قدرت، ثبات قدرت و خلاقیت

Power hierarchies are an essential aspect of social organization, create stability and social order, and provide individuals with incentives to climb the hierarchical ladder. Extending previous work on power and creativity, we put forward that this relationship critically depends on both the stability of the power hierarchy and the relevance of creative efforts to power. Across three experiments, we show that when power positions are unstable, low power individuals are more flexible thinkers, are less avoidant and process information more globally. Consequently, they achieve more creative insights, especially when being creative is relevant to power. As such, when the power hierarchy is unstable, those lacking power hold the power to creativity.

Power hierarchies are so pervasive across both animal species and humans, that it appears a fundamental feature of social organization. Apart from behavioral manifestations ranging from abuse to benevolence and generosity (e.g., Handgraaf, Van Dijk, Vermunt, Wilke, & De Dreu, 2008), possessing power in and by itself fundamentally influences individuals' information-processing and behavioral tendencies (Fiske, 1993 and Keltner et al., 2003). However, mixed findings emerge for creative performance, with some studies demonstrating that power leads to higher creativity (Galinsky et al., 2008 and Smith and Trope, 2006) while others point to an opposite pattern (Kuhl & Kazen, 2008). In this article we show that the relationship between power and creativity critically depends on both the stability of the power hierarchy and the relevance of creative efforts to power. When the power hierarchy is unstable, individuals with low power employ a global and flexible processing style and become more creative especially when being creative is functional to climbing the ladder. Power leads to higher creativity Power refers to the ability to influence others (Bacharach and Lawler, 1981 and Kelley and Thibaut, 1978), and derives from a variety of power bases, such as someone's position in the hierarchy within a group or organization, or the possession of valuable resources, such as knowledge and expertise (French and Raven, 1959, Lee and Tiedens, 2002, Podsakoff and Schriesheim, 1985 and Yukl and Falbe, 1991). Power hierarchies create social order and stability, and because having power yields control over one's environment and resources to survive and prosper, individuals are motivated to climb the hierarchical ladder. Recent work in psychological science revealed that power has metamorphic effects on power holders (Fiske, 1993 and Keltner et al., 2003). Powerful individuals process information more abstractly and flexibly (Guinote, 2007a, Guinote, 2007b, Smith and Trope, 2006 and Förster, 2009), use less diagnostic and more confirmatory strategies (De Dreu and Van Kleef, 2004 and Leyens et al., 1998), and are less influenced by situational cues (Galinsky et al., 2008) and emotional expressions of others (Van Kleef, De Dreu, Pietroni, & Manstead, 2006). Behaviorally, the powerful take more risks in their decisions (Anderson & Galinsky, 2006), they act more swiftly when facing an annoying obstacle (Galinsky, Gruenfeld, & Magee, 2003) and behave more in a goal-consistent manner (Guinote, 2007a and Guinote, 2007b). The key explanation for these effects proceeds on the basis of the assumption that powerful individuals think and act so as to maintain and increase power (Bruins and Wilke, 1992, Maner et al., 2007 and Maslow, 1937); powerless individuals, in contrast, think and act to protect against possible threat (in part coming from powerful others). As a result, having power leads to approach motivation with its concomitant global attentional focus (Förster, Friedman, Özelsel, & Denzler, 2006). Having power frees one from influence from others, and leads to feelings of safety and security (Friedman & Förster, 2010). Lacking power, in contrast, triggers avoidance motivation, a focus on potential losses, and a narrow attentional focus (Keltner et al., 2003 and Förster et al., 2006). Because both approach motivation (Baas et al., 2008, Friedman and Förster, 2001, Friedman and Förster, 2002 and Friedman and Förster, 2005) and global attentional focus (De Dreu et al., 2011, Förster and Higgins, 2005 and Förster et al., 2006) promote cognitive flexibility, set-breaking and abstract thinking, it follows that powerful individuals also are more creative than their powerless counterparts (Förster, 2009 and Galinsky et al., 2008; Smith & Trope, 2006; but see Kuhl & Kazen, 2008). An interesting implication of this socio-functional perspective on power and cognition is that cognitive processes operate in the service of the underlying motivation to maintain and increase power. Put differently, the tendency among powerful individuals to think globally and display cognitive flexibility should be particularly pronounced when doing so serves the goal of maintaining or expanding power. When creative performance is functionally relevant to one's power position, we would thus expect more creativity than when creative performance is functionally irrelevant. An example of such functionally relevant creativity is when a middle-manager of a company is facing decreasing revenues, and new and creative ideas are needed to turn the situation around. By solving the company's problems in creative ways (e.g., through introducing new products or services, or by increasing market share through creative marketing) a manager can show high competence and may as a consequence be promoted to a higher position. Psychological science provides some support for the idea that creative performance can be boosted when it is functionally relevant. Recent work shows that in addition to costs and risk, being original and creative accrues desirable benefits. For example, being creative increases individuals' attractiveness as a potential mate (Griskevicius, Cialdini, & Kenrick, 2006; Miller, 2000), and helps individuals winning a conflict (De Dreu & Nijstad, 2008).