New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Creativity Can Lessen Leader Image

College students viewed people with innovative ideas as having less leadership potential than those whose thinking remained in the box. Karen Hopkin reports

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Think of a quality that defines a strong leader. Do I hear: dynamic, driven, decisive, original? Well, I probably didn’t hear "original." Because people who are considered "creative” are generally not viewed as leaders. That’s according to a study in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. [Jennifer Mueller, Jack Goncalo and Dishan Kamdar, "Recognizing creative leadership: Can creative idea expression negatively relate to perceptions of leadership potential?"]

People who show imagination can be seen as dreamers because their ideas have not been proven. Those seen as leaders, on the other hand, are expected to maintain order and to keep things moving forward. Yet in today’s business world, companies say they’re looking for creative CEOs who can promote change and lead their businesses in profitable new directions.

To examine what we really think about creativity, scientists asked students to present ideas for how airlines can get more revenue from their passengers. Half the students were told to come up with novel solutions, and the rest were asked to stick with something more tried-and-true. Other students who then listened to these pitches rated those who were innovative as having less leadership potential.

So go ahead, think outside the box. But if you want to scale the corporate ladder, you might consider keeping your most interesting ideas under wraps. At least until you’ve nailed that corner office.

—Karen Hopkin

[The above text is an exact transcript of this podcast.]

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe