt, Kurt, Medaille, 2010) At IDEO, innovative design solution company,
“there are tubs of markers everywhere, Post-it Notes litter the walls of conference rooms, a gum
ball machine, xylophone, a vintage Volkswagen bus converted into a meeting area completed with
beach chairs on the roof. According to a 2013 study by Expedia.com, Americans only used 10 of
their 14 annual vacation days. That’s twice as many unused days off as in 2012. While the
restorative powers of proper vacation shouldn’t be ignored, the creation of mini-getaways within
the workplace helps people quickly reset and recharge. The high pressure delivered by the highly
technical skills required at Ideo, is overtaken by the structure of its environment. Intuitively, we all
experienced how much the environment affects our moods and behaviours: Offices can either be
numbing or energizing; encourage rigid manners or enhance creativity. At IDEO, they continually
experiment with mood-altering environments. “In a few of our locations, you’ll find picnic tables,
which spark memories of summer vacations and encourage friendly, casual conversations between
colleagues. In our Chicago studio, there’s a cosy, under-the-stair well fort some of our interns
constructed. You need to crawl into it on your hands and knees, like a child”.
To create the physical conditions that supports the well being of the employees is predictive of their
commitments towards the organisation and their will to act collaboratively for its success. (Ryan
Deci, 2001; Uchida, Norasakkunkit and Kitayama, 2004; Paterson, Park Seligman, 2005; Ryan at
all. 2006)
Well-being
Together with the design of the space, the work place’s atmosphere affects the creative
performance. (Higgins, Qualls, Couger, 1992; Murray, Sujan, Hirt, Sujan, 1990; Zhou, 1998;
Brodersen, M. Brodersen, J. Eisenberg, 2004). From the last quarter of the twentieth century
onwards, concepts like employee commitment and job satisfaction started to appear on the ground.
From here, the need to evaluate the employee’s experience and nurture the wellbeing on the
workplace, which presumably leads to organisational commitment. Nowadays, manager’s eye is on
how to keep employees engaged in their job. They now realise that by focusing on employee’s
engagement and motivation, they can create a more efficient and productive workforce. (Markos
Sridevi, 2010). Engaged / committed employees are enthusiastic and energetic about their work and
fully immersed in it. This variable is a predictor of successful performances. (Bakker Demerouti,
2009). As Bakker at al. (2008) discovered in their study “work engagement is a positive, fulfilling,
affective motivational state of work-related well-being that is characterized by vigour, dedication
and absorption” (2008:187)
Psychologists focused on employee behaviours define two types of motivational states: external, or
extrinsic, and internal, or intrinsic. Intrinsic motivation comes from within the employee, from the
employee’s interest in a task, and the satisfaction that comes from doing a job well. Extrinsic
motivation comes from outside the employee, essentially from rewards such as bonuses, raises, or
changes in responsibilities.
Intrinsic motivation and Pro-social behaviours
Committed individuals are willing to give something of themselves in order to contribute to the
organization’s wellbeing: these pro-social behaviours performed by the members of the group are
vital for the success of the collaborative organisation. Those are not part of an individual’s formal
job and specified role requirements: they are spontaneous acts performed voluntarily to promote the
organisation’s interests and behaving on behalf of others or on behalf of a community (Catterall
2011) or voluntary behaviours made with the intent of benefiting others (Eisenberg Fabes, 1998;
Kayser 2014). The researches have confirmed that empathy, helping, cooperation, and altruism are

38. 38
pro-social behaviours predictors (e.g., Fehr Fischbacher, 2003; Graziano et al., 2007; Mikulincer
Shaver, 2005; Penner, Dovidio, Piliavin, Schroeder, 2005; Singer et al., 2004; Staub, 1979).
In this research about the cultivation of human empathy conducted by the National Educational
Longitudinal Study of 1988, one factor particularly stands out: the emotional stability and nurturing
behaviour of the mother have an effect on the children emphatic mind set. Consistent, nurturing,
and positive mothers’ attention is associated with the cultivation of empathy. (Zhou, et al., 2002;
Eisenberg Fabes, 1998; Hastings et al., 2007). Pro-social behaviours, then, are more likely to
occur in certain individuals more disposed to empathic reactions then others (Strayer,1996;
McMahon, Wernsman Parnes 2001; Decety and Jackson, 2004).
On the other hand, “neural processes involved with art and creativity have the potential to develop a
capacity for empathy and pro-social behaviours because they condition empathy-related
architectures in the brain”. (Catterall, 2011:20) . At this point, as prosocial-behaviours may vary
‘with age, tenure, gender, achievement motivation, sense of competence’ and personal belief,
(Modway at al. 1982) I support the view that the promotion of empathy and pro-social behaviours
towards the organisation in creative industries is just a matter of structural conditions: the design of
the organisation influences employees pro-social behaviours and organisational commitment.
(Aderman, 1972; Cunningham, Steinberg Grev, 1980; Isen, Clark Schwartz, 1976; Isen
Lewin, 1972; Rosenhan, Solovey Hargis, 1981). Keeping in mind that the degree of empathy
lies in the individual’s background of experiences and affects the quality of pro-social behaviours
towards others, the organisational structure should be able to allow employees to overtake personal
experiences and make sure they embrace the positive environment that protect them. This
perception is the basic for organisational commitment (Mowday et. al. 1982): the will of behaving
on behalf of others or on behalf of a community (Catterall 2011) or voluntary behaviours made with
the intent of benefiting others (Eisenberg Fabes, 1998; Kayser 2014)
Isen, Clark, Shalker Karp (1978) found a relationship between pro-social behaviours,
organisational commitment and good mood which tends to recall more affectively positive
information from memory and think about affectively positive events and experiences.
Organisational commitment towards the organisation involve:
a) More effective job performance
b) Improved communication and coordination between individual and units (interpersonal
trust and understanding)
c) Improved job satisfaction and moral among person who have been treated pro-socially
by others.
d) Improved satisfaction of consumers and clients, which may result in future returning.
e) Improved organizational efficiency in general.
Finally, Gouldener (1960) and others (Blau, 1968; Homans, 1961) investigated the value of
“reciprocity” in support pro-social behaviours towards others, in particular co-workers: they assert
that people are more willing to help those who have helped them.
According to this claim in adopting “ a mutual help approach” as one of the core value of the
organisation will encourage positive collaboration, communication flow, and a valuable problem-
solving strategy.
Motivate people making them feel special is an inexpensive way to intrinsically motivate them to
do exceptional work. “When people feel special they will perform beyond your wildest dreams”
(Kelley, 2001: 93)

39. 39
Play
Play is often regarded as the antithesis of work. People are used to separate work, pleasure, and
entertainment activities and play is seen as an activity that does not happen while one is working.
Usually playing activities occurs in specific times and spaces that serve to distinguish it from
normal life (Huizinga, 1950) While working is goal directed, play is not; while work activity
concerns with outcomes play does not; while work is pursued for rewards, play is not, usually.
But what happen when play becomes part of the work’s activity?
As Brown stated in 2009, “new ideas can suddenly emerge during play activities’. It is encouraged
by openness to new possibilities and facilitates an environment for serendipity that can result in
creative discoveries. We see things in different ways while playing and we are more prone to have
fresh insight” (2009: 18) Games have a positive impact on the work environment in several ways
but one of its most important benefits is its impact on the creative process and the critical role that
play has in innovation. Play consistently energizes, engages and motivates its participants
(Anderson, 1994) and people who play are likely to be intrinsically motivated to complete the task,
which is critical for creativity (Amabile, 1996). Play is a powerful method of fostering group
creativity and innovation in organizations and help group trust to be established it is an investment
that will receive returns in terms of highly creative output. (Kelley, 2001; Kurt, Kurt, Medaille,
2010) Creative activities and play have much in common both are often or always intrinsically
motivated, almost never occurring when one in anxious or narrowly focused on achieving a
specified goal. (Dansky, 1999) The attitude towards playing is innate in most of the human and
animal beings. Whatever the concept of playing means (performing sports, engaging in enjoyable
activity or to take part in video games) I will consider it as a “State of mind rather than a specific set
of actions” (Brown, 2009)
Dispositional affect - relatively stable personal temperaments or traits (Watson, 2000) as well as
situational patterns determine the mood of the employee. The situational measure can be
manipulated, controlled and directed towards a positive one. Frederickson and Joiner (2002)
produced evidence that positive mood led to a “broadening of perception and enchantment of idea
generation, attention and cognition.”
“Joy, for instance, creates the urge to play, interests creates the urge to explore. Play builds,
physical, socioemotional, and intellectual skills, and fuels brain development. (2002:1)
Pixar, Google, IDEO, 37 signals are just few examples well known for being innovators embracing
a playful culture in the workplace to maintain and support their employees well being and
consequent satisfaction.
Thanks to the success of those organisations cited above, the distinction between play and work are
becoming less pronounced. As Holmes demonstrated in 1999, work actually shares many
similarities with play and the differences between them are not always evident: several successful
businesses have recognized the value of play for innovation then it follows that advertising agencies
focused on innovation could also benefit from organizational play. Actually, this measure has been
explored by advertising agencies that usually host table tennis and football tables and terrace bars to
improve the interaction between team members. The real challenge is to embrace playing as a tool
to unleash the creative power of the employees. Games can be also performed in meetings with the
aim to make them more enjoyable and to contribute to both the content and process objectives of a
team meeting (Newstrom Scannel, 1998). Most importantly they facilitate:
• Members learning and development of trust
• The appreciation of diversity
• Team functioning
• To surface hidden problems

