They both exist in anorganisational setting.Which of these leads to greater and better production ofideas and why? While both attributes of group creativity provide a highly effective context for the promotion and generation of ideas, both have their own optimal contexts of application. In different organizational environments, and with different types of tasks; both have different substantive characteristics that make them uniquely useful, depending on their attributes. "Nominal" group creativity tends to be associated with individual work; in the same organizational context, all creative individuals belonging to the organization will arrive at a task solution purely from their own perspective. The advantage of this approach is that it minimizes the creative convergence and uniformity of the organization's work and preserves the unique attributes of each individual's creativity and diversity, since there is no direct interaction with others' thinking. However, the disadvantage is also more obvious; because it lacks the interaction of the group organization, which means that it is more difficult for the "nominal" group creativity to brainstorm and optimize and improve the content of the creative solutions through individual ways. In the case of "real" group creativity, it operates on the basis of all the members of the organization, i.e., through group discussions or brainstorming and other forms of organizational communication to achieve the birth of high-quality ideas. The advantage is that through direct information exchange, team members can better understand each other's ideas, as well as the strengths and weaknesses behind their ideas. In the constant challenge of exchanging and integrating ideas, team members work together to generate viable creative solutions. On the downside, if the organization does not operate properly in the process of joint creativity, its creative outcomes may be too convergent and inflexible; some individual members may also be forced to hide creative ideas with multiple possibilities outside of the public scheme because of the team's working mode. Therefore, there is no real sense in which one of the two can promote and generate better creativity than the other; some tasks may be suitable for "nominal" group creativity, while others may be more suitable for actual "real" group creativity; they need to be viewed and applied flexibly and dialectically by the users in the actual path of practice, taking into account the actual situation. The better facilitation and generation of more and better creativity will depend largely on the specific objectives and dynamics of the two approaches and the degree of fit between the creative tasks at hand.