The creative gene: Rethinking talent management with an eye to genomics
Is creativity something we can train—or are some people simply born with it? Can our DNA predict who’s more likely to lead, innovate, or burn out? And what if the future of talent strategy lies not just in skills and experience, but in biology itself?
These aren’t science fiction questions. They’re the result of a bold new line of research that’s pushing the boundaries of how we understand workplace creativity. In a groundbreaking study published in Communications Biology (2024), researchers analysed the genetic data of over 219,000 individuals to uncover the surprising links between creativity, leadership, mental health, and even reproductive behaviour.
The implications are profound, touching everything from leadership pipelines to mental health policies and long-term talent planning. Drawing from the 2024 Communications Biology study, it is crucial to decode how genetics intersects with occupational creativity, and what this emerging science can teach us about designing workforces that are not only innovative, but also sustainable and human-centric by design.
Debunking the starving artist myth: Creativity pays off
Contrary to the long-held myth of the tortured, underpaid creative, the research found strong positive genetic correlations between occupational creativity and indicators of professional success—such as higher income, elevated job status, and greater job satisfaction.
This reframes creativity as more than an artistic flair—it’s a genetic asset that, when properly nurtured, contributes directly to career advancement and organisational value. The study further breaks down creativity into three occupational types: artistic, scientific, and managerial. Each showed distinct genetic correlations. While scientific creativity was most strongly linked to intelligence, managerial creativity—our focus here—was uniquely associated with risk tolerance and subjective well-being. Artistic creativity, by contrast, showed weaker associations with income, underlining the importance of recognising different "creativity profiles" across your workforce.
Managerial creativity: The leadership advantage
Managerial creativity, the form most relevant to organisational leadership, plays a key role in navigating complex environments, making strategic decisions under uncertainty, and catalysing innovation across teams. The study suggests that leaders with high managerial creativity are not only more comfortable with risk—they may also derive more satisfaction from their roles, aligning creativity with purpose.
This connects with findings from MIT Sloan Management Review (2024), which identified that strength-based, talent-focused environments foster both inclusion and innovation. Creative leaders, it turns out, are not lone geniuses—they thrive in ecosystems that empower experimentation, emotional connection, and distributed problem-solving. that true managerial creativity lies in recognising and leveraging the individual strengths of employees within diverse, collaborative teams.
According to this article, creative leaders empower others, dismantle hierarchical barriers, and encourage all team members to contribute to innovation—even those outside the strategic core. This strengths-based approach fosters commitment, reduces fear of change, and cultivates a sense of shared purpose, turning employees into active agents of transformation.
Managerial creativity also manifests through the creation of psychologically safe environments where open debate, dissent, and experimentation are encouraged. Leaders who value diverse perspectives promote original, robust solutions and cultivate cultures of trust, courage, and co-creation. The result is a measurable improvement in organisational culture: reduced anxiety, increased engagement, and greater strategic agility, as employees feel genuinely involved in shaping the future.
Creativity and well-being: Two sides of the same coin?
One of the Communication Biology study’s most fascinating—and complex—insights lies in its genetic correlations between creativity and mental health. On one hand, the researchers found positive genetic associations between creativity and conditions such as bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and autism spectrum traits. On the other, creativity also correlated positively with subjective well-being and longevity.
At first glance, these findings may seem contradictory. But when controlling for intelligence, several of the negative health associations (such as those with autism and longevity) disappeared. This suggests that intelligence may act as a mediating factor.
High creative potential may come with sensitivities, and organisational environments must be built to support—not suppress—those traits. That means inclusive mental health resources, de-stigmatisation, and cultures that promote psychological safety.
The fertility paradox
Perhaps the most unexpected revelation is what the study calls the “reproductive paradox” of creativity. It found a genetic correlation between creativity and delayed parenthood, as well as a negative correlation with the number of children—especially pronounced in scientific creativity.
This opens an important conversation for long-term talent strategy. If individuals with higher creative predispositions tend to delay or avoid parenthood, the future supply of creative talent could be affected demographically. This isn’t a call for eugenics or personal judgment—it’s a signal for HR to think more long-term.
Flexible family policies, work-life balance programmes, and robust support for parenting—especially for roles requiring high creative output—can help address this gap. Companies that enable life-stage agility will retain more diverse talent and ensure continuity in their innovation capacity.
What does this mean for HR and leadership?
This new genomic understanding of creativity offers a bold, if nuanced, roadmap for modern talent management. Here are five actionable implications:
1. Recognise the spectrum of creativity
Creativity is not one-size-fits-all. Artistic, scientific, and managerial creativity each serve different functions in an organisation. HR should design development programmes that identify and enhance these specific expressions of creativity, rather than applying generic creativity training.
2. Integrate well-being into creative development
Given the complex links between creativity and mental health, creativity cannot be fostered in high-pressure or punitive environments. Programmes should integrate mental wellness, coaching, and psychological safety as essential components of innovation initiatives.
3. Tailor leadership pipelines to creative profiles
Managerial creativity is tied to risk tolerance and subjective well-being. This challenges traditional leadership models based on efficiency and control. Instead, leadership development should include creativity as a core competency—training leaders to be more intuitive, empathetic, and experimental.
As McKinsey’s research on the business value of design (2018) showed, companies that embrace creativity at the leadership level outperform their peers in revenue growth and shareholder returns by up to 70%. Creativity, therefore, isn’t ornamental—it’s operational.
4. Future-proof talent with life-stage sensitive policies
To retain highly creative individuals, especially as their life goals shift, HR needs to think beyond perks. Offer parental support, flexible schedules, and career paths that don’t penalise non-linear trajectories. This helps close the gap highlighted by the reproductive paradox and builds loyalty.
5. Create a culture where creativity can thrive
Genes are not destiny. The organisational environment plays a defining role in whether creativity is expressed or suppressed. Cultures that reward experimentation, allow for safe failure, and encourage cross-functional collaboration will see the highest creative dividends.
A recent article in MIT Sloan Management Review reinforced this point: organisations that support strength-based teams and distributed leadership structures report significantly higher innovation rates. Creativity is systemic—not spontaneous.