Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujci20

Creatives in the Office: Personality and the

Environmental Effects of Workspace

Rose Needle & K. L. Mallia

To cite this article: Rose Needle & K. L. Mallia (2020): Creatives in the Office: Personality and the
Environmental Effects of Workspace, Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, DOI:
10.1080/10641734.2020.1770144

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10641734.2020.1770144

Published online: 29 Sep 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 45

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ujci20
JOURNAL OF CURRENT ISSUES & RESEARCH IN ADVERTISING
https://doi.org/10.1080/10641734.2020.1770144

Creatives in the Office: Personality and the Environmental

Effects of Workspace
Rose Needlea and K. L. Malliab
a
Master of Marketing Research, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, USA; bSchool of Journalism and Mass
Communications, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, USA

ABSTRACT
Open-office plans have become the dominant mode for creative workpla-
ces, designed to encourage collaboration. Little scholarly research assesses
the validity of that trend, the conventional wisdom behind it, or the
impact of open environments on creativity, employee productivity, satisfac-
tion, or success. This exploratory study surveys 143 people working in
advertising and the creative industries, assessing perceptions of productiv-
ity and satisfaction with work environment along with personality type. A
majority of respondents yearned for solitude to complete certain tasks.
Findings suggest that open-office environments may indeed undermine
creative productivity, not just among introverts, but others as well.

The office and the office door are nearly extinct. In the past few decades, creative workplaces
have rapidly adopted open-plan office designs, based on the prevailing wisdom that creative ideas
flow from open space and constant collaboration. Open-floor plans are ubiquitous in contempor-
ary advertising agencies, design firms and digital media companies, executed in a variety of con-
figurations such as hives, long tables, and booths. Little research actually explores the validity of
assumptions about successful collaboration arising from proximity, the potential impact of this
type of work environment on creative employee productivity, whether office design or environ-
ment may contribute to or undermine diversity, or how open-office plans may impact an individ-
ual’s creative work, creative career success or growth into leadership. For example, it is well
documented that work culture and work environment are factors that have a differing impact on
the career success of women and men. What about the half of the human population that is
introverted? Does environment play a role in their success in creative industries?
The creative industries depend upon optimal creativity, so it’s no wonder businesses have tried
to enhance it in multiple ways. From adman Alex Osborn’s efforts to codify the creative process
(1953) to Bill Bernbach’s 1960s reconfiguring copywriters and art directors to work together in
teams, creative businesses have sought the creative “holy grail.” Some moved to flatter hierarchies,
employed practices such as brainstorming, brought in experts to encourage team-building,
instilled intra-mural competition to spur better work, and filled offices with playful accoutrements
like drum sets, foosball and ping-pong tables, and more. They attempted to engineer collabor-
ation by tearing down walls bringing people closer, and to make long hours and hard work more
comfortable and congenial with sofas and baristas.
Creative people are the lifeblood of creative industries like advertising. Their ideas and con-
cepts are turned into the products that creative industries make. Not all those employed in cre-
ative industries are considered “creative.” That designation applies to those within the

*CONTACT Rose Needle rose.needle25@uga.edu Master of Marketing Research, University of Georgia, Athens,
Georgia, USA.
ß 2020 American Academy of Advertising
2 R. NEEDLE AND K. L. MALLIA

organization who conceive and create the actual “product” a creative business is selling—be that
an advertisement, package design, video, or illustration.
The creative person and creative process are common to all. And creative people are a tribe
unto themselves. Research suggests that although everyone has the capacity for creativity, not
everyone is able to perform it equally well. Psychologists have identified a host of personality
traits and characteristics that identify highly creative people, and correlate strongly with creativ-
ity—even a “creative personality.” Personality is important in understanding human creativity,
but individual attributes are mediated by other, situational factors—especially in organiza-
tional creativity.
Yet few discussions of creative workspace design consider the traits and characteristics of cre-
ative people. This seems problematic considering the crucial role that environment is known to
play in the creative process, and the acknowledged synergy between person and place in the pro-
duction of creative work. In the creative industries, creative people and personalities intersect
with the environment at work every single day. And the very existence of these businesses relies
on the ability of creative people to do their best work.
Untold creative professionals have complained about their open workspaces—mentioning noise
and distraction and lack of privacy. But could this kind of work environment actually be imped-
ing their creative ability or success? If so, this could have important implications for advertising
and other creative industries—and even greater consequences for introverts, who are biologically
less suited for such environments.
Susan Cain popularized the term “Extrovert Ideal” to describe the dominant cultural prefer-
ence for extroversion, a phenomenon so widespread that most people are unaware of it (Cain
2013). Much-cited and touted Harvard Business School is notably responsible for molding stu-
dents to align with the Extrovert Ideal (Hartocollis 2018), even students from collectivist cultures
such as Asia. Thus businesses generally, and the creative industries, in particular, favor the extro-
vert in their organizations and leadership, and leaders make decisions impacting office
environments.
Could an office environment created by, and for, extroverts possibly inhibit creative productiv-
ity—and in turn, undermine the success—of creative people, especially those who do not conform
to the stereotypical ideal? That is what this exploratory study sets out to examine.

Factors that influence creativity

Creativity scholars have examined creativity from four perspectives, four P’s: person, place, prod-
uct, and press (Runco 2007). This study exploring personality and creative workspace is informed
by creativity theories arising from the study of person and place, since both individual and situ-
ational influences are considered the most powerful determinants of applied creativity
(Martindale 1989; Shalley, Oldham, and Porac 1987). Both Csikszentmihalyi’s systems theory
(1988a, 2015) and Amabile’s componential theory (2012) underscore the importance of viewing
creativity as a product of interaction between the individual and their environment.
Psychology offers one of richest streams of research investigating the role of the individual
(person) in human creativity, identifying and examining individual traits, characteristics, and
behaviors that correlate with creativity (Csikszentmihalyi 1988b, 1996b; Duckworth et al. 2007;
Feist 1998; F€urst 2016; Helson, Roberts, and Agronick 1995; J. C. Kaufman and Sternberg 2007;
McCrae 1987; Sternberg 1988).
Psychologists have identified many personality traits that characterize “creative personality.”
Though lists vary somewhat, all agree that creative people demonstrate some combination of the
following traits and behaviors: curiosity, openness to experience, wide interests, attraction to com-
plexity or novelty, emotional sensitivity, playfulness, tolerance for ambiguity, psychological andro-
gyny, and self-efficacy (Guilford 1970; Runco 2007). Others also include empathy, gritty
 JOURNAL OF CURRENT ISSUES & RESEARCH IN ADVERTISING 3

optimism, awareness of creativity, originality, personal energy and a need for privacy
(Csikszentmihalyi 1996a; Guilford 1959; Pagnani and Runco 2011) and introversion
(Csikszentmihalyi 1996b; Guilford 1959; Pagnani and Runco 2011). Creative personality correlates
strongly with creativity and creative production.
Research has also described a variety of environmental factors that impact creativity, influences
including leader behaviors, organizational practices, and culture (Amabile et al. 1996; Amabile
1998; Csikszentmihalyi and Sawyer 2014; Hennessey 2015; McLean 2005; Shalley, Gilson, and
Blum 2000). A handful of studies specifically examine creativity in the context of advertising
agencies (Mallia et al. 2013; Sasser and Koslow 2009; Verbeke et al. 2008). As noted previously,
little scholarly literature specifically investigates the impact of physical environment on creativity
in advertising or creative industries (Dua 2016; Steen and Markhede 2010). A recent literature
review by Thoring, Desmet, and Badke-Schaub synthesizes the scholarly and professional publica-
tions on creative workspace, finding that all acknowledge that the need for an inspiring work-
space is important and that it can have a significant impact on creativity—yet fail to specify
exactly how those spaces should be designed (Thoring, Desmet, and Badke-Schaub 2018).
Like other creative industries, advertising is creative, personality-driven, and fast-paced. This
cultural climate is infused into the office environment—one abuzz with activity, energy, and the
pace of cultural change. The open office is an environment built by extrovert leaders on the
(false) presumption that everyone thinks and works the same way. However, the visual and audi-
tory stimulation that energizes some creative people can, in fact, create mental and physical dis-
comfort in introverts (Cassidy and MacDonald 2007; Geen 1984; Stenberg, Rosen, and Risberg
1990). From the first conception of the concept of “flow” in creativity (Csikszentmihalyi 1996a)
to more recent recognition of the need for “attention management” by controlling technology use
and distractions in the environment (Thomas 2019), focus has long been considered essential
to creativity.

The “extrovert ideal” and its theoretical implications

Nearly one-half of the general population are introverts (CAPT 2003). Prominent psychologists
Mihalyi Csikszentmihalyi and Gregory Feist have both shown that some of the most highly cre-
ative individuals are introverts, and that traits associated with creativity are highly correlated with
the extroversion/introversion scale (Csikszentmihalyi 1996b; Feist 1998). Further research shows
that creative minds are more achievement-oriented and less affiliative than less creative minds,
traits which are also associated with introversion (Runco and Pritzker 1999; Roe 1974). Although
a causal link between introversion and creativity has yet to be uncovered, the traits are often
found in tandem.
So, introverts are prevalent in society, and they are creative. Considering their representation
in the population, the positive correlation between creativity and introversion, and the high pro-
file of successful introverts like Bill Gates, one might be tempted to assume that introverts are
well represented in creative work environments and are exposed to equal opportunity (Mallia
2019). That is not the case. As Scott Barry Kaufman puts it, “introversion is one of the most mis-
understood dimensions of personality” (2014). For example, research has found that behaviors
commonly associated with introversion—such as introspectiveness and proneness to fantasy—are
not actually correlated with the introversion–extroversion scale and are not inherently introverted
traits, resulting in misconceptions about introverts and their tendencies (Grimes, Cheek, and
Norem 2011). Perhaps this accounts for some of the errors in understanding introversion and its
relationship with creativity.
Likely due in part to bias toward the Extrovert Ideal, and common misconceptions about
introverts in the workplace, representation of introversion in the general population is not paral-
leled in workplace leadership, or in the creative industries in general. Introverts represent a bona
4 R. NEEDLE AND K. L. MALLIA

fide minority, and as such likely face the known difficulties associated with minority status. Yet
there is little recognition (even among diversity advocates) for psychological diversity or the nega-
tive impact of minority status on employees (Kanter 1977; Mallia 2019).
As Kanter asserts in her Theory of Proportional Representation, minorities within a population
are tokens and suffer from “tokenism,” meaning that they face barriers, both psychological and
physical, that those in the majority do not face. Kanter makes clear that attempted assimilation
by the minority results in the token group becoming even more trapped in their roles, and that
tokens cannot exert influence on the larger culture until achieving proportional representation in
the organization, or 35 percent (Kanter 1977). It follows that genuine equal opportunity in the
workplace cannot be achieved unless managers are made aware of unconscious bias and barriers
to token groups—whether characterized by race, gender, or cognitive diversity.
Sociological theory examining “otherness” can explain the polarization between introverts and
extroverts, just as Simone De Beauvoir’s 1949 theory of the “second sex” applied “otherness” to
men and women (De Beauvoir 1961). Otherness has been intensely studied in multiple fields
(Ploesser and Mecheril 2012), thus this theoretical reasoning can be applied to cognitive diversity
as well. As extroversion rose as the ideal personality type, qualities associated with introversion
were increasingly seen in a negative light (Brown and Hendrick 1971), and introverts seen as
“other” opposite extroverts in the business world (Harrell and Alpert 1989).

The creative industries and extrovert-seeking behaviors

Advertisements helped perpetuate the Extrovert Ideal in culture, but it is also the advertising
industry behind those ads—from hiring preferences to task delegation in creative companies—
that promulgate the stereotypes of personality in creative work (Cain 2013). The same organiza-
tional cultural codes are understood to apply beyond advertising across industries comprised of
idea workers (Caves 2000; Davies and Sigthorsson 2013). Recognition of the commonalities
among the cultural and creative industries led the UK Department of Media, Culture, and Sport
to designate them as a unique construct: “the creative industries” consisting also of architecture;
advertising; crafts; design (fashion, graphic and product); film, TV video, radio and photography;
IT, software and computer services; publishing, museums, galleries and libraries; and music, per-
forming and visual arts (DCMS 2016).
In the creative industries, employers seek and expect extroversion in hiring. One study found
that words relating to extroversion positively correlated with job ads calling for creativity
(Christensen, Drewsen, and Maaløe 2014). Another found that discrimination against potential
employees in the creative industries extended beyond race, gender, or socioeconomic status, in
that some applicants were given a leg up if they possessed a “go-getter” personality and a driven
motivational attitude (Allen et al. 2013).
Environmental factors impact creativity—and may also present an inherent bias favoring extro-
verts in creative jobs. Studies have shown that as distractions increase, cognition in introverts
decreases at a faster rate than in extroverts (Furnham, Gunter, and Peterson 1994; Furnham and
Strbac 2002). In open-plan offices, introverts are more likely to be at a disadvantage in cognitive
functioning and productivity, as people with extroverted tendencies adapt better to increased
noise levels during mental performance (Belojevic, Jakovljevic, and Slepcevic 2003). Studies have
also shown that bad lighting can negatively affect different personality types (Vischer 2008).
Another study revealed inherent gender bias in office environments, where thermostats are set to
men’s comfort levels, temperatures at which women are uncomfortably cold (Kingma and van
Marken Lichtenbelt 2015). It follows that similar de facto discrimination may occur in the work-
place against introverted people who are biologically less adept at adapting to their given environ-
ments (Harma 1993).
 JOURNAL OF CURRENT ISSUES & RESEARCH IN ADVERTISING 5

Research suggests this kind of environment is hurting workplace satisfaction and raising con-
cerns of privacy, with literature reviews asserting that all personality types may face discomfort in
these offices due to the mix of introverted and extroverted traits in most people (Kim and de
Dear 2013; Oseland 2009). The implications of creative workplace bias toward extroversion in hir-
ing and environmental design are therefore far-reaching—firstly, because nearly one-half of the
population are introverts (CAPT 2003), and secondly, that over 70 percent of employees are cur-
rently working in open-office floor plans favoring the Extrovert Ideal (Brill, Weidemann, and
BOSTI Associates 2001). The most troubling collision between personality and environment may
well be in the creative industries, where discomfort can directly impact creativity and productiv-
ity—and, in turn, business success.

Personality preferences are magnified in the creative industries with the open-
floor plan
Creative workspaces, especially in ad agencies, have undergone tremendous change since the
1990s, both structurally and hierarchically. As real estate costs in cities soared, cramming more
people into fewer square feet has resulted in pressure to innovate and relocate. Silicon Valley
companies such as Facebook reinvented space and tiered structure, pioneering the open-floor
plan, and the trend migrated from tech to the creative industries (Mallia et al. 2013). So, how
have open-plan offices affected creative workers in ad agencies and beyond?
One study detailed the benefits for companies in implementing open seating, including reduc-
ing costs, increasing communication between office inhabitants, reflecting the company’s values
through physical space, representing a culture of collaboration and lack of hierarchy, and inte-
grating business functions (Davis, Leach, and Clegg 2012). A Digiday article chronicled how a
young intern at IPG Mediabrands was able to land a full-time job by regularly switching seats
and conversing frequently with the managing director (Dua 2016).
However, academic and trade publications alike indicate that the topic is emotionally
charged—reporting a rising tide of pushback against open-office plans, especially in ad agencies.
Lindsey Kaufman reveals what many in advertising feel:
After nine years as a senior writer, I was forced to trade in my private office for a seat at a
long, shared table. It felt like my boss had ripped off my clothes and left me standing in my skiv-
vies (L. Kaufman 2014).
These are the issues that many researchers report: creative workers feel frustrated in open offi-
ces—by frequent interruptions, reduced privacy, increased stress and decreased cognitive func-
tioning, and over-stimulation (Davis, Leach, and Clegg 2012). Studies consistently find that open
offices are correlated with lower levels of motivation and reduced levels of concentration
(Hongisto et al. 2016; Oldham and Brass 1979; Seddigh et al. 2014). One study suggested that
because employees who are more satisfied with their physical environments are more satisfied
with their occupations, that the physical environment plays an even bigger role than expected in
organizational well-being and effectiveness (Veitch et al. 2007). In addition, a 2015 study defini-
tively affirms the link between the physical environment and creativity, in particular, that physical
space reflecting cultural aspects like equality can lead to greater creativity (Kallio, Blomberg, and
Kallio 2015).
A New Yorker article, whose title referred to open offices as a “trap,” states that “the open
office undermines the very things it was designed to achieve” as employees suffered on every
measure of workplace satisfaction including resentfulness and disruption, and the layout even
took a toll on physical health (Konnikova 2014). Trends such as “hoteling” and “hot-desking” in
ad agencies—a lack of a designated space resulting in hopping from space to space each day—
have resulted in “less sociable and more irritable” employees due to the “treasure-hunt” of finding
a coworker, in addition to the disruption of moving belongings day in and day out (Dua 2016).
6 R. NEEDLE AND K. L. MALLIA

Hot-desking significantly increases the difficulty of finding a coworker more than in companies with
permanent desks, and locating desks and meeting rooms grows more troublesome as more agility
between working spaces is introduced (Senion 2017). One early example of a hot-desking ad agency
gone wrong is Chiat\Day in New York City, which in 1994 adopted a new practice of employees leav-
ing their belongings in lockers and grabbing an open seat. Soon after, employees began complaining
of suppressing the creative process and too many distractions, so the company moved back to a more
traditional office format (“ChiatDay and the Invention of the ‘Open Office’” n.d.). A few companies
are opting for a more dynamic atmosphere to avoid the failure that Chiat\Day experienced, but the
seat-hopping practice remains in place in several major agencies (Dua 2016).
For businesses, the most compelling feature of open offices is the reduced square footage per
staffer—and reduced cost of office space—factors which may please bean counters at the cost of
creative workers’ productivity and well-being.

Collaboration and productivity as functions of personality and environment

In addition to physical space, collaboration levels in a firm’s creative projects contribute to work-
ers’ productivity, with one study finding a positive relationship between teamwork and group
productivity (Moses and Stahelski 1999). Other studies have similarly found that creativity can
come from two or more people working as a team (Csikszentmihalyi and Sawyer 2014; Garber,
Hyatt, and Boya 2009; Mallia and Windels 2011).
In one of the first studies on group brainstorming, twenty-four groups were evaluated for idea
generation; out of those, twenty-three groups produced ideas of equal or higher quality when
working individually (Dunnette, Campbell, and Jaastad 1963). Since the 1963 study, multiple
researchers in fields ranging from management to counseling have agreed that performance gets
worse as group size increases (Girotra, Terwiesch, and Ulrich 2010; Mongeau and Morr 1999).
Despite the mixed research findings, trade publications on collaboration and the creative indus-
tries continue to emphasize the need for teamwork, collaboration, and diverse composition of
work groups for maximum idea generation (DeGraff 2015). Both the size and composition of
teams are critically important determinants of creative team success (Mallia 2019).
And while it may be intuitive to assume that proximity promotes collaboration, or that collab-
oration leads to creative ideas and better brainstorming, studies have shown neither correlation
nor causation from physical togetherness. Although creative workers find that proximity shapes
their perception of creative activities, it does not necessarily lead to greater creativity (Gibson,
Luckman, and Willoughby-Smith 2010).

Work environment and creativity

Work environment is a product of the physical and social aspects; both play a role in the creative
process. Study of the relationship between work environment and creativity levels was pioneered
by Teresa Amabile of Harvard Business School. Her componential theory of creativity stated that
one of the three components needed for creative response was the social environment in which
the individual was working. Aspects of company culture such as an emphasis on the status quo,
harsh criticism of new ideas, and excessive time pressure can dampen creativity (Amabile 2012).
A literature review found that the most pertinent physical factors affecting creativity were
office design and arrangements, ergonomics, and indoor and physical features like noise, indoor
air quality, lightning, the presence of plants, and windows. The creative process, as well as
employee outcomes in the form of productivity, are equally affected (Samani, Abdul Rasid, and
Sofian 2014). Although evidence backing the relative importance of physical and social factors on
creativity differ, group dynamics are universally deemed significant in the creative process, and
these dynamics are affected by office layout and the open office.
 JOURNAL OF CURRENT ISSUES & RESEARCH IN ADVERTISING 7

Another literature review definitively found that designing creative workplaces should include
sufficient research and thought, as the physical work environment is central in either enhancing
or inhibiting organizational creativity (Meinel et al. 2017). Each review suggests a flexible work
environment as the key to unlocking creativity through physical factors.

The need for flexibility in choosing shifting work environments throughout the workday
The research suggests that open-floor plans and constant collaboration are not a recipe for suc-
cessful production of creative work. Yet, companies have been slow to catch up, mired in open
seating and habitual team meetings. Psychologist Adrian Furnham wrote to businesses that
employ group brainstorming that
If you have talented and motivated people, they should be encouraged to work alone when cre-
ativity [emphasis added] or efficiency is the highest priority … . It is odd that advertising agencies
and design departments seem so reliant on brainstorming techniques, when all research suggests
it is not the best strategy (Furnham 2000).
Brainstorming is just one aspect of the creative process. At every stage of the creative process,
adhering too much to team standards is detrimental to overall productivity (Mumford, Lonergan,
and Scott 2002).
Research suggests that silence and solitude are the best paths to high productivity (Charness
et al. 2005; Glenn 2011). It is not only introverts who benefit from solitude or flexibility at work,
but any and all personality types, as previously mentioned by Oseland (2009). Although agencies
who have adopted hot-desking have a different perspective on flexibility, studies have shown that
a sense of control over one’s work environment—and making available a variety of spaces for ver-
satile work including casual meeting areas, cafes, and quiet zones—provide a sense of satisfaction
and team cohesion (Konnikova 2014; Lee and Brand 2005).
Because continued forced proximity in the form of open offices and teamwork do not equal
productivity, most notably for introverts, this study hopes to add to the literature by applying
these research questions to workers in the creative industries. Creativity is desired across all
industries—but nowhere is it more critical than in the cultural and creative industries where the
entire business rests on the creative productivity of all workers. Little academic research has been
conducted regarding personality or environmental factors in the creative industries and their
implications. This study set out to explore two critical concepts not previously examined together:
extroversion level, and satisfaction with work in the creative industries. To gauge creative employ-
ees’ space and collaboration satisfaction as well as deduce practical accommodations for intro-
verts, a survey was conducted.

Purpose of the study

The purpose of this study was to gather data regarding productivity and satisfaction in the cre-
ative industries, most notably relating to physical space, and to determine if extroversion level
was linked to reported productivity and satisfaction levels. Specifically, the study aimed to exam-
ine the following questions:
RQ1: Does personality influence desire for changes in workplace environment or collaboration?

RQ2: Is extroversion/introversion level a factor in productivity and/or workplace satisfaction in the creative
industries, especially relating to physical environment?

The study was conducted because of the dearth of academic research on introverts in the cre-
ative industries, even as research has increasingly investigated other forms of diversity in employ-
ment and leadership. While a number of academic and trade press articles have focused on
8 R. NEEDLE AND K. L. MALLIA

introverts and work, this study separates itself by homing in on creativity specifically as well as
making suggestions for improvement in advertising and beyond.