40. 40
• To interject greater energy into meetings
Glynn (1994), Webster and Martocchio (1993) founded that labelling tasks as play rather than work
results in greater intrinsic motivation, improved performance quality, more concern with process
and more elaborated image-laden responses. Labelling tasks as work results in more concern with
efficiency, output and comparisons to others.
Practical implementation
When people aren’t having any fun, they don’t produce good advertising. David Ogilvy (1985:45).
If play is to be encouraged in advertising agencies the design f the locals and time management
structure has to be taken in consideration. Integrate playful activities into the structure of creativity
if not defined as a powerful tool for generating ideas in group, might lose its role in foster creativity
because seen as a waste of time. Playing has to be defined and treated as a proper tool/ technique to
foster group creativity in order to add fun, enthusiasm, encourage exuberance and job satisfaction
among the team (Abramis, 1990). Part of the play‘s power as a motivator results from its
association with positive emotional states such as pleasure, joy, excitement, and optimism (Dansky,
1999, Lieberman, 1977), which can be important facilitators of the creative process (Isen, 1999;
Russ 1999) because involved in the act of recalling good memories.
Tools
The company provides courses and workshops to push the workers to explore different areas of
interest and still undiscovered interest. From the assumption that learning together is more effective
then learning individually, the implement of inner classes and seminars in the structure of the
agencies should be considered on the step of “Pixar University” - a professional-development
program that puts as much emphasis on employee education- which is the company's
secret weapon. The aim is not only to teach new employees about the tools they would need to use
but to teach existing employees more about the work their colleagues are doing. At Pixar
University, all the walls between departments come down, and the employee get to be the director
of his or her own creative idea. Learning new skills is essential and it helps improving the quality of
the communication between colleagues. “Pixar University” also offers optional courses (screen play
writing, drawing, sculpting) so people from different disciplines can interact and appreciate what
each other does. This last point is very common in highly innovating companies. Pixar University,
Wieden + Kennedy WK12 are just two example of big corporation that push their employees to
never stop learning. Their concept is that a good animators (Pixar) can be an excellent storytellers,
as well as at Wieden + Kenned (full service integrated advertising agency) they make sure every
employee has all the tools available to contribute to making the agency great.

41. 41
Conclusions
When I first started investigating about group creativity and collaborative thinking my attention was
pointed towards the way teamwork is managed. This interest raise from the fact that any kind of
business has to deal with people interacting. In this thesis has been considered that the level of
importance an organisation turns to teamwork depends on the perceived value of the results that this
collaboration can bring to the organisation outcomes: in fact, the goal of collaboration is not
collaboration, but better results (Hansen, 2009).
This analysis has shown that one of the major factors that limit the business society is still an
authoritarian system that doesn’t allow democracy in the workplace to happen. Despite this view is
still the dominant trend, a growing number of successful business examples have demonstrated that
the road towards collectivism is a safe one. However, in advertising agencies some of the
dimensions I explored have already been taken in consideration but collaborative thinking is not yet
the standard model approached by them. Moreover, this study has shown that creativity itself is
shaped by numerous constraints and conventions (Moeran, 2009) and how routines become the
conventional way of doing things (Bourdieu, 1990).
Especially thanks to an emic prospective during this analysis I was surprised to see the impact that
the inner culture of the agency plays in defining the way it works. Simply, teamwork sometimes is
only a label attached to people that share the office, nothing more. Other times, teamwork is the
result of the organisational success. But in saying this it is important to note that in advertising
agencies, an effective collaboration between professionals can change the entire results of the final
product. This is why I consider the group as a unit: for example in defining the condition of well
being in the work place, design of the environment, and play implementation I am focus on the
wellness of the group despite of the single employees.
However, although it might not be so evident but this concept of group is mostly underestimated by
advertising agencies that treat the individuals as copywriters, art directors, creative directors,
accounts, employed for the specific task they are asked to accomplish. In bringing their contribution
in the strategic and creative process, these professionals play alone (or in departments) and then mix
the product of their work with the work of other professionals. The final result is a collection of
these contributions. Creative yes but not enough in the today competitive market.
Frequently, collaboration experts use music industry in particular symphony orchestra’s concerts as
examples of effective collaboration: During an orchestra performance, the listener hears the result
of long hours of collective creativity and negotiation. The result is a special synergy: the feeling that
the musicians were playing as much for another as for the audience”. Traub (in Sawyer, 2007:36)
Unsurprisingly, the collaborative thinking approach has impacted this industry, as well. The
Orpheus Chamber Orchestra is an award-winning orchestra that holds over 70 concerts every year
in venues in Asia, Europe and North America. Founded in 1972 by Julian Fifer and fellow
musicians including Ronald Bauch and Joanna Jenner, Orpheus is a self-regulating orchestra where
musicians function in a collaborative leadership style to conduct rehearsals and give concerts.
Because of this self-governing approach, musicians are not limited to the conductor’s viewpoints
and perspectives on how to interpret musical compositions. (Seifter, 2001).
From a more alternative prospective, a successful implement of collaboration thinking in music
industry is recognised in the Major Lazer project. This American electronic group created by DJ
and record producer Diplo and
DJ/Producer
Switch, is formed by two 4 DJs, and two dancers and
from 2008 they move the masses at the rhythm of their collaboration.
When they perform, they are Major Lazer: Not a DJ or a dancer or a speaker. Everybody dances,
everybody mixes, and everybody entertains. This is why everybody wants to collaborate with them:
they create authentically innovative music worthy of worldwide mainstream attention: From
Beyonce and Busy Signal, to Bruno Mars, Mia, Tyga, Flux Pavillion, Pharrtel Williams, Wynter

42. 42
Gordon, Shaggy, Snoop Lion, Wyclef, Ezra Koening Vampire Weekend, Dev, Beenie Man, and Mr
Vegas.
Their music spans numerous genres, usually fusing reggae and dancehall music with dance genres
such as moombahton and electro house. The synergy they are able to create comes from their
passion and trust in the other members of the group who are free (and able) to take the microphone
and sing as well as leave the mixer and dance!
If the contemporary advertising agency’s system should be compared to a music group, it would be
much more similar to the Spice Girls than to Major Lazer or Orpheus Chamber Orchestra. Those
two have reinvented and re-imaginated the overall music experience. The British pop girl group
formed in 1994 is the product of 5 members: “Scary Spice”, “Sporty Spice”, “Baby Spice”, “Ginger
Spice”, and “Posh Spice”. In all their performances they bring their ascribed contribution, which
combined with others, give life to the final product. They have been popular cultural icons of the
1990s, they worked really well together, they invaded American’s culture, but they haven’t actually
invented anything new. In December 2000, the group unofficially announced that they were
beginning an indefinite hiatus and would be concentrating on their solo careers in regards to their
foreseeable future, although they pointed out that the group was not splitting.
To conclude, I believe advertising agencies to innovate have to get rid of the ‘dusty’ model of fixed
roles, creative couples, and department divisions that affect their structures from when the concept
of advertising agency was born. My critique to advertising agencies is just a matter of method. I’m
aware that this is a very successful business in terms of outcomes but the people working in the
industry are not always happy: they do not find their job to be fulfilling or worthy of their talent.
The job in advertising industry is associated with super long hours, weekends at work, stress,
service-industry role, the ever-evolving skills one must learn to adopt, deadlines, clients and
horrible briefings. It’s a tough job but it might offer much more. This is why I wanted to develop
this model: because I’m passionate about advertising and I want to make this industry as great as
Pixar for animation. Simple as it is.

