Between the white cube and the grey cubicle

Job vacancies, popular management books, and contemporary DIY literature show that in today’s labour market people have to be creative and live a creative life. Yet, creativity appears easier labelled than explained. The importance of stimulating creativity in the workplace in management studies has been recognised as self-evident. Contrastingly, voices from the art world have predominantly criticised the appearance of creativity outside of their field. It therefore appears we are dealing with competing values between different groups of actors. Within creativity studies, this research aimed to fill a knowledge gap in between these two opposites by taking enough critical stance to challenge the idea of a by definition virtuous creativity, but simultaneously also not attempt to assess the value of creativity at the workplace. Creativity was limited to a utilitarian definition, considering that using creativity at work relates to obtaining the largest degree of happiness (i.e., large turnover). Accountants and artists were chosen as the two professions at opposite ends dealing with creativity at work. Challenging the normative conceptions society upholds on these two lines of work, the first were referred to as covertly and the second as overtly creatives in this research. Using Boltanski and Thévenot’s orders of worth, this study aimed to understand how these actors legitimise their use of creativity at work. Interviews were conducted with five actors from each profession to have them share their thoughts, opinions, and concerns on the topic, whilst participant observations were used to cover the non-verbal creative moments. Upon examination, it appears that the two seemingly opposite worlds actually think congruently to each other. Participants identified creativity as something to solve everyday problems and make things easier, but additionally recognised an unexpected form of creativity at work in the sense that it is also used to obstruct productivity. Through this, this study highlights how researching creativity demands reflexivity and an openness to differing outcomes. However, accountants and artists did disagree with each other in showing how they value creativity through different orders of worth. Whereas accountants approved of a growing presence of creativity in the labour market through the order of fame, the artists used the logic of the order of inspiration and found alternative interpretations of creativity by others wanting. A reason for this could be that the covert creatives yet struggle with obtaining the recognition they arguably deserve, whereas the overt creatives defend their territory. Additionally, a créativité pour créativité was considered undesirable by both groups as it obstructs the production process. Thus concluding, they appeared to agree on the values of one dominant order: the industrial order. And yet, creativity did not allow itself to be restricted. Each time participants came down to a certain vision, they disrupted it again. And there you have it: creativity in action.