Method
This exploratory research study is based on a survey sent to professionals working in the creative
industries, enterprises in that designation by the UK DCMS: advertising or marketing; architecture;
design (fashion, product, graphic, etc.); film, TV, radio, photography or video; computer services, IT
or software; consulting; freelance or independent contractor; museum, gallery or library; music, per-
forming or visual arts; publishing; research and development; or in-house creative department. In-
house creative departments were added to the survey mailing list to include workers who do compar-
able creative work for a firm whose primary purpose is encompassed by the DCMS definition.
Consulting and freelance were added as an industry option due to the creative problem-solving inher-
ent in their work and the knowledge that senior creative staffers within the creative industries often
move in and out of permanent employment or set up consultancies.
The participant pool was not limited geographically, but respondents worked only at compa-
nies in the United States, largely in the eastern portion. This aligns with creative “clusters” such
as New York headquartering most creative industries. Initial contacts were reached via profes-
sional, personal, or academic connection to the researchers, accounting for the majority of partici-
pants being housed at marketing or advertising agencies. The convenience sample was expanded
via snowball sampling, requesting that potential participants take the survey themselves, and for-
ward the survey to other professionals in their own field or the fields listed by the DCMS.
Including a range of creative industries supported the idea of advertising as a creative field, and
broadened the scope of the project. It also reflects the increasing understanding of the creative
industries as a unique entity for study, demonstrating numerous shared characteristics among
and between them that also differentiate them from other types of industries (O’Connor 2010).
The survey included standard demographic information, as well as descriptive multiple-choice
questions such as “What best describes the nature of your work?” Several open-ended questions
were designed to assess the nature of the respondents’ current physical work environment, as well
as their attitudes toward their workspace, and what they would change if they could.
Introversion/extroversion was assessed in the second portion of the survey, with a 20-part ques-
tionnaire in Likert scale format (DeYoung, Quilty, and Peterson 2007; S. B. Kaufman 2014). This
study also used Kaufman’s method of data analysis to determine the introversion level.
The survey was created, sent, and analyzed via Qualtrics. Distribution was ongoing from April
2018 until August 2018. Responses totaled 144, with one discarded due to a blank form, leaving
valid usable responses totaling 143.
Thematic coding, with two researchers providing intercoder reliability, was used to topically
group answers to open-ended questions, as per Braun and Clarke (2006). For example, for the
question “What would you change about your physical work environment if you could?” all
responses referencing the ability to work in multiple kinds of spaces—from home to collaboration
rooms, to private offices, to coffee shops—were coded as “flexibility.” Similarly, all entries alluding
to wanting an office with a door were coded under “private space.”

Findings
Demographics
Demographics were collected for general knowledge and to assess personality levels for RQ1 and
RQ2. Female participation (65 percent) was nearly double male participation (35 percent). This
could be attributed to the large percentage of women in public relations and related jobs, which
 JOURNAL OF CURRENT ISSUES & RESEARCH IN ADVERTISING 9

would outweigh the men outnumbering women in design marketing and advertising (Khazan
2014). Participants were concentrated in the 25–34 age group, with 37 percent in this
demographic.
Among the creative industries represented in the responses, the largest group was those in
marketing or advertising firms (38 percent). The next largest categories were freelance/independ-
ent contractor (13 percent) and in-house creative department (11 percent). “Other” was a signifi-
cant category at 19 percent; but upon further review, many respondents who selected this option
could have fit into other provided categories. For example, one respondent who selected “other”
wrote in “non-profit museum” rather than selecting “museum, gallery or library.” All other cate-
gories had a small number of participants (under 10 percent each) and “music, performing or vis-
ual arts” was not represented at all. The majority of respondents were full-time on-site staff
(68 percent).
One question probed the nature of employees’ creative work, in a format permitting multiple
acceptable answers. The largest categories were writing/editing (15 percent), creative supervision
(12 percent), content creation (13 percent), and customer service/client consulting (12 percent).
Several respondents who wrote in submissions for “other” described duties of strategy, event
planning, and management.
Based on Kaufman’s (2014) methodology, 14 percent of the survey respondents were intro-
verts, 41 percent were ambiverts (those who possess nearly equal characteristics of both introverts
and extroverts) and 45 percent were extroverts.

Characteristics of physical space and assigned work

Characteristics of physical space and the nature of assigned work (including collaboration levels)
were measured. Analysis of the responses related to physical environment revealed that the pre-
dominant workspace for these respondents was an open setting with cubicles (23 percent), with
the second most prevalent workspace being a private office (19 percent). Most respondents spent
the majority of their time at their designated workspace (52 percent). Nearly half the respondents
described their offices as relatively noisy with intermittent quiet periods (47 percent); 41 percent
described their workplace ambience as relatively quiet.
Questions also gauged participants’ collaboration levels in their daily work. Most participants
reported that they frequently work in small groups to achieve their tasks, with face-to-face com-
munication and meetings (53 percent). By contrast, only 6 percent of respondents reported nearly
always working on projects alone.

Work preferences and productivity

Self-reported levels of ability to focus and preferences in environment were gathered to determine
potential productivity (RQ2) and assess preferences for improvement (RQ1). Sound preferences
included having a slight buzz of music/conversation in the office (28 percent) and having com-
plete silence (22 percent). These findings and open-ended comments underscore the creative’s
need to concentrate and think. For example, “[I would like to] have a place I can go that is quiet
and distraction-free, but still offers group collaboration meeting areas.” Another wrote, “We’re
moving to an open-floor plan soon … . I’m going to miss my cube.” Another longed for an office
that didn’t feel like an office:
I like to sit on sofas or chairs at work that make me feel like I am home with ample natural light—I don’t
like to feel like I am at work. I often go to a park by the office and work outside.

Collaboration preferences were probed with the question “I complete work more efficiently
and of better quality when … ” Nearly three-fourths of workers indicated that feedback was
10 R. NEEDLE AND K. L. MALLIA

important at later stages in the process, but initial work should be done alone (74 percent).
General ability to focus at work found middle ground; 50 percent of respondents reported that
their work environment is distracting at times, but overall their ability to get work done effi-
ciently is not compromised.
Respondents had the opportunity to input open-ended comments about what they would
change about their work if given the opportunity; this included projects, physical space, and gen-
eral conditions. Asked “What would you change about your physical work environment if you
could?” 33 percent of respondents listed something related to having a more private space; 15
percent wished for a more flexible environment (see coding process in “Methods” section) to be
able to move to private, collaborative, or home spaces when desired; 10 percent asked for more
open co-working spaces; 13 percent felt distracted by lighting; 12 percent would make their space
less noisy and prone to interruptions and 9 percent wished for a more inspiring or stimulating
space. When describing better conditions in previous jobs, respondents reported missing their
offices with doors, or the ability to switch workspaces when needed to bolster creativity.
Many answers supported prior research in finding that having a control over one’s physical
environment is key to creativity. One explicitly said,
I work best when I can control the environment. So, when I need to work alone in silence I
can; when I need to be outside and get stimulated I can; when I need to work collaboratively in
the office I can; and when I need to direct a team I can.
Desire for control was expressed in two prevailing themes: wanting flexibility in a variety of
configurations within the office, and the opportunity to work outside it. Those with the flexibility
to work from home relish it:
As an introvert, my home office environment suits me perfectly. I know I can seek the com-
pany of others when I want, but more importantly, I have the security of knowing I can work in
a quiet, solitary environment when needed (most of the time).
Others expressed how the ideal work environment goes beyond the physical aspects, “[What I
miss about my previous job was that it was] collaborative, respectful of different personality types
(extrovert, introvert) and energized.” One described the negative impact of her current work-
space, “I don’t like the bland ‘cube’ work environment. I would prefer something that would be
more inspiring.”
Many felt too much collaboration, with too many people, undermined their work.
“Everybody’s got an opinion and sometimes there are too many cooks in the kitchen, and a good
idea can really get watered down because of it.” Another was more specific,
I would limit the number of people touching a project to a minimum and ensure the time
needed for the work is just sufficient. More time and more brains seem often lead to getting a
project off-brief and allows us to sweat the details instead of looking at the big picture.
And, “The work produced is typically not as creative or attention grabbing as it could be.
Decision makers typically approve ‘safe’ options.”