43. 43
Bibliography
Abramis,
D.
J.
(1990).
Play
in
work:
Childish
hedonism
or
adult
enthusiasm.
American
Behavioral
Scientist,
33(3),
353-­‐37
Aderman,
D.
(1972).
Elation,
depression,
and
helping
behavior.
Journal
of
Personality
and
Social
Psychology,
24,91
-­‐101.
Ajzen,
I.
(1991).
The
theory
of
planned
behavior.
Organizational
Behavior
and
Human
Decision
Processes,
50,
179-­‐211.
Allen,
T.
(1977).
Managing
the
flow
of
technology,
Cambridge:
MIT
press
Amabile,
T.
M.
(1983).
The
social
psychology
of
creativity.
New
York,
NY:
Springer-­‐
Verlag.
Amabile,
T.M.
(1996)
Creativity
in
Context.
New
York,
Westview
Press,
Boulder
CO.
Amabile
T.
M.,
Conti
R.,
Coon
H.,
Lazenby
J.,
Herron
M.
(1996).
Assessing
the
work
environment
for
creativity.
Academy
of
Management
Journal,
39:
1154-­‐1184.
Ancona,
D.
G.,
Caldwell,
D.
F.
1992.
Bridging
the
boundary:
External
activity
and
performance
in
or-­‐
ganizational
teams.
Administrative
Science
Quar-­‐
terly,
37:
634–66
Anderson,
J.
V.
(1994).
Creativity
and
play:
A
systematic
approach
to
managing
innovation.
Business
Horizons
37(2),
80-­‐85.
Aronson,
E.
(2007)
The
Social
Animal,
10th
ed.,
New
York,
Worth
Publishers
.
Austin,
J.
R.
(1997).
A
cognitive
framework
for
understanding
demographic
influences
in
groups.
International
Journal
of
Organizational
Analysis,
5(4),
342-­‐359
Avolio,
B.
J.,
Bass,
B.
M.,
Jung,
D.
(1999).
Reexamining
the
components
of
transformational
and
transactional
leadership
using
the
Multi-­‐
factor
Leadership
Questionnaire.
Journal
of
Occupational
and
Organi-­‐
zational
Psychology,
7,
441–462.
Bakker,
A.B.,
Demerouti,
E.
(2009).
The
crossover
of
work
engagement
between
working
couples:
A
closer
look
at
the
role
of
empathy.
Journal
of
Managerial
Psychology,
24,
220–236.
An
illustrative
study
among
couples
showing
that
work
engagement
may
be
contagious.
Bayles,
D.
Orland,
T.
(1993).
Art
and
fear.
Observations
on
the
perils
(and
rewards)
artmaking.
Santa
Barbara:
Capra
Press.
Bass,
B.
M.
(1999).
Two
decades
of
research
and
development
in
transformational
leadership.
European
Journal
of
Work
and
Organizational
Psychology,
8,
9–32.
Batson,
D.
C.
(1990).
How
social
an
animal?
The
human
capacity
for
caring,
American
Psychologist,
Vol.
45,
Institute
of
Fundraising.
Batson,
C.
D.
(1994).
Why
act
for
the
public
good?
Four
answers.
Personality
and
Social
Psychology
Bulletin,
20,
603-­‐610.

44. 44
Berman,
M.
Blakeman,
R.
(2009).
The
brains
behind
Great
Ad
Campaigns:
Creative
collaboration
between
Copywriters
and
Art
Directors.
U.S.A.
Rowman
Littlefield
Publishers,
INC.
Bilton,
C.
and
Leary,
R.
(2002)
What
can
managers
do
for
creativity?
Brokering
creativity
in
the
creative
industries.
International
Journal
of
Cultural
Policy,
Volume
8
(Number
1).
pp.
49-­‐64
Bono,
J.
E.,
Judge,
T.
A.
(2003).
Self-­‐concordance
at
work:
Toward
understanding
the
motivational
ef-­‐
fects
of
transformational
leaders.
Academy
of
Man-­‐
agement
Journal,
46:
554–
571.
Bouchard
J.
Thomas
J.
(1969)
Personality,
problem-­‐solving
procedure,
and
performance
in
small
groups.
Journal
of
Applied
Psychology,
Vol
53.
Bourdieu,
P.
(1990).
The
Logic
of
Practice.
Polity
Press.
Bourdieu,
P.
(1993)
The
field
of
cultural
production
:
essays
on
art
and
literature.
New
York,
NY:
Columbia
UP.
Brown,
S.
(2009).
Play:
How
it
shapes
the
brain,
opens
the
imagination,
and
invigorates
the
soul.
New
York:
Avery.
Camacho
L.M.
Paulus
P.B.
(1995)
The
role
of
social
anxiousness
in
group
brainstorming.
Journal
of
Personality
ands
Social
Psychology,
vol.68.
Cameron,
K.,
Dutton,
J.
E.,
Quinn,
R.
E.
(2003).
Positive
organizational
scholarship:Foundations
of
a
new
discipline.
San
Francisco:
Berrett-­‐Koehler.
Catmull,
E.
(2008).
How
Pixar
fosters
Collective
Creativity.
Harvard
Business
Review,
U.S.
and
Canada.
Catteral,
J.S.
(2011).
A
Neuroscience
of
Art
and
Human
Empathy:
Aligning
Behavioural
and
Brain
Imaging
Evidence,
Los
Angeles,
CA:
I-­‐Group
Books.
Chatman,
J.
A.,
Barsade,
S.
G.
(1995).
Personality,
organizational
culture,
and
cooperation:
Evidence
from
a
business
simulation.
Administrative
Science
Quarterly,
40,
423-­‐443
Chavez,
C.A.
(2014)
Linguistic
Capital
and
the
Currency
of
Spanish
in
Hispanic
Advertising
Production.
Linguistic
Capital
and
the
Currency
of
Spanish
in
Hispanic
Advertising
Production
Journal
of
Communication
Inquiry
2014,
Vol
38(1)
25–43.
Cockburn,
C.
(1983).
Brothers:
Male
dominance
and
technological
change.
London:
Pluto.
Crescenzo,
S.
(2011).
Internal
employee
communications
media.
In
T.
Gillis
(Ed.),
The
IABC
handbook
of
organizational
communication
(2nd
ed.,
pp.
219-­‐230).
Jossey-­‐Bass.
Cross,
R.
Parker
A.
(2004)
The
Hidden
Power
of
Social
Networks:
Understanding
how
Work
Really
Gets
Done
in
Organizations.
Business
Economics:
Harvard
Business
Press
Csikszentmihalyi,
M.
(1989).
Optimal
experience
in
work
and
leisure.
Journal
of
Personality
and
Social
Psychology.
Vol
56
n.5.

45. 45
Csikszentmihalyi,
M.
(2003).
Good
Business,
London,
Viking
Penguin
Cunningham,
M.
R.,
Steinberg,
J.,
Grev,
R.
(1980).
Wanting
to
and
having
to
help:
Separate
motivations
for
positive
mood
and
guilt
in-­‐
duced
helping.
Journal
of
Personality
and
Social
Psychology,
38,181-­‐
192.
Damasio,
A.R.
(1994).
Descartes’
Error.
N.Y.:
G.P.
Putnam’s
Sons,
Daft,
R.L.
and
R.H.
Lengel
(1984),
Information
Richness:
A
New
Approach
to
Managerial
Behavior
and
Organization
Design,
In
B.M.
Staw
and
L.L.
Cummings
(Eds.),
Research
in
Organizational
Behavior,
6,
(
pp.
191-­‐233),
Greenwich,
CT:
JAI
Press.
Dansky,
J.
L.
(1999).
Play.
In
M.
A.
Runco
and
S.
R.
Pritzker
(Eds.),
Encyclopedia
of
Creativity
(Vol.
1,
pp.
393-­‐408).
San
Diego:
Academic
Press.
Decety,
J.
and
P.
L.
Jackson.
(2006).
A
social-­‐neuroscience
perspective
on
empathy.
Current
Directions
in
Psychological
Science
15:
54-­‐58.
Delbecq,
A.
Van
de
Ven
A.
(1971).
A
Group
process
model
for
Problem
Identification
and
Programme
Planning.
Journal
of
Applied
Behavioural
Science.
Diehl,
M.,
Stroebe,
W.
R.
Abakoumkin,
G.
(1992).
The
illusion
of
group
effectivity.
Personal
and
Social
Psychology
Bulletin,
18.
Dornisch
D.
(2002)
The
evolution
of
post-­‐socialist
projects:
Temporary
shift
and
transitional
capacity
in
a
Polish
region.
Regional
Studies
Vol.
36
n.
6.
307-­‐321
Eisenberg,
N.,
Fabes,
R.
A.,
Spinard,
T.
L.
(2006).
Prosocial
development.
In
W.
Damon,
R.
M.
Lerner,
N.
Eisenberg
(Eds.)
(6th
ed.)
Social,
emotional,
and
personality
development:
Vol.
3.
Handbook
of
child
psychology
(pp.
646e718).
New
York:
Wiley.
Elliott,
R.
(1998)
A
Model
of
Emotion-­‐Driven
Choice.
Journal
of
Marketing
Management
Vol.
14,
Issue
1/3:
95-­‐108
Fehr,
E.,
Fischbacher,
U.
(2003).
The
nature
of
human
altruism.
Nature,
425(6960),
785-­‐
791.
Fiske,
A.
P.
(1992).
The
four
elementary
forms
of
sociality:
Framework
for
a
unified
theory
of
social
relations.
Vol.
99,
No,
4,
689-­‐723.
University
of
Pennsylvania,
Psychological
Review.
Fiske,
S.
T.,
Berdahl,
J.
(2007).
Social
power.
In
A.
W.
Kruglanski
E.
T.
Higgins
(Eds.),
Social
psychology:
Handbook
of
basic
principles:
678-­‐692.
New
York:
Guilford.
Fowler,
B.
(1997).
Pierre
Bourdieu
and
cultural
theory:
critical
investigations.
.
Chapter
1.
London:
Sage.
Frederickson
and
Joiner
(2002)
Positive
trigger
upward
spiral
toward
emotional
well-­‐being.
University
of
Michigan
and
Florida
State
university.
American
Psychological
society.
Yuri
M.
(2011).
Creative
workplace:
instrumental
and
symbolic
support
for
creativity,
Facilities,
Vol.
29
Iss:
1/2,
pp.63
-­‐
79
Galbraith,
J.
R.(1977).
Organization
Design.
Reading,
MA:
Addison-­‐Wesley.

