01
Need for Conscious Creativity
Creatives often experience significant challenges when engaging in collaboration, particularly due to fears of losing their individual voice in the process. This fear is not unfounded: research highlights that groupthink, where the desire for consensus suppresses dissenting opinions, can lead to homogenized outcomes that fail to capture individual distinctiveness (Janis, 1982). Similarly, evaluation apprehension, or the fear of negative judgment, may cause individuals to withhold unconventional ideas, stifling the individual and group’s creativity and potential for innovation (Diehl & Stroebe, 1987). Furthermore, production blocking which occurs when individuals are unable to contribute ideas due to the “structured” nature of group discussions, disrupts creative flow and diminishes the expression of unique perspectives (Nijstad & Stroebe, 2006). These dynamics often foster apprehension among creatives, as they feel their personal contributions may be overshadowed or diluted in collaborative settings, ultimately undermining the authenticity of their work.
This tension highlights the paradoxical role of structure in collaborative creativity. While poorly designed structures, such as rigid turn-taking or hierarchical dynamics, can inhibit creativity and exacerbate these challenges, research increasingly shows that well-designed structures can counteract such dysfunctions. Kim and Zhong (2022) demonstrate that creativity emerges most effectively in environments that balance structure with freedom, where clear frameworks guide exploration without stifling originality. Johnson's (2020) findings further emphasize that moderately structured tasks enhance team creativity by reducing collaborative inefficiencies, such as groupthink and production blocking, while fostering psychological safety for individuals. In this context, structure is not an inhibitor but a tool to address the very fears creatives associate with collaboration.
The concept of “structured creativity” outlines how intentional design can transform collaboration into a synergistic process. IDEO, a world-renowned design consultancy, exemplifies this approach through its Design Thinking framework. By establishing organized channels for feedback and contribution—accessible to all team members, from interns to executives—IDEO demonstrates how structured approaches can catalyze transformative innovation. However, frameworks like these reveal a critical gap: while they focus on process, they often neglect the interpersonal dynamics that enable effective collaboration. Hokanson and Kenny (2020) critique this limitation, arguing that such approaches must go beyond procedural guidance to address how diverse individuals can work together authentically within structured environments. To truly foster creativity, structure must not only organize the process but also empower people to work within collaborative frameworks.
Traditional collaboration frameworks, which focus on clear communication, goal alignment, and equitable participation, provide foundational tools but often overlook the individuals engaging in collaboration. However, the real challenge lies not in the frameworks themselves but in the individuals who are collaborating. An individual’s ego, fear of vulnerability, and resistance to compromise can undermine even the most well-designed structures. Creatives, in particular, often see their work as an extension of their identity, which can fuel passion and dedication, but also lead to heightened sensitivity to feedback and a reluctance to relinquish control (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996). To reimagine collaboration in creative contexts, the focus must shift to the individual’s mindset, encouraging creatives to set aside the ego and reconceptualize the self within the collective.
This reframing starts with recognizing that collaboration is not a threat to individuality but a means to expand creative potential. By cultivating humility and embracing the idea that creativity thrives in interconnectedness, individuals can shift from a mindset of ownership to one of co-creation. Dweck’s (2006) research on the “growth mindset” supports this, showing that individuals who view challenges and feedback as opportunities for growth are better equipped to succeed in collaborative contexts.
As Sawyer (2012) argues, creativity is inherently a distributed process where ideas are built upon, transformed, and enriched through interaction. When individuals release their attachment to the singular genius myth, they open themselves to the exponential possibilities of collective innovation.
During my time at Brown University and Rhode Island School of Design, I have worked as an artist, designer, and writer. Upon reflecting on these last five years, one truth became abundantly clear: I have never, and will never, created in isolation. Be in essays for classes, or large textile installations for exhibitions around the world, my work has always been collaborative. Everything I produce, even creations bearing only my name, are a product of a much larger interconnected network of individuals who I have worked with or been inspired by.
Yet, it was only this year that I started to refer to my practice as a “collaborative practice.” Being at RISD, I believed that to ask for help was a sign of weakness. It signaled that “I” was incompetent—that I could not help myself. In our first year, we are taught basic woodworking, orthographic sketching, digital animation, book-binding, and many other fundamental artistic skills. We are expected to know a little bit of everything—and help ourselves with our specialized skills. At the time, I definitely thought I was a master of the various domains I had waddled in.
It seems obvious right? That one person cannot do it all? As a student at RISD, I did not have that reflexivity until I was confronted with challenges I could not surpass by myself. In 2021 I started developing a publication for the South Asian community on College Hill. I was writing articles, editing them myself, and playing around with book design on Adobe InDesign. One day, my roommate Mehek—a student of Graphic Design—peaked into my computer as I assembled a clumsy document for an article on the Nepalese flag. She asked me what I was working on. I went on a thirty-minute spiel about how the Nepalese flag is the only non-quadrilateral flag in the world. She said, “Why don’t you structure the page to reflect the shape of the flag? It could be fun.” In that moment, I realized that even in my wildest dreams, I could not have come up with that idea. In our conversation—where I shared my knowledge about a topic that interested me, and Mehek shared her ideas on my work—a new, emergent concept was born. I realized that I, in fact, could not do it all. I needed to rely on others. That is the day I embarked on my very first collaboration as an artist.
During the development of my
- “Our intelligence resides not in individual brains but in the collective mind. To function, individuals rely not only on knowledge stored within our skulls but also on knowledge stored elsewhere: in our bodies, in the environment, and especially in other people.”
- ― Steven Sloman & Phillip Fernbach, The Knowledge Illusion: Why We Never Think Alone
Collaboration has always been a deeply rewarding and challenging process for me. Creatives like myself are taught to value our individual voice and unique perspective—a mindset that can make working with others feel like a compromise rather than an opportunity. But the realization that collaboration can facilitate the creation of work that no individual can achieve alone, has the potential to change one’s attitude towards it. I realized that by working together, neither one of us would loose our voices, but rather would amplify each other’s voices. Mehek and I went on to launch
New England’s first publication for the South Asian diaspora—my first large-scale collaborative project. It outlines the inherent nature of creativity as emergent and relational.
Video 1: When you cannot hear the content, all you see is people; It’s not so much about the what and how of collaboration, it’s more about the who. (Video Courtesy of IDEO)