Relationship between personality and preferences

A greater percentage of introverts (47 percent) than ambiverts or extroverts (30 percent) desired
changes to their current office environment—needing more private space or greater flexibility.
When asked about the best characteristic of previous work environments, 20 percent of introverts
mentioned private space or flexible space, and 21 percent of extroverts and ambiverts mentioned
these preferences.
Personality did not appear to correlate with getting distracted at work, as 76 percent of ambi-
verts and extroverts admitted to getting distracted at least sometimes at work; 60 percent of intro-
verts admitted to experiencing a loss of focus due to distractions.
 JOURNAL OF CURRENT ISSUES & RESEARCH IN ADVERTISING 11

A chi-square analysis (N ¼ 143) was conducted on extroversion level and self-reported likeli-
hood of getting distracted at work. The findings were not significant, suggesting that ability to
focus is not a determinant of extroversion level, or that work-arounds such as wearing head-
phones suffice.

Discussion
The results were surprising in a number of ways. First, the percentage of introverts present in the
sample (14 percent) was much lower than expected. While no statistics exist on the representa-
tion of introverts in creative jobs, we anticipated it to be consistent with the representation of
introverts in the general population, in the range of 30–50 percent. According to research, both
introverts and extroverts possess traits of creative people (Solomon 2018). Due to a strong correl-
ation between creativity and introversion (Furnham and Bachtiar 2008), the authors expect to
find more introverts working in creative jobs than would appear in the larger population.
The low percentage of introverts identified among the respondents could be attributed to the
layout of the personality questionnaire, which did not encourage extreme answers of 1 or 5,
which would have contributed to an introvert score. Introverts may be less likely to commit to
extreme degrees of disagreement or agreement due to their quiet nature, so it may be that more
introverts were hiding in the mix. Many ambiverts scored close to the amount needed for intro-
version, so it is possible that the sample didn’t have a lack of introverts, but that the introverts
were harder to identify (as they tend to be) during analysis. Other possible explanations lie out-
side the dataset: first, that introverts though inherently creative may not pursue creative work as
a career. Another possibility is that introverts self-select out of the profession early on, finding
the environment incompatible with their personality type and personal work style. As mentioned
earlier in this paper, creative ability does not lead to creative success if other conditions are not
met, so current codes and practices of advertising and the creative industries may drive introverts
away. Lastly, their underrepresentation could be due to conscious or unconscious bias in busi-
nesses where there is a documented preference for the extrovert in hiring and promotion (Allen
et al. 2013; Christensen, Drewsen, and Maaløe 2014).
The overrepresentation of advertising or marketing professionals in the data set over other cre-
ative industries was not considered a setback in data collection. Advertising shares creative char-
acteristics and processes with the other creative industries (content creation, writing, creative
supervision, the need for quick, novel ideas), thus it stands as a valid indicator of professional life
in the creative industries.
Work information, including amount of time spent at designated work area as well as the type
of office layout present, was as expected in light of prevailing standards in the creative industries.
Open settings with cubicles is still a popular arrangement, but the data also corroborate the
observed trend for workspaces to becoming more and more open (Heerwagen 2016). But more
significant than the office configurations in creative work places are the employees’ attitudes
toward them, addressing RQ1. We expected answers to “What would you change about your
physical work environment?” to be largely about easily tangible factors, like temperature and
sound. Yet, while many respondents did mention these in their answers, more were concerned
with the entire layout and design of the office space, and wanted to make substantial changes in
their opportunities for movement and flexibility at work—vocalizing flexible workplace policy
concerns that extend beyond the physical space/design. Creative workers appear to be well aware
that bland, off-the-rack offices fail to inspire them—intuitively understanding what leading schol-
ars have observed: that environment has a profound impact on creative productivity (Amabile
et al. 1996; Csikszentmihalyi 2015; Mallia 2019; Sternberg 1999). An overwhelming number of
respondents mentioned wanting different rooms or outside areas to explore depending on their
12 R. NEEDLE AND K. L. MALLIA

productivity levels or mood or task difficulty; and it’s time that the industry caught up
with demands.
Regarding RQ2, the authors expected that creative extroverts would not report feeling dis-
tracted at work, that they would thrive on the open-floor plan, and that only the introverts would
feel uncomfortable and unproductive in open offices. Recall that simply altering noise, light, and
temperature levels can be detrimental to introverts (Belojevic, Jakovljevic, and Slepcevic 2003;
Harma 1993; Vischer 2008). But our survey uncovered an even bigger revelation—that all person-
ality types in the creative industries fall prey to distractions and desire the same changes in their
workplaces. It is true that extroverts and introverts possess different strengths in the workplace;
introverts are better able to crank out novel ideas and plans on their own, and extroverts thrive
on collaborative innovation, asserting and selling their ideas. Yet a huge proportion of all
respondents (76 percent) longed for flexible workspace and private space.
The ideal creative workspace must be a place that is flexible and responsive to the varied needs
of the people who work within it—if leaders want their staffers, and their creative businesses, to
flourish and succeed. While quieter people may enjoy a private office and others a more open set-
ting, one thing remains consistent: all creative workers want to be able to switch environments
when they feel they have had enough of a single condition for too long. Says Cain: “We need to
create settings in which people are free to circulate in a shifting kaleidoscope of interactions, and
to disappear into their private workspaces when they want to focus or simply be alone” (Cain
2013, 93). For smaller companies, configuring a flexible office is more challenging; but even offer-
ing employees the option to work for a few hours at a nearby coffee shop, or encouraging work-
ing from home once a week, can go a long way in employee satisfaction and productivity.
Luckily, flexible workspaces are becoming increasingly popular, rivaling the problematic com-
pletely-open model (Altman 2018). Due to the staggering number of extroverts who report work-
place distractions—75 percent in this study—organizations should afford each creative worker
space for necessary solitude in addition to more collaborative areas.
Easily discernible in the open-ended responses in this research is the desire for employees to
be able to control their own environment—whether by working from home, choosing the config-
uration of their personal space, or conducting team meetings. The desire for control and auton-
omy is not surprising, considering the characteristics associated with creative personality,
especially their tendency to be both extroverted and introverted and alternate between bursts of
energy and activity and the need for solitude and quiet (Csikszentmihalyi 1996b). This under-
scores the imperative for leaders to understand creative people and the creative process to build
an optimal climate for creativity (Amabile et al. 1996; Mallia 2019).
The respondents here show that introverts are aware of their own status as introverts; thus it
is important for managers to acknowledge their existence and value. Leaders need to provide
environments that suit their creative personalities and allow all to flourish. This means recogniz-
ing the creative necessity for individual work as well as collaboration, as many of these respond-
ents did—by providing the place for it, or allowing the flexibility for employees to find
it elsewhere.

Psychological diversity and inclusion, and the canaries in the coal mine
The business case for diversity and inclusion is gaining traction, with awareness of psychological
diversity rising. In 2018, Forbes called companies to go “beyond the ‘feel good’ optics of having
men and women with different racial and ethnic backgrounds working together” by considering
cognitive diversity, because “if everyone sees a situation from the same perspective, it’s easy to
get blindsided by something that would have been obvious to someone with a different outlook”
(Toomey 2018). Other recent research not only demonstrated the links between cognitive
 JOURNAL OF CURRENT ISSUES & RESEARCH IN ADVERTISING 13

diversity and creativity, but also found that cognitive diversity influenced innovative work behav-
ior positively. The researchers specifically cautioned against emotional exclusion (Chen
et al. 2019).
Diversity is essential for creativity and innovation. The benefits of cognitive diversity point to
a need for inclusion and an elimination of the feeling of “otherness” that plagues introverts in the
creative workplace. Inclusion and team learning mediate the effect of cognitive diversity on cre-
ativity, and inclusive leadership increases work group effectiveness and elevates overall attitudes
(Chow 2018; Randel et al. 2018).
This study should serve as a wake-up to creative industry leaders—especially those in advertis-
ing, where open-floor plans abound. Not only must creative industries embrace the “quiet ones,”
but consider them the canaries in the coal mines of creative work. Even extroverts do not desire
constant company and collaboration. When 74 percent of people long to change their office
environment, the findings here point to an overwhelming desire—and need—for autonomy and
flexibility. This echoes TechRepublic reporting that 74 percent of people would actually quit their
jobs in order to be able to work from home (Forrest 2017).
Leaders who want creative people to flourish need to consider the roles that both collaboration
and alone time play in creative processes, and align workspace with creative needs and objectives.
Leaders need to make decisions based on evidence, not personal preference, prevailing trends, or
trial and error. All the puzzle pieces in a creative workspace function together—and changing
one element could have negative repercussions on another (Thoring, Desmet, and Badke-Schaub
2019). Creatives need the right space to sing, to be inspired, and do their best work. Providing
that is a business imperative for creative industries—leaving much further research in this area
do be done.

References
Allen, Kim, Jocey Quinn, Sumi Hollingworth, and Anthea Rose. 2013. “Becoming Employable Students and ‘Ideal’
Creative Workers: Exclusion and Inequality in Higher Education Work Placements.” British Journal of Sociology
of Education 34 (3):431–452. doi: 10.1080/01425692.2012.714249.
Altman, Jonas. 2018. “A Sane Workplace Involves Neither Cubicles nor an Open Office.” Quartz at Work.
February 12, 2018. https://qz.com/work/1202518/a-sane-workplace-involves-neither-a-cubicle-nor-an-open-
office/.
Amabile, Teresa M. 1998. “How to Kill Creativity.” Harvard Business Review 76 (5):76–87.
Amabile, Teresa M. 2012. “Componential Theory of Creativity.” Harvard Business School 12:1–10.
Amabile, Teresa M., Regina Conti, Heather Coon, Jeffrey Lazenby, and Michael Herron. 1996. “Assessing the
Work Environment for Creativity.” Academy of Management Journal 39 (5):1154–1184. doi: 10.2307/256995.
Belojevic, Goran, Branislav Jakovljevic, and Vesna Slepcevic. 2003. “Noise and Mental Performance: Personality
Attributes and Noise Sensitivity.” Noise and Health 6 (21):77–89.
Braun, Virginia, and Victoria Clarke. 2006. “Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology.” Qualitative Research in
Psychology 3 (2):77–101. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
Brill, Michael, Sue Weidemann, and BOSTI Associates. 2001. Disproving Widespread Myths about Workplace
Design. Jasper, IN: Kimball International.
Brown, Steven R., and Clyde Hendrick. 1971. “Introversion, Extraversion and Social Perception.” The British
Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 10 (4):313–319. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8260.1971.tb00755.x.
Cain, Susan. 2013. Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can’t Stop Talking. New York, NY: Broadway
Books.
CAPT. 2003. “Estimated Frequencies of Types.” Center for Application of Psychological Type. https://www.capt.
org/mbti-assessment/estimated-frequencies.htm.
Cassidy, Gianna, and Raymond A. R. MacDonald. 2007. “The Effect of Background Music and Background Noise
on the Task Performance of Introverts and Extraverts.” Psychology of Music 35 (3):517–537. doi: 10.1177/
0305735607076444.
Caves, Richard E. 2000. Creative Industries: Contracts between Art and Commerce. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Charness, Neil, Michael Tuffiash, Ralf Krampe, Eyal Reingold, and Ekaterina Vasyukova. 2005. “The Role of
Deliberate Practice in Chess Expertise.” Applied Cognitive Psychology 19 (2):151–165. doi: 10.1002/acp.1106.
14 R. NEEDLE AND K. L. MALLIA

Chen, Xingwen, Jun Liu, Haina Zhang, and Ho Kwong Kwan. 2019. “Cognitive Diversity and Innovative Work
Behaviour: The Mediating Roles of Task Reflexivity and Relationship Conflict and the Moderating Role of
Perceived Support.” Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 92 (3):671–694. doi: 10.1111/joop.
12259.
“ChiatDay and the Invention of the ‘Open Office.’” n.d. 4A’s. Accessed October 2, 2018. https://www.aaaa.org/time-
line-event/chiatday-invention-open-office/.
Chow, Irene Hau-Siu. 2018. “Cognitive Diversity and Creativity in Teams: The Mediating Roles of Team Learning
and Inclusion.” Chinese Management Studies 12 (2):369–383. doi: 10.1108/CMS-09-2017-0262.
Christensen, Bo T., Lizette Kirstine Drewsen, and Johannes Maaløe. 2014. “Implicit Theories of the Personality of
the Ideal Creative Employee.” Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts 8 (2):189–197. doi: 10.1037/
a0036197.
Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly. 1988a. “The Flow Experience and Its Significance for Human Psychology.” In Optimal
Experience: Psychological Studies of Flow in Consciousness, edited by M. Csikszentmihalyi and I.
Csikszentmihalyi, 15–35. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly. 1988b. “Motivation and Creativity: Toward a Synthesis of Structural and Energistic
Approaches to Cognition.” New Ideas in Psychology 6 (2):159–176. doi: 10.1016/0732-118X(88)90001-3.
Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly. 1996a. Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention. New York, NY:
HarperCollins.
Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly. 1996b. Creativity: The Work and Lives of 91 Eminent People. HarperCollins. https://
www.alibris.com/Creativity-The-Work-and-Lives-of-91-Eminent-People-Dr-Mihaly-Csikszentmihalyi-PhD/book/
1387054.
Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly, and Keith Sawyer. 2014. “Shifting the Focus from Individual to Organizational
Creativity.” In The Systems Model of Creativity: The Collected Works of Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, edited by
Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, 67–71. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
Davies, Rosamund, and Gauti Sigthorsson. 2013. Introducing the Creative Industries: From Theory to Practice. 1st
ed. London: SAGE.
Davis, Matthew, Desmond J. Leach, and Chris W. Clegg. 2012. “The Physical Environment of the Office:
Contemporary and Emerging Issues.” International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology 26:
193–235.
DCMS. 2016. “Creative Industries Economic Estimates - January 2016.” https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/
creative-industries-economic-estimates-january-2016.
De Beauvoir, Simone. 1961. The Second Sex. New York, NY: Bantam Books.
DeGraff, Jeff. 2015. “The Good, the Bad, and the Future of Creative Collaboration.” Huffington Post (Blog). May
11, 2015. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-degraff/the-good-the-bad-and-the-future-of-creative-collabor-
ation_b_7257924.html.
DeYoung, Colin G., Lena C. Quilty, and Jordan B. Peterson. 2007. “Between Facets and Domains: 10 Aspects of
the Big Five.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 93 (5):880–896. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.93.5.880.
Dua, Tanya. 2016. “Ad Agencies’ New Office Hack: Sit Wherever You Want.” Digiday (Blog). November 28, 2016.
https://digiday.com/careers/ad-agency-hot-desking/.
Duckworth, Angela L., Christopher Peterson, Michael D. Matthews, and Dennis R. Kelly. 2007. “Grit: Perseverance
and Passion for Long-Term Goals.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 92 (6):1087–1101. doi: 10.1037/
0022-3514.92.6.1087.
Dunnette, Marvin D., John Campbell, and Kay Jaastad. 1963. “The Effect of Group Participation on Brainstorming
Effectiveness for 2 Industrial Samples.” Journal of Applied Psychology 47 (1):30–37. doi: 10.1037/h0049218.
Feist, Gregory J. 1998. “A Meta-Analysis of Personality in Scientific and Artistic Creativity.” Personality and Social
Psychology Review 2 (4):290–309. doi: 10.1207/s15327957pspr0204_5.
Forrest, Connor. 2017. “74% of Employees Are Willing to Quit Their Job over Work from Home Policy.”
TechRepublic. September 11, 2017. https://www.techrepublic.com/article/74-of-employees-are-willing-to-quit-
their-job-over-work-from-home-policy/.
Furnham, Adrian. 2000. “The Brainstorming Myth.” Business Strategy Review 11 (4):21–28. doi: 10.1111/1467-8616.
00154.
Furnham, Adrian, and Velicia Bachtiar. 2008. “Personality and Intelligence as Predictors of Creativity.” Personality
and Individual Differences 45 (7):613–617. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2008.06.023.
Furnham, Adrian, Barrie Gunter, and Emma Peterson. 1994. “Television Distraction and the Performance of
Introverts and Extroverts.” Applied Cognitive Psychology 8 (7):705–711. doi: 10.1002/acp.2350080708.
Furnham, Adrian, and Lisa Strbac. 2002. “Music Is as Distracting as Noise: The Differential Distraction of
Background Music and Noise on the Cognitive Test Performance of Introverts and Extraverts.” Ergonomics 45
(3):203–217. doi: 10.1080/00140130210121932.
urst, Guillaume. 2016. “Creativity, Learning, Intelligence and Personality.” Revue française de pedagogie 197 (4):
F€
23–34. doi: 10.4000/rfp.5143.
 JOURNAL OF CURRENT ISSUES & RESEARCH IN ADVERTISING 15