46. 46
Gibb,
J.
(1961).
Defensive
communication.
The
Journal
of
Communication,
Vol.
11
issue
3,
pag.141-­‐148.
Girard,
B.
(2009).
The
Google
way:
How
one
company
is
revolutionizing
Management
as
we
know
it.
Translation
and
Revision
of
the
French
Original,
Le
Modele
Google,
une
revolution
de
Management.
San
Francisco,
CA:
No
Starch
Press.
Glynn,
M.A.
1994.
Effects
of
work
and
play
task
labels
on
information
processing,
judgments,
and
motivation.
Journal
of
Applied
Psychology,
79
(1):
34-­‐45.
Goffee,
R.
and
Jones,
G.
(2007)
Leading
Clever
People:
Harvard
Business
Review
Vol.
5(3):
72
Gostick,
A.
Elton,
C.
(2010).
Orange
revolution:
How
one
great
team
can
transform
an
entire
organization.
London:
Simon
Schuster
Gouldner,
A.
W.
(1960).
The
norm
of
reciprocity:
A
preliminary
statement.
AmericanSociological
Review,
25,
161–178.
Grant,
A.
M.,
Berg,
J.
M.
(2010).
Prosocial
motivation
at
work:
How
making
a
difference
makes
a
difference.
Forthcoming
in
K.
Cameron
and
G.
Spreitzer
(Eds.),
Handbook
of
Positive
Organizational
Scholarship.
Oxford
University
Press
Grabher,
G.,
(2002)a,
Cool
projects,
boring
institutions:
temporary
collaboration
in
social
context.
In:
Grabher
G.
(Ed.)
Production
in
projects:
Economic
geographies
of
temporary
collaboration,
Regional
Studies
Special
Issue,
36(3):
205-­‐215
Graziano,
W.
G.,
Habashi,
M.
M.,
Sheese,
B.
E.,
Tobin,
R.
M.
(2007).
Agreeableness,
empathy,
and
helping:
A
person
X
situation
perspective.
Journal
of
Personality
and
Social
Psychology,
93,
583-­‐599.
Grunig,
J.
E.
(1992).
Excellence
in
public
relations
and
communication
management.
Hillsdale,
NJ:
Lawrence
Erlbaum
Grunig,
L.A.,
Grunig,
J.
E.,
Dozier,
D.
(2002).
Excellent
public
relations
and
effective
organizations:
A
study
of
communication
management
in
three
countries.
Mahwah,
NJ:
Lawrence
Erlbaum
Associates.
Grunig,
J.
E.,
Hung,
C.
J.
(2002).
The
effect
of
relationships
on
reputation
and
reputation
on
Relationships:
A
cognitive,
behavioural
study.
Paper
presented
to
the
International,
Interdisciplinary
Public
Relations
Research
Conference,
Miami,
FL.
Gulick,
A
Urwick,
L,
(1937)
Paper
on
Science
of
Administration.
Institute
of
Public
Administration
N.Y.
Guzzo,
R.
A.,
Dickson,
M.
W.
(1996).
Teams
in
organizations:
Recent
research
on
performance
and
effectiveness.
Annual
Review
of
Psychology,
47,
307–338
Hackley, C. (2005). Advertising and Promotion. Communicating Brands. London: Sage.
Haner,
U.E.;
Bakke,
J.W.
(2004):
„On
how
Work
Environments
influence
Innovation
A
Case
Study
from
a
large
ICT
company“,
in
CD-­‐ROM
Proceedings
of
the
XV
Annual
Conference
of
the
International
Society
for
Professional
Innovation
Management
(ISPIM),
Oslo,
June
20-­‐24

47. 47
Homans
G.C.
(1961).
Social
Behavior:
Its
Elementary
Forms.
New
York:
Harcourt,
Brace
World
Homans
GC.
1976.
Commentary.
In
Advances
in
Experimental
Social
Psychology,
ed.
L
Berkowitz,
E
Walster,
9:231–44.
Orlando,
FL:
Academic
Hackman,
J.
R.
(1992).
Group
influences
on
individuals
in
organizations.
In
M.
D.
Dunnette
L.
M.
Hough
(Eds.),
Handbook
of
industrial
and
organizational
psychology,
2
(pp.
199–267).
Palo
Alto,
CA:
Consulting
Psychologists
Press.
Hewett,
T.
(2005).
Informing
the
design
of
computer-­‐based
environments
to
support
creativity.
International
Journal
of
Human-­‐Computer
Studies
(IJHCS).
Hansen,
M.
Ibarra,
L.
and
(2011).
Are
you
a
Collaborative
Leader?
Harvard
Business
Review.
Hastings,
P.
D.,
Utendale,
W.
T.,
Sullivan,
C.
(2007).
The
socialization
of
prosocial
development.
In
J.
E.
Grusec
P.
D.
Hastings
(Eds.),
Handbook
of
socialization
(pp.
638–664).
New
York:
Guilford
Press.
Hoahland,
E.
(2006)
Life
in
the
Googleplex:
Inside
Google.
Journal
of
Library
Innovation,
Volume
1,
Issue
1,
2010.21
Holmes,
R.
M.
(1999).
Kindergarten
and
college
students'
view
of
play
and
work
at
home
and
school.
Play
contexts
revisited.
In
S.
Reifel
(Ed.),
Play
Culture
Studies
(Vol.
2,
pp.
59-­‐72).
Stamford,
CT:
Ablex
Publishing
Hollway,
W.
(1991):
“Work
Psychology
and
Organizational
Behaviour
–
Managing
the
Individual
at
Work,”
London,
Sage
Publications.
Huizinga,
J.
(1950).
Homo
ludens.
New
York:
Roy
Publishers.
Huysman,
M.and
Wulf,
V.
(2004).
Social
Capital
and
Information
Technology,
MIT-­‐Press,
Cambridge
MA.
Jackson,
S.
E.,
May
K.
E.,
Whitney
K.
(1995).
Understanding
the
dynamics
of
diversity
in
decision-­‐
making
teams.
In
R.
A.
Guzzo
E.
Salas
(Eds.),
Team
effectiveness
and
decision
making
in
organizations
(pp.
204–226).
San
Francisco,
CA:
Jossey-­‐Bass
Janis,
I.
L.
(1982).
Groupthink
(2nd
ed.).
Boston:
Houghton
Mifflin.
Jo,
S.,
Shim,
S.
(2005).
Paradigm
shift
of
employee
communication:
The
effect
of
management
communication
on
trusting
relationships.
Public
Relations
Review,
31,
277–280.
Johnson,
D.W.
Johnson
F.P.
(2009)
Joining
together:
group
theory
and
group
skills.
11th
ed.
London:
Pearson
Kelley,
T.
(2001).
The
art
of
innovation:
Lessons
in
creativity
from
IDEO,
America’s
leading
design
firm.
New
York:
Doubleday.
Kim,
J.
Rhee,
Y.
(2011).
Strategic
thinking
about
employee
communication
behavior
(ECB)
in
public
relations:
Testing
the
models
of
megaphoning
and
scouting
effects
in
Korea,
Journal
of
Public
Relations
Research,
23,
243–268
Kostoff,
R.
N.
(2003).
Stimulating
innovation.
In
L.
V.
Shavinia
(Ed.),
The
international

