Collaborating filmmakers, musicians or artists often go their separate ways citing “creative differences”, a diplomatic and simple label to save face for all those involved from whatever collaborative breakdown that preceded.
But according to new research from Assistant Professor Khwan Kim using “creative differences” actually does very little to protect creatives from reputational harm and may even make things worse.
The research in collaboration with INSEAD and the University of British Colombia draws from a decade of data on 124 Hollywood directors and 345 films. They show that when directors leave under the banner of “creative differences”, they go on to secure fewer opportunities and smaller budgets in the following five years.
In contrast, those who leave earlier in the development process and cite causes such as “scheduling conflicts” avoid the same effect. Timing, rather than wording, appears to be the real protective mechanism.
Published in the Academy of Management Journal, a core contribution of the study is its identification of “professionally ambiguous attributions”, a term the authors use to describe the deliberate use of vague language to obscure the cause of a negative event.
Hollywood has long assumed that ambiguity shields collaborators from blame. The research shows the opposite. Ambiguity creates a curiosity gap that invites speculation. In effect, the label “creative differences” becomes a gap that people rush to fill.
The consequences worsen when high‑status collaborators are involved. Major stars attract attention and exert considerable influence behind the scenes. Their involvement increases scrutiny around a departure and weakens the protective power of ambiguity.
The study shows that working with high‑profile talent amplifies the reputational fallout after a breakdown, partly because stars are more willing to share what happened and partly because people give their interpretation greater weight.
The researchers also find a striking asymmetry. Although individuals suffer, the films themselves do not necessarily do worse. Completed films linked to “creative differences” often perform no worse at the box office than comparable releases. At times they even do better. The label appears to serve studios more effectively than it serves the people departing the project.
Another overlooked finding is how departures reshape the structure of Hollywood’s professional networks. Directors associated with creative differences move to the periphery of the network. Reputational harm shows up most clearly in the loss of core relationships, which in turn restricts access to high‑budget work. The study traces this shift quantitatively, revealing that the effect is not just symbolic but structural.
The study positions collaborative breakdowns as collective failures, rather than individual ones, yet the consequences fall unevenly on the people whose reputations are easiest to question. UCL Assistant Professor Khwan Kim said:
“What surprised us most is how visibly the damage shows up in the structure of professional networks. Directors who leave under the banner of ‘creative differences’ don’t just lose a single opportunity — they drift to the periphery of the industry.
“The relationships that once gave them access to high-budget work quietly dissolve, and that structural shift seems to be difficult to reverse.”
Together, the findings reshape our understanding of how creative industries function. The romantic notion that conflict is part of the artistic process glosses over the long shadows that breakdowns cast. The researchers suggest that early, transparent departures may be less damaging than relying on euphemisms.