Garber, Lawrence L., Eva M. Hyatt, and Unal € € Boya. 2009. “The Collaborative Roles of the Designer, the
O.
Marketer, and the Consumer in Determining What Is Good Design.” Advertising & Society Review 10 (1):1–16.
doi: 10.1353/asr.0.0021.
Geen, Russell G. 1984. “Preferred Stimulation Levels in Introverts and Extroverts: Effects on Arousal and
Performance.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 46 (6):1303–1312. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.46.6.1303.
Gibson, Chris, Susan Luckman, and Julie Willoughby-Smith. 2010. “Creativity without Borders? Rethinking
Remoteness and Proximity.” Australian Geographer 41 (1):25–38. doi: 10.1080/00049180903535543.
Girotra, Karan, Christian Terwiesch, and Karl T. Ulrich. 2010. “Idea Generation and the Quality of the Best Idea.”
Management Science 56 (4):591–605. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.1090.1144.
Glenn, David. 2011. “New Book Lays Failure to Learn on Colleges’ Doorsteps.” The Chronicle of Higher
Education, January 18, 2011. https://www.chronicle.com/article/New-Book-Lays-Failure-to-Learn/125983.
Grimes, Jennifer, Jonathan Cheek, and JulieK. Norem. 2011. “Four Meanings of Introversion: Social, Thinking,
Anxious, and Inhibited Introversion.” Paper presented at the Society for Personality and Social Psychology
Annual Meeting, San Antonio, TX, USA, January 2011.
Guilford, Joy P. 1959. “Traits of Creativity.” In Creativity and Its Cultivation, edited by H. H. Anderson, 142–161.
New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Guilford, Joy P. 1970. “Creativity: Retrospect and Prospect.” The Journal of Creative Behavior 4 (3):149–168. doi:
10.1002/j.2162-6057.1970.tb00856.x.
Harma, Mikko. 1993. “Individual Differences in Tolerance to Shiftwork: A Review.” Ergonomics 36 (1–3):101–109.
Harrell, Thomas W., and Bernard Alpert. 1989. “Attributes of Successful MBAs: A 20-Year Longitudinal Study.”
Human Performance 2 (4):301–322. doi: 10.1207/s15327043hup0204_4.
Hartocollis, Anemona. 2018. “Is an Extroverted Applicant Better Suited for Harvard Than an Introvert?” The New
York Times, October 25, 2018, sec. U.S. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/us/harvard-admissions-trial-asian-
americans.html.
Heerwagen, Judith. 2016. “The Changing Nature of Organizations, Work, and WorkplacejWBDG Whole Building
Design Guide.” WBDG. October 5, 2016. https://www.wbdg.org/resources/changing-nature-organizations-work-
and-workplace.
Helson, Ravenna, Brent Roberts, and Gail Agronick. 1995. “Enduringness and Change in Creative Personality and
the Prediction of Occupational Creativity.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 69 (6):1173–1183. doi:
10.1037/0022-3514.69.6.1173.
Hennessey, Beth. 2015. “If I Were Secretary of Education: A Focus on Intrinsic Motivation and Creativity in the
Classroom.” Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts 9 (2):187–192. (May). doi: 10.1037/aca0000012.
Hongisto, Valtteri, Annu Haapakangas, Johanna Varjo, Riikka Helenius, and Hannu Koskela. 2016.
“Refurbishment of an Open-Plan Office – Environmental and Job Satisfaction.” Journal of Environmental
Psychology 45:176–191. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.12.004.
Kallio, Tomi J., Annika Johanna Blomberg, and Kirsi-Mari Kallio. 2015. “Physical Space, Culture and
Organisational Creativity – A Longitudinal Study.” Facilities 33 (5/6):389–411. doi: 10.1108/F-09-2013-0074.
Kanter, Rosabeth Moss. 1977. “Some Effects of Proportions on Group Life: Skewed Sex Ratios and Responses to
Token Women.” American Journal of Sociology 82 (5):965–990. doi: 10.1086/226425.
Kaufman, James C., and Robert J. Sternberg. 2007. “Creativity.” Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning 39 (4):
55–60. doi: 10.3200/CHNG.39.4.55-C4.
Kaufman, Lindsay. 2014. “Google Got It Wrong. The Open-Office Trend Is Destroying the Workplace.”
Washington Post, December 30, 2014. https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/12/30/google-
got-it-wrong-the-open-office-trend-is-destroying-the-workplace/.
Kaufman, Scott Barry. 2014. “Will the Real Introverts Please Stand Up?” Scientific American Blog Network. June 9,
2014. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/will-the-real-introverts-please-stand-up/.
Khazan, Olga. 2014. “Why Are There So Many Women in Public Relations?” The Atlantic. August 8, 2014. https://
www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/08/why-are-there-so-many-women-in-pr/375693/.
Kim, Jungsoo, and Richard de Dear. 2013. “Workspace Satisfaction: The Privacy-Communication Trade-off in
Open-Plan Offices.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 36:18–26. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.06.007.
Kingma, Boris, and Wouter D. van Marken Lichtenbelt. 2015. “Energy Consumption in Buildings and Female
Thermal Demand.” Nature Climate Change 5 (12):1054–1056. doi: 10.1038/nclimate2741.
Konnikova, Maria. 2014. “The Open-Office Trap.” The New Yorker, January 7, 2014. https://www.newyorker.com/
business/currency/the-open-office-trap.
Lee, Young, and Jay L. Brand. 2005. “Effects of Control over Office Workspace on Perceptions of the Work
Environment and Work Outcomes.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 25 (3):323–333. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.
2005.08.001.
Mallia, Karen L. 2019. Leadership in the Creative Industries: Principles and Practice. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell.
16 R. NEEDLE AND K. L. MALLIA