48. 48
handbook
on
innovation
(pp.
388-­‐400).
Oxford,
United
Kingdom:
Elsevier.
Kurt,
L.,
Kurt,
W.,
Medaille,
A.
(2010).
The
power
of
play:
Fostering
creativity
and
innovation
in
libraries.
Journal
of
Library
Innovation,
1(1),
8–23.
Kurtzberg,
T.R.
and
Amabile,
T.M.
(2000-­‐2001).
From
Guilford
to
creative
synergy:
Opening
the
black
box
of
team
level
creativity.
Creativity
Research
Journal,
13,
285-­‐294.
Isen,
A.
M.,
Clark,
M.,
Schwartz,
M.
F.
(1976).
Duration
of
the
effect
of
mood
on
helping:
Footprints
on
the
sands
of
time.
Journal
of
Personality
and
Social
Psychology,
34,
385-­‐393.
Isen,
A.M.
Shalker,
T.E
Clark,
M.S.
Karp,
L.
(1978)
Affect,
accessibility
of
material
in
memory
and
behavior:
A
cognitive
loop?
Journal
of
Personality
and
Social
Psychology,
34,
1-­‐12.
Isen,
A.
M.,
Levin,
A.
F.
(1972).
Effect
of
feeling
good
on
helping:
Cookies
and
kindness.
Journal
of
Personality
and
Social
Psychology,
21,
384-­‐388.
Lapchick,
R.
(2011)
White
man
continue
to
dominate
advertising
agencies:
A
study
of
the
Super
Bowl
2011
Ads.
Produced
at
the
request
of
the
National
Association
for
the
Advancement
of
Colored
People
(NAACP)
and
Mehri
Skalet,
PLLC.
Institute
for
Diversity
and
Ethics
in
Sport.
University
of
Central
Florida
(UCF)
Lehrer,
J.
(2012).
Imagine.
How
creativity
works.
Boston:
Houghton
Mifflin
Harcourt.
Leiss,
W.,
Kline,
S.,
Jhally,
S.,
Botterill,
J.
(2004).
Social
communication
in
advertising:
Consumption
in
the
mediated
marketplace
(3rd
ed.).
New
York,
NY:
Routledge.
Leonard,
F.
and
W.
Swap
(1999).
When
sparks
fly:
Igniting
creativity
in
groups.
Boston,
MA:
Harvard
Business
School
Press.
Levi,
D.
(
2011).
Group
Dynamics
for
Teams.
3rd
Edition.
Sage
Publications
Lieberman,
J.N.
(1977).
Playfulness.
New
York:
Academic
Press
Lindholm,
A.
and
Levainen,
K.I.
(2006),
A
framework
for
identifying
and
measuring
value
added
by
corporate
real
estate,
Journal
of
Corporate
Real
Estate
Vol.
8,
No.
1
pp.
38-­‐46.
Lumsden
G.
Lumsden
D.L.
(1997)
Communicating
in
Groups
and
Teams:
Sharing
Leadership.
Wadsworth
Lunenburg
F.
C.
(2010).
Communication:
The
Process,
Barriers,
And
Improving
Effectiveness.
Shooling,
Vol.
1.
N.1.
Sam
Houston
State
University
Lukes,
S.
(1974).
Power:
A
radical
view.
New
York:
Macmillan.
Malefyt,
T.
de
Waal
Moeran,
B.
(2003)
Advertising
cultures
–
advertising
cultures:
ethnography
and
culture.
Oxford:
Berg.
Markos,
S.,
Sridevi,
M.
(2010).
Employee
Engagement:
The
Key
to
Improving
Performance.
International
Journal
Of
Business
Management,
5(12),
89-­‐96.
McLeod,
P.
L.,
Lobel,
S.
A.,
Cox,
T.
H.
(1996).
Ethnic
diversity
and
creativity
in
small
groups.

49. 49
Small
Group
Research,
27(2),
248-­‐264.
McMahon,
Wernsman
Parnes
(2001)
Understanding
prosocial
behaviors:
the
impact
of
empathy
and
gender
among
African
American
adolescents.
Health
Journal,
vol.39.
Men,
L.
(2012).
The
Effects
of
Organizational
Leadership
on
Strategic
Internal
Communication
and
Employee
Outcomes.
Open
Access
Dissertations.
University
of
Miami.
Paper
796.
Miller,
D.
T.
(1999).
The
norm
of
self-­‐interest.
American
Psychologist,
54,
1053-­‐1060
Mitchell,
D.
H.,
Eckstein,
D.
(2009).
Jury
dynamics
and
decision-­‐making;
A
prescription
for
groupthink.
International
Journal
of
Academic
Research,
1(1),
163-­‐169.
Mintzberg,
H.
(1979).
The
Structuring
of
Organizations,
Englewood
Cliffs,
Prentice-­‐Hall
Inc.
Mowday,
R.T.,
Porter,
L.W.
and
Steers,
R.M.
(1982)
Employee-­‐organization
linkages:
The
psychology
of
commitment,
absenteeism,
and
turnover.
London:
Academic
Press.
Moeran,
B.
(2009).
The
organization
of
creativity
in
Japanese
advertising
production.
Human
Relations
Vol.
62,963-­‐985.
Sage
Publications.
Montuori
A.
The
complexity
of
improvisation
and
the
improvisation
of
complexity.
Social
science,
art,
and
creativity.
Hum
Relat.
2003;56(2):237–55
Murray,
N.,
Sujan,
H.,
Hirt,
E.
R.,
Sujan,
M.
(1990).
The
influence
of
mood
on
categorization:
A
cognitive
flexibility
interpretation.
Journal
of
Personality
and
Social
Psychology,
59,
411–425.
Neuman,
G.
A.,
Wright,
J.
(1999).
Team
eVectiveness:
Beyond
skills
and
cognitive
ability.
Journal
of
Applied
Psychology,
84,
376–389.
Norworol,
Z.
Zbigniew,
M.
Fafrowicz,
T.
Marek.
W.
Schaufeli,
C.
Maslach,
T.
Marek,
ed.
1993.
Impact
of
professional
burnout
on
creativity
and
innovation,
163
-­‐
175,
.
Ogilvy,
D.
(1985)
Ogilvy
on
Advertising.
New
York,
Vintage
Books
Park,
W.
(2000).
A
comprehensive
empirical
investigation
of
the
relationships
among
variables
of
the
groupthink
model.
Journal
of
Organizational
Behavior,
21,
873–887
Parker,
S.
K.,
Wall,
T.
D.
(1998).
Job
and
work
design:
Organizing
work
to
promote
well-­‐being
and
effectiveness.
San
Francisco,
CA:
Sage.
Pasmore,
W.
(1988).
Designing
Effective
Organizations:
The
Sociotechnical
System
Perpective.
New
York:Wiley
Penner,
L.
A.,
Dovidio,
J.
F.,
Piliavin,
J.
A.,
Schroeder,
D.
A.
(2005).
Prosocial
behavior:
Multilevel
perspectives.
Annual
Review
of
Psychology,
56,
365-­‐392.
Perlow,
L.,
Weeks,
J.
(2002).
Who’s
helping
whom?
Layers
of
culture
and
workplace
behavior.
Journal
of
Organizational
Behavior,
23,
345-­‐361.
Perry,
P.
(1992).
Strategic
Improvising:
How
to
formulate
and
implement
competitive
strategies
in
concert;
Organisational
Dynamics,
vl.19
n.
4)