Mallia, Karen L., and Kasey Windels. 2011. “Will Changing Media Change the World? An Exploratory
Investigation of the Impact of Digital Advertising on Opportunities for Creative Women.” Journal of Interactive
Advertising 11 (2):30–44. doi: 10.1080/15252019.2011.10722183.
Mallia, Karen L, Kasey Windels, Jenny Mumah, and Sheri J. Broyles. 2013. “Lost in Space: Advertising Agency
Employees’ Perceptions of Work Space.” Paper presented at the 2012 Association for Education in Journalism
and Mass Communication Conference, Washington, DC.
Martindale, Colin. 1989. “Personality, Situation, and Creativity.” In Handbook of Creativity: Perspectives on
Individual Differences, edited by John A. Glover, Royce R. Ronning, and Cecil R. Reynolds, 211–232. Boston,
MA: Springer US.
McCrae, Robert R. 1987. “Creativity, Divergent Thinking, and Openness to Experience.” Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology 52 (6):1258–1265. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.52.6.1258.
McLean, Laird D. 2005. “Organizational Culture’s Influence on Creativity and Innovation: A Review of the
Literature and Implications for Human Resource Development.” Advances in Developing Human Resources 7
(2):226–246. doi: 10.1177/1523422305274528.
Meinel, Martin, Lukas Maier, Timm Wagner, and Kai-Ingo Voigt. 2017. “Designing Creativity-Enhancing
Workspaces: A Critical Look at Empirical Evidence.” SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 3051058. Rochester, NY: Social
Science Research Network. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=3051058.
Mongeau, Paul, and Mary Claire Morr. 1999. “Reconsidering Brainstorming.” Group Facilitation 1 (1):14–20.
Moses, Timothy P., and Anthony J. Stahelski. 1999. “A Productivity Evaluation of Teamwork at an Aluminum
Manufacturing Plant.” Group & Organization Management 24 (3):391–412. doi: 10.1177/1059601199243007.
Mumford, Michael D., Devin C. Lonergan, and Ginamarie Scott. 2002. “Evaluating Creative Ideas: Processes,
Standards, and Context.” Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines 22 (1):21–30.
O’Connor, Justin. 2010. The Cultural and Creative Industries: A Literature Review. 2nd ed. London: Creativity,
Culture and Education.
Oldham, Greg R., and Daniel J. Brass. 1979. “Employee Reactions to an Open-Plan Office: A Naturally Occurring
Quasi-Experiment.” Administrative Science Quarterly 24 (2):267–284. doi: 10.2307/2392497.
Osborn, Alex F. 1953. Applied Imagination: Principles and Procedures of Creative Thinking. New York, NY:
Scribner.
Oseland, Nigel. 2009. “The Impact of Psychological Needs on Office Design.” Journal of Corporate Real Estate 11
(4):244–254. doi: 10.1108/14630010911006738.
Pagnani, Alexander R., and Mark A. Runco. 2011. “Psychological Research on Creativity.” In The Routledge
International Handbook of Creative Learning, edited by Julian Sefton-Green, Pat Thomson, Ken Jones, and Liora
Bresler, 87–95. London: Routledge.
Ploesser, Melanie, and Paul Mecheril. 2012. “Neglect–Recognition–Deconstruction: Approaches to Otherness in
Social Work.” International Social Work 55 (6):794–808. doi: 10.1177/0020872811416143.
Randel, Amy E., Benjamin M. Galvin, Lynn M. Shore, Karen Holcombe Ehrhart, Beth G. Chung, Michelle A.
Dean, and Uma Kedharnath. 2018. “Inclusive Leadership: Realizing Positive Outcomes through Belongingness
and Being Valued for Uniqueness.” Human Resource Management Review 28 (2):190–203. doi: 10.1016/j.hrmr.
2017.07.002.
Roe, Anne. 1974. The Making of a Scientist. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Runco, Mark A. 2007. “A Hierarchical Framework for the Study of Creativity.” New Horizons in Education 55 (3):
1–9.
Runco, Mark A., and Steven R. Pritzker. 1999. Encyclopedia of Creativity. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Samani, Sanaz, Siti Zaleha Abdul Rasid, and Saudah Sofian. 2014. “A Workplace to Support Creativity.” Industrial
Engineering and Management Systems 13 (4):414–420. doi: 10.7232/iems.2014.13.4.414.
Sasser, Sheila, and Scott Koslow. 2009. “Creativity and Ad Theory.” In Advertising Theory, edited by S. Rodgers
and E. Thorsen, 191–211. New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
Seddigh, Aram, Erik Berntson, Christina Bodin Danielson, and Hugo Westerlund. 2014. “Concentration
Requirements Modify the Effect of Office Type on Indicators of Health and Performance.” Journal of
Environmental Psychology 38:167–174. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.01.009.
Senion. 2017. “Time Spent Finding Things, Places and People in the Office.” Senion. https://senion.com/insights/
time-spent-finding-things-places-people-office/.
Shalley, Christina E., Lucy L. Gilson, and Terry C. Blum. 2000. “Matching Creativity Requirements and the Work
Environment: Effects on Satisfaction and Intentions to Leave.” Academy of Management Journal 43 (2):215–223.
doi: 10.5465/1556378.
Shalley, Christina E., Greg R. Oldham, and Joseph F. Porac. 1987. “Effects of Goal Difficulty, Goal-Setting Method,
and Expected External Evaluation on Intrinsic Motivation.” Academy of Management Journal 30 (3):553–563.
doi: 10.5465/256014.
Solomon, Yoram. 2018. “The Most Creative Types Are Introverts, and Extroverts.” Inc.Com. 2018. https://www.
inc.com/cameron-albert-deitch/2018-inc5000-garrett-companies.html.
 JOURNAL OF CURRENT ISSUES & RESEARCH IN ADVERTISING 17

Steen, Jesper, and Henrik Markhede. 2010. “Spatial and Social Configurations in Offices.” The Journal of Space
Syntax 1 (1):121–132.
Stenberg, Georg, Ingmar Rosen, and Jarl Risberg. 1990. “Attention and Personality in Augmenting/Reducing of
Visual Evoked Potentials.” Personality and Individual Differences 11 (12):1243–1254. doi: 10.1016/0191-
8869(90)90151-G.
Sternberg, Robert J. 1988. The Nature of Creativity: Contemporary Psychological Perspectives. New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Sternberg, Robert J. 1999. Handbook of Creativity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Thomas, Maura. 2019. Attention Management: How to Create Success and Gain Productivity – Every Day.
Naperville, IL: Simple Truths.
Thoring, Katja, Pieter Desmet, and Petra Badke-Schaub. 2018. “Creative Environments for Design Education and
Practice: A Typology of Creative Spaces.” Design Studies 56:54–83. doi: 10.1016/j.destud.2018.02.001.
Thoring, Katja, Pieter Desmet, and Petra Badke-Schaub. 2019. “Creative Space: A Systematic Review of the
Literature.” Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design 1 (1):299–308. doi:
10.1017/dsi.2019.33.
Toomey, Rob. 2018. “Why Your Company Needs Diverse Personality Types.” Forbes (Blog). July 26, 2018. https://
www.forbes.com/sites/forbescoachescouncil/2018/07/26/why-your-company-needs-diverse-personality-types/.
Veitch, Jennifer A., Kate E. Charles, Kelly M. J. Farley, and Guy R. Newsham. 2007. “A Model of Satisfaction with
Open-Plan Office Conditions: COPE Field Findings.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 27 (3):177–189. doi:
10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.04.002.
Verbeke, Willem, Philip Hans Franses, Arthur le Blanc, and Nienke van Ruiten. 2008. “Finding the Keys to
Creativity in Ad Agencies: Using Climate, Dispersion, and Size to Examine Award Performance.” Journal of
Advertising 37 (4):121–130. doi: 10.2753/JOA0091-3367370410.
Vischer, Jacqueline C. 2008. “Towards an Environmental Psychology of Workspace: How People Are Affected by
Environments for Work.” Architectural Science Review 51 (2):97–108. doi: 10.3763/asre.2008.5114.