50. 50
Peterson,
C.,
Park,
N.,
Seligman,
M.
E.
P.
(2005).
Assessment
of
character
strengths.
Psychologists’
New
York:
Oxford
University
Press.
Piccolo,
R.
F.,
Colquitt,
J.
A.
(2006).
Transformational
leadership
and
job
behaviors:
The
mediating
role
of
core
job
characteristics.
Academy
of
Management
Journal,
49:
327–340.
Rackham,
H.
(1944)
Aristotle
in
23
Volumes,
Vol.
21,
Cambridge,
MA,
Harvard
University
Press;
London,
William
Heinemann
Ltd.
Rhymer, R.(2011)
Business
thinkers
who
changed
the
world
:
the
management
gurus
and
mavericks
who
changed
the
way
we
think
about
business.
London:
Kogan
Page
Limited
Ricchiuto,
J.
(1952)
Collaborative
creativity:
unleashing
the
power
of
shared
thinking.
Akron,
Ohio
:
Oakhill
Press.
Ryan,
R.
M.,
Deci,
E.
L.
(2001).
To
be
happy
or
to
be
self-­‐fulfilled:
A
review
of
research
on
hedonic
and
eudaimonic
well-­‐being.
Annual
Review
of
Psychology
(Vol.
52;
141-­‐166).
Palo
Alto,
CA:
Annual
Reviews/
Inc.
Ryan,
R.
M.,
Deci,
E.
L.,
Grolnick,
W.
S.,
LaGuardia,
J.
G.
(2006).
The
significance
of
autonomy
and
autonomy
support
in
psychological
developmentand
psychopathology.
In
D.
Cicchetti
D.
Cohen
(Eds.)
Developmental
Psychopathology:
Volume
1,
Theory
and
Methods
(2nd
Edition,
pp.
295-­‐849).
New
York:
John
Wiley
Sons.
Robinson,
K.
(2009).
The
element.
New
York:
Viking
Penguin.
Roschelle,
J.,
Teasley,
S.
(1995).
The
construction
of
shared
knowledge
in
collaborative
problem
solving.
In
C.
O'Malley
(Ed.),
Computer-­‐supported
collaborative
learning
(pp.
69-­‐197).
Berlin,
Germany:
Springer
Verlag.
Rose,
J.
D.
(2011).
Diverse
Perspectives
on
the
Groupthink
Theory
–
A
Literary
Review.
Emerging
Leadership
Journeys,
Vol.
4
Iss.
1,
2011,
pp.
37-­‐
57.
Regent
University
School
of
Global
Leadership
Entrepreneurship
Rosenhan,D.L.,Salovey,P.,Hargis,K.(1981).The
joys
of
helping:
Focus
of
helping:
Focus
of
attention
mediates
the
impact
of
positive
affect
on
altruism.
Journal
of
Personality
and
Social
Psychology,
40,
899-­‐905.
Russ,
S.W.,
Robins,
L
and
Beth
A.
(1999).
“Pretend
Play:
Longitudinal
Prediction
of
Creativity
and
Affect
in
Fantasy
in
Children.”
Creativity
Research
Journal
12:129–39.
Sawyer,
R.
K.
(2003).
Group
creativity:
Music,
theater,
collaboration.
Mahwah,
NJ:
Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Sawyer,
R.
K.
(2007)
Group
Genius:
The
creative
power
of
collaboration.
New
York,
Perseus
Books
Group,
NY:
Basic
books.
Scott,
R.
W.
(1987).
Organizations:
Rational,
Natural
and
Open
Systems,
Englewood
Cliffs:
Prentice-­‐Hall.
Shamir,
B.,
House,
R.
J.,
Arthur,
M.
B.
(1993).
The
motivational
effects
of
charismatic
leadership:
A
self-­‐
concept
based
theory.
Organization
Science,
4:
577–594.

51. 51
Sheehan,
B.
(2013)
Lovemarks.
How
the
world’s
top
marketers
make
emotional
connectictions
to
win
in
the
marketplace.
N.Y:
Power
House
Book.
Sheer,
V.
C.
(2011).
Teenagers’
use
of
MSN
features,
discussion
topics,
and
online
friendship
development:
The
impact
of
media
richness
and
communication
control.
Communication
Quarterly,
59,
82-­‐103.
Silverman
D.
(1970)
The
Theory
of
Organisations.
London:
Heinemann;
Sullivan
Fisherman
(2013)The
Org:
The
Underlying
Logic
of
the
Office:
Twelve
Singer,
T.,
Seymour,
B.,
O’Doherty,
J.,
Kaube,
H.,
Dolan,
R.,
Frith,
C.
D.
(2004).
Empathy
for
pain
involves
the
affective
but
not
sensory
components
of
pain.
Science,
303(5661),
1157-­‐
1162.
Shiv,
B.
Fedorikhan,
A.
(1999)
Heart
Mind
in
Conflict:
The
interplay
of
Affect
and
Cognition
in
Consumer
Decision
Making,
Journal
of
Consumer
Research
Vol.
26,
Issue
3:
278-­‐292
Shneiderman,
B.,
Fischer,
G.,
Czerwinski,
M.,
Resnick,
M.,
Myers,
B.,
Candy,
L.
(2006).
Creativity
support
tools:
Report
from
a
US
NSF
sponsored
workshop.
International
Journal
of
Human-­‐Computer
Interaction
(IJHCI).
Skilton,
P.
F.
(2008).
Similarity,
familiarity
and
access
to
elite
work
in
Hollywood:
Employer
and
employee
characteristics
in
breakthrough
employment.
Human
Relations,
61:
1743-­‐1774.
Simonton,
D.K.
(1999).
Creative
productivity:
A
Predictive
and
explanatory
model
of
Career
Trajectories
and
landmarks.
Psychology
review
104,
n.
1
New
York:
Cambridge
University
Press
Smidts,
A.,
Pruyn,
A.
T.
H.,
Van
Riel,
C.
B.
M.
(2001).
The
impact
of
employee
communication
and
perceived
external
prestige
on
organizational
identification.
The
Academy
of
Management
Journal,
49,
1051–1062.
Stahl,
G.
(2006).
Group
cognition:
Computer
support
for
building
collaborative
knowledge.
Cambridge,
MA:
MIT
Press
Staub,
E.
(1979).
Positive
social
behavior
and
morality:
Socialization
and
development
(Vol.
2).
New
York:
Academic
Press.
Strayer,
J.
(1996).
Empathy,
emotional
expressiveness,
and
prosocial
behaviors.
Child
Development
(67)
449-­‐470.
Suls.
J.P.
Forgas,
ed.
2001.
Affect,
stress,
and
personality,
392
–
409.
Swartz,
D.
(Culture
and
power
:
the
sociology
of
Pierre
Bourdieu. University
of
Chicago
Press
Sweetman,
P.
(2009).
Revealing
habitus,
illuminating
practice:
Bourdieu,
photography
and
visual
methods,
The
Sociological
Review,
57
(3):
491-­‐511
Tichenor,
P.J.,
Donohue
G.A.,
Olien
C.N.
(1970)
Mass
media
flow
and
differential
growth
in
knowledge.
Public
Opinion
Q.
34
(Summer):
159-­‐170.

52. 52
Thomsett,
R.
(1980).
People
and
Project
Management,
Yourdon,
New
York,
NY.
Townley,
B.,
Beech,
N.
McKinlay
A.
(2009).
Managing
in
the
creative
industries:
Managing
the
motley
crew.
Human
Relations,
Vol.
62
(7)
,pp.
939-­‐962.
Trist,
E.
(1981).
The
evolution
of
Socio-­‐technical
systems.
Toronto,
Ontario:
Quality
of
working
life
centre.
Turiera,
T.
Cross,
S.
(2013).
Co-­‐business:
50
examples
of
business
collaboration.
Barcelona:
Informia.
Uchida,Y.
Norasakkunkit,
V.
and
Kitayama
S.
(2004)
Cultural
constructions
of
happiness:
theory
and
empirical
evidence
Journal
of
Happiness
Studies
5:
223–239,
2004.
Uzzi,
B.
Spiro
J.
(2005)
Collaboration
and
creativity:
The
small
world
problem.
American
Journal
of
Sociology,
111:
447–504.
Van
de
Ven,
A
Delbecq,
A.
L.
(1986)
Nominal
versus
interacting
group
process
for
committee
decision-­‐making
effectiveness
Academy
of
Management
Journal
ProQuest
Business
Collection
.
Waldron,
M.W.
(1994b).
Management
and
supervision.
In
D.
Blackburn
(Ed.),
Extension
handbook:
Processes
and
practices.
Toronto:
Thompson
Educational
Publishing.
Watson,
D.
(2000).
Mood
and
Temperament,
New
York:
Guildford
Press
Watzlawick,P.,
Bavelas,
J.B.
Jackson,
D.D.
(1967).
Pragmatics
of
Human
Communication,
,
New
York:
Norton
Co.
Inc
Webster,
J.
Martocchio,
J.J.
(1992).
Microcomputer
playfulness:
Development
of
a
measure
with
workplace
implications.
MIS
Quarterly,
16:
201-­‐226.
Weisbord,
M.
R.
(1987).
Productive
Workplaces:
Organizing
and
Managing
for
Dignity,
Meaning
and
Community,
,
San
Francisco:
Jossey-­‐Bass
West,
R.
E.,
Hannafin,
M.
J.
(2011).
Learning
to
design
collaboratively:
Participation
of
student
designers
in
a
Community
of
Innovation.
Instructional
Science,
Vol.
39(6),
821-­‐841.
West,
R.E.,Tateishi,I.,Wright,G.A.,Fonoimoana,M.(2012).
Innovation
101:
Promoting
undergraduate
innovation
through
a
two-­‐day
boot
camp.
Creativity
Research
Journal,
24(2).
Woodruffe,
C.
CIPD
(2006).
Reflection
on
employeee
engagement.
Nationwide
survey
on
Engagement.
Zajonc,
R.B.
(1980)
Feeling
and
Thinking:
Preferences
need
no
Inferences.
American
Psychologist
Vol.
35:
151-­‐175
Zajonc,
R.B.
Markus,
H.
(1982)
Affective
and
Cognitive
Factors
in
Preferences,
Journal
of
Consumer
Research
Vol.
9,
Issue
2:
123-­‐131;
Zajonc,
R.B.
Markus,
H.
(1985)
Must
All
Affect
Be
Mediated
By
Cognition?
Journal
of
Consumer
Research
Vol.
12,
Issue
3:
363-­‐364
Zhou,
Q.,
N.
Eisenberg,
S.
H.
Losoya,
R.
A.
Fabes,
M.
Reiser,
I.
K.
Guthrie,
B.
C.
Murphy,
A.
J.

53. 53
Cumberland,
and
S.
A.
Shepard.
2002.
The
relations
of
parental
warmth
and
positive
expressiveness
to
children’s
empathy-­‐related
responding
and
social
functioning:
A
longitudinal
study.
Child
Development
73:
893-­‐915.
Pixar
Catmull,
E.
(2008).
How
Pixar
fosters
Collective
Creativity.
Harvard
Business
Review,
U.S.
and
Canada.
Catmull,
Ed;
Amy
Wallace
(2014).
Creativity
Inc.:
Overcoming
the
Unseen
Forces
That
Stand
in
the
Way
of
True
Inspiration.
New
York:
Random
House
Paik,
K.
(2007)
To
infinity
and
beyond!:
the
story
of
Pixar
Animation
studios:
London,
Virgin
Books.
The
Pixar
Story,
documentary
directed
by
Leslie
Iwerks.
BBC
Three
Documentary
(2012)
Pixar
25
magic
moments.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPeDGDQHYEQ
BBC
Documentary
(2003)
Imagine:
from
Pencils
to
Pixelshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lnsBLF5cYpg
Walt
Disney
Studio
(2011)
A
Day
In
The
Life
of
John
Lasseter
McKinsey
Quarterly
(2008)
Innovation
lessons
from
Pixar:
An
interview
with
Oscar-­‐winning
director
Brad
Bird
http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/innovation/innovation_lessons_from_pixar_an_intervie
w_with_oscar-­‐winning_director_brad_bird
Online
sources
BBC
Music
/
Major
Lazer
project
http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/reviews/z8cg
Major
Lazer
project:
http://thecreatorsproject.vice.com/creators/diplo
Benner,
T.
(2010).
Top
10agencies
with
the
best
company
culturehttp://www.agencypost.com/top-­‐10-­‐agencies-­‐with-­‐the-­‐best-­‐company-­‐culture
Cain,
S.
(2012).
The
power
of
Introverts
–
TED
Talk
-­‐
http://www.ted.com/talks/susan_cain_the_power_of_introverts
Creative
Swap
London.
http://www.creativeswap.co/reasons-­‐to-­‐join.php
Enock,
K.
(2006).
Motivation,
creativity
and
innovation
in
individuals,
and
its
relationship
to
group
and
team
dynamics.
http://www.healthknowledge.org.uk/public-­‐health-­‐
textbook/organisation-­‐management/5a-­‐understanding-­‐itd/motivation-­‐creativity-­‐
innovation2

54. 54
Gordon,
K.
(2013).
Homogeneity
Is
the
Enemy
of
Creativity
So
why
are
we
so
male?
And
so
white?
http://www.commarts.com/columns/homogeneity-­‐
enemy
Hassett,
R.
(2014).
Interview
of
Charles
Lumpkin,
social
media
advertising
professional
http://www.tellmesomethingidontalreadyknow.com/2012/04/20/interview-­‐of-­‐charles-­‐
lumpkin-­‐social-­‐media-­‐prof/
Seifter,
H.
(2001)
The
Conductor-­‐less
Orchestra
in
the
journal
Leader
to
Leader,
No.
21
Summer

55. 55
Appendix
1.
Thinking
Aloud.
(2013
)BYU
Broadcasting
Radio.
Interview
with
Richard
West,
assistant
professor
at
the
department
of
instructional
psychology
and
technology
at
Bringham
Young
University
about
Group
Creativity.

56. 56
Appendix
2
Campaigns
from
Ufficio
Comunicazione
Regione
Lazio
–
Roma
Appendix
3.
Campaign
from
Newtork
Comunicazione
-­‐
Milano

57. 57
Appendix
4.
Italian
Questionnaire
Questo
questionario
è
stato
realizzato
ai
fini
di
analizzare
l’industria
pubblicitaria
e
il
livello
con
cui
caratteristiche
del
pensiero
di
gruppo/collaborativo
sono
state
adottate
nella
struttura
interna
del
suo
approccio
creativo.
Le
prestazioni
del
gruppo
di
lavoro
sono
in
grado
di
influenzare
notevolmente
il
successo
di
un’organizzazione:
esempi
pratici
e
ricerche
l’hanno
dimostrato
ma
spesso
il
termine
“team
work
“
è
male
interpretato
o
non
sfruttato
al
massimo
dalle
organizzazioni.
In
ambito
di
ricerca,
la
differenza
tra
i
leader
dell’innovazione
e
il
resto
dl
mondo
sembra
essere
l’uso
che
l’organizzazione
fa
del
gruppo
di
lavoro:
c’è
una
chiara
differenza
tra
lavoro
di
squadra
e
pensiero
collaborativo.
Quest’ultimo
è
una
porta
aperta
sull’innovazione.
Gruppi
di
persone
che
collaborano
ai
fini
del
raggiungimento
di
un
unico
e
identificato
scopo
comune:
il
successo
dell’organizzazione
che,
a
sua
volta,
fornisce
le
condizioni
ideali
per
rafforzare
le
dinamiche
di
gruppo.
Da
Google
“managment
dell’innovazione”
al
“playground
creativo”
di
Pixar
numerosi
sono
gli
esempi
di
organizzazioni
di
successo
che
hanno
adottato
un
approccio
di
stile
collaborativo
di
gruppo
nel
trattamento
delle
loro
attività
creative.
Nel
mio
studio
sostengo
apertamente
che
l’uso
del
pensiero
collettivo/collaborativo
sia
il
futuro
delle
agenzie
pubblicitarie
e
che
le
prestazioni
esercitate
dal
gruppo
che
si
auto
percepisce
come
singola
unità
rendano
piu
di
qualsiasi
forma
di
pensiero
individuale.
Grazie
al
Suo
supporto
nella
compilazione
del
questionario
potrò
acquisire
un’idea
piu
dettagliata
del
sistema
dall’interno
e
contribuire
alla
ricerca
sulle
dinamiche
sottostanti
all’identità
di
gruppo.
Grazie
per
l’attenzione.
Per
maggiori
dettagli
sul
progetto
non
esiti
a
contattarmi
al
seguente
indirizzo
alessia.acciari@yahoo.com
This
questionnaire
is
focused
on
the
advertising
industry
as
the
main
field
of
my
studies,
and
it
has
been
created
to
investigate
the
extent
to
which
advertising
agencies
have
adopted
characteristics
of
group/collaborative
thinking
within
their
internal
structure.
Teams
have
enormous
potential
in
leading
an
organisation’s
success:
practical
examples
from
successful
organisations
and
researches
have
deeply
demonstrated
it
from
Google
“20
per
cent
innovation
time”
to
Pixar’s
creative
playground
environment.
The
difference
between
the
leaders
in
innovation
and
the
rest
of
the
world
seems
to
be
how
they
use
their
teams:
there
is
a
clear
difference
between
teamwork
and
collaborative
thinking.
Collaborative
thinking
is
an
open
door
to
innovation:
a
community
of
people
working
together
focused
on
the
success
of
the
organisation
that
itself
provides
the
best
group
working
conditions.
I
believe
collaborative
thinking
to
be
the
future
of
advertising
agencies.
My
aim
is
to
investigate
how
this
approach
may
be
implemented
in
the
way
to
improve
creative
practices.
Thanks
to
your
support
in
completing
this
questionnaire,
I
will
gain
a
clearer
idea
on
the
current
situation
of
the
advertising
world
from
within.
This
will
support
the
quality
of
my
work
as
well
as
the
research
in
group
dynamics
in
organisations.
Thanks
for
your
attention.
For
more
details
on
the
project
do
not
hesitate
to
contact
me
at
the
following
address
or
on
my
LinkedIn
page.
alessia.acciari@yahoo.com

58. 58
La
prego
di
selezionare
una
risposta,
contrassegnarla
o
cambiare
colore
della
lettera
scelta.
“WE
are
smarter
then
any
other
ME”
Citazione:
Don
Tapscott
,
2007
Fotografia:
FibonARTcci
Art
Potrait
Project,
2014

59. 59
1.
Quale
è
il
suo
ruolo
nell’agenzia?
2. Da quanti anni lavora nell’ industria pubblicitaria?
a)
Meno
di
5
b)
Da
6
a
10
c)
Da
11
a
20
d)
Piu
di
20
3. Quanto spesso si trova a condividere le sue idee con il suo supervisore?
a)
Spesso
b)
Ogni
volta
che
ne
ho
bisogno
c) Solamente alla fine del progetto
d) Raramente
4.
Come
descriverebbe
il
tipo
di
relazione
tra
lei
e
il
suo
manager/supervisor?
a)
Aperta
e
amichevole
b)
Molto
formale
c)
Inesistente
d)
Dipendente-­‐Capo
e)
Altro
5. In quale tipo di leadership riconosce
l’organizzazione in cui lavora?
a)
Organizazione
A
–
Molto
gerarchico
b) Organizzazione B – Poco gerarchico
6.
Come
descriverebbe
il
suo
ambiente
di
lavoro
secondo
la
variabile
“interazione
con
i
colleghi”?
a)
Supportata
dall’organizzazione
b)
Formale
c)
Informale
d)
Vincolata
dall’organizazione
7.
Come
le
piacerebbe
che
fosse?
a)
Supportata
dall’
organizzazione
b)
Formale
c)
Informale
d)
Vincolata
dall’organizzazione
8.
Partecipa
spesso
alla
fase
di
formulazione
di
idee
in
risposta
ad
un
briefing?
a)
Si
b) No

60. 60
c)
Dipende
d)
Mai
9.
Chi
partecipa
alla
formulazione
di
idee
in
risposta
ad
un
briefing?
a) Copy writer e art directors
b)
Creativi
e
esecutivi
b) Creativi e designers
c) Creativi, esecutivi, designers, accounts, produzione, il cliente.
d) Altro
10. Quanto tempo spende lavorando individualmente?
a)
20%
b)
Metà
del
tempo
c)
La
maggior
parte
del
tempo
d)
Mai
11. Preferisce lavorare individualmente o in gruppo?
a)
Meglio
in
gruppo
b) Meglio individualmente
c) Dipende
dal
compito
d) Non
so
rispondere
12. Qual’è, secondo lei, la condizione ottimale per produrre un alto standard di lavoro creativo?
a)
Produzione
individuale
b) Produzione collettiva
c) Alta percezione di autonomia
d) Compiti
strutturati
e
alto
livello
di
controllo
13. Condivide l’ ambiente di lavoro con altre persone?
a)
Si
b) No
14.
Se
si,
con
quante
persone
condivide
lo
spazio
di
lavoro?
a) Una
b) Due
c) Tre
d) Altro
15. Come definirebbe il livello di collaborazione con I suoi collechi?
a) Assolutamente rilevante
b) Importante
c) Marginale
d) Inesistente
16. Come descriverebbe la geografia del suo ambiente di lavoro?
a) Aperto a interazioni casuali
b) Privato
c) Ben connesso, centrale
d) Periferico, isolato
17. Come descriverebbe il suo ambiente di lavoro ideale?
a) Spazio aperto per cooperare
b) Spazio chiuso per concetrarsi
c) Spazio condiviso e intercambiabile
d) Spazio di lavoro auotcostruito secondo esigenza
18. Quanto volte si è ritrovato nella situazione raffigurata durante la formulazione di idee in risposta ad un briefing?

61. 61
19. Se la risposta è “mai” o “raramente”, le piacerebbe provare questa esperienza?
a) Assosultamente si
b) Assolutamente
no
c)
Non
sono
interessato
d)
Mi
piacerebbe
provare
20.
Se
la
sua
risposta
è
stata
“spesso”
o
“qualche
volta”,
come
giudica
questa
esperienza?
a) Positiva
b) Più
che
positiva
c) Negativa
d) Assolutamente
negativa
21.
Le
piacerebbe
speriementare
un
modello
collaborativo
di
gruppo
durante
tutto
il
percorso
di
una
campagna
pubblicitaria/di
comunicazione?
a)
Mi
piacerebbe
b)
Non
mi
piacerebbe
c) Non lo so
d) Mi piacerebbe provare prima di dire di si o no
22. Si sentirebbe a suo agio a condividere una sua idea di fronte ad un gruppo di persone?
a) Si
b) No
c) Non
credo
proprio
d) Penso
di
si
22. Ha mai lavorato per un agenzia di pubblicità che abbia adottato un modello collaborativo di gruppo in cui ogni
singola voce conta indipendentemente dal ruolo che ricopre?
a) Piu di una
b) Raramente
c) Mai
d) Spesso
23. Quale intratteniemento vorrebbe trovare nel suo posto di lavoro ideale??
a)
Tavolo
da
ping-­‐pong/
bigliardino
a) Spesso
b) Raramente
c) Qualche volta
d) Mai

62. 62
b) Piscina
c) Cocktail Bar
d) Altro
24.
Se
le
venisse
proposto
un
lavoro
in
un
agenzia
pubblicitaria
che
prevedesse
il
metodo
a
struttura
orizzontale
a
prescindere
dalla
sua
qualifica
professionale,
l’abbattimento
di
ogni
barriera
comunicativa
tra
I
vari
settori
e
che
non
escluda
attività
ricreative,
quanto
sarebbe
interessato
a
questa
posizione?
a) Decisamente interessato
b) Non
interessato
c) Da
considerare
d) Non
sò
Thanks
for
your
time.
To
be
sent
to:
alessia.acciari@yahoo.com

63. 63
Appendix
5.
English
Translated
Questionnaire
1.
What
is
your
title
within
the
agency?
4. How many years have you been in the industry for?
a)
Less
than
5
b)
6
to
10
c)
11
to
20
d)
More
than
20
5. How often do you share your ideas with your line manager?
a)
Often
b)
Every
time
I
want
e) At the final stage
f) Rarely
4.
What
kind
of
relationship
do
you
have
with
your
senior
managers?
a)
Open-­‐friendly
relationship
b)
Pretty
formal
relationship
c)
No
relationship
d)
Worker-­‐employer
relationship
6. Which style of leadership would you recognise related to the organisation you work in?
a)
Organization
A
–
Fixed
positions,
High
level
of
hierarchy
b) Organization B – Flat system, Low level of hierarchy
6.
How
would
you
describe
your
work
environment
in
terms
of
structure
and
interaction
with
your
colleagues?
a)
Supported
by
the
organisation
b)
Formal
c)
Informal
d)
Threatened
by
the
organisation
7.
How
would
you
like
it
to
be
like?
a)
Supported
by
the
organisation
b)
Formal
c)
Informal
d)
Threatened
by
the
organisation
8.
Are
you
usually
involved
in
the
creative
ideation
process?
a)
Yes
c) No
c)
Never
d)
Sometimes
9.
Who
is
involved
in
the
creative
ideation
process?

64. 64
e) Copy writer and art directors
b)
Creatives
and
executives
e) Creatives and designers
f) Creatives, executives, designers, accounts, production, the client.
g) Other
14. How much time do you spend working on your own?
a)
20%
b)
Half
of
the
time
c)
More
than
half
of
the
time
d)
Never
e)
Other
15. Do you work better in a group or individually?
a)
Better
in
group
f) Better individually
g) Depends
on
the
task
h) I
don’t
know
16. Which is for you the optimal condition to produce a high standard ofcreative work?
a)
Solo
production
e) Collaborative production
f) Highly perception of autonomy
g) Highly
structured
and
supervised
work
17. Do you share your office space with other people?
a)
Yes
c) No
14.
If
yes,
how
many
people
do
you
share
the
office
with?
e) One
f)Two
g) Three
h) Other
19. How would you define the degree of collaboration with your colleagues?
e) Absolutely relevant
f) Important
g) Marginal
h) Non existent
20. How would you describe the geography of your office space?
e) Open to casual interactions
f)Private
g) Well connected/ Central
h) Periferic/ distanced
21. How would you define your ideal physical working space?
e) Open working space
f) Close and individual working space
g) Shared and informal working space
h) Not assigned position working space
22. How often have you found yourself into this working situation during the idea generation stage?

65. 65
19. If never or rarely, how much would you like to see yourself in this working situation?
e) Extremely
f) Not
at
all
c)
Not
interested
d)
Would
love
to
try
20. If usually or sometimes, how do you judge this experience?
e) Positive
f)More
than
positive
g) Negative
h) Absolutely
negative
21.
To
what
extent
would
you
like
to
be
involved
in
a
collaborative
creative
thinking
model?
a)
I
would
love
to
b)
I
don’t
g) I don’t know
h) I would try before to say yes or no
23. Do you feel threatened to share your ideas in front of a large group of people?
e) I do
f) I
do
not
g) I
do
not
think
so
h) I
think
so
24. Have you ever experienced this model in an advertising agency?
e) Often
f) Rarely
g) Never
h) Sometimes
25. What entertainment would you like to find in your ideal working place?
e) Usually
f)Rarely
g) Sometimes
h) Never

66. 66
a)
Table
tennis
/Foot
ball
table
e) Pool
f) Cocktail Bar
g) Other
26. To what
extent would you apply for a creative job where there are no fixed positions, just project-related tasks and spaces
designed to support communication between colleagues in a playful environment?
e) Definitely
f)Never
g) Maybe
h) To
consider