1 SUPPORTING CREATIVITY IN INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAMWORK: EXAMINING RELATIONSHIPS AMONG INDIVIDUAL TRAITS, GROUP CHARACTERISTICS, TEAM PROCESS, AND CREATIVE PERFORMANCE IN AN APPLIED SETTING By SUNG EUN CHUNG A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF INTERIOR DESIGN UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2009
131
Embed
SUPPORTING CREATIVITY IN INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAMWORK: EXAMINING RELATIONSHIPS AMONG ...ufdcimages.uflib.ufl.edu/UF/E0/02/51/02/00001/chung_s.pdf · 2013-05-31 · supporting creativity
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
1
SUPPORTING CREATIVITY IN INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAMWORK: EXAMINING RELATIONSHIPS AMONG INDIVIDUAL TRAITS, GROUP CHARACTERISTICS, TEAM
PROCESS, AND CREATIVE PERFORMANCE IN AN APPLIED SETTING
By
SUNG EUN CHUNG
A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF INTERIOR DESIGN
Gaps in Previous Research ......................................................................................................... 13 Scope of Study and Research Questions.................................................................................... 15
2 LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................................... 19
Four Ps in Creativity: Person, Process, Press, Product ..................................................... 19 Person ............................................................................................................................ 20 Process .......................................................................................................................... 21 Press .............................................................................................................................. 22 Product .......................................................................................................................... 23
Fifth P: Persuasion ............................................................................................................... 23 Assessing Creativity ............................................................................................................ 24 Domain ................................................................................................................................. 24 Systems Approach to Creativity ......................................................................................... 25
Teamwork .................................................................................................................................... 27 Systems Approach to Teamwork ........................................................................................ 28
Team Composition (Inputs) ........................................................................................................ 29 Individual Characteristics .................................................................................................... 30
Knowledge, skills, and abilities ................................................................................... 30 Problem solving styles or roles ................................................................................... 30 Personality traits ........................................................................................................... 32
Group Characteristics .......................................................................................................... 34 Diversity........................................................................................................................ 35 Goal specification ......................................................................................................... 36
Team Process ............................................................................................................................... 37 Team Problem Solving ........................................................................................................ 38
Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 50 Setting for the Study ................................................................................................................... 50 Sample.......................................................................................................................................... 51 Instruments .................................................................................................................................. 53
Assessing Problem Solving Style: The CPSP .................................................................... 53 Assessing Personality: The ACL ........................................................................................ 56 Assessing Team Process: The Self-Constructed Survey ................................................... 59 Assessing Team Outcome: The Judge’s Scores & Team Self-Evaluation ...................... 59
Procedure ..................................................................................................................................... 60 ACRA Charrette Process ..................................................................................................... 60 Research Steps ..................................................................................................................... 62
Sample Characteristics ................................................................................................................ 66 Comparison to Normative Populations .............................................................................. 66 Comparisons within the Sample ......................................................................................... 67
Question 1: What Problem Solving Styles and Personality Traits Characterizes Each Team’s Composition? How Do These Vary From Normative Populations? ...................... 68
Problem Solving Style ......................................................................................................... 68 Personality Traits ................................................................................................................. 69
Question 2: How do Teams Differ in their Perception of Team Process?............................... 70 Question 3: How Do Problem Solving Styles and Personality Traits Relate to
Perceptions of the Team Process? .......................................................................................... 72 Question 4: What Team Composition and Process Characteristics Describe the Winning
Team? ....................................................................................................................................... 73 Question 5: What are the Main Factors that Relate to Creative Team Performance? ............ 73
Individual Creativity vs. Team Creativity ................................................................................. 86 Creative Abrasion ........................................................................................................................ 88 The Holistic Team ....................................................................................................................... 91 Optimization of Team Performance ........................................................................................... 93 Alternative Views of the Findings ............................................................................................. 94 Limitations ................................................................................................................................... 96 Future Study ................................................................................................................................ 98
APPENDIX
A UF IRB APPROVAL ................................................................................................................ 101
B COPY OF INSTRUMENTS ..................................................................................................... 103
Creative Problem Solving Profile (CPSP) ............................................................................... 103 Team Process Survey (TPS) ..................................................................................................... 104 Judge’s Score Sheet – Presentation Feedback ......................................................................... 106
7
C ACRA CHARRETTE SCHEDULE ........................................................................................ 107
D RESIDUAL HISTOGRAMS FOR NORMAL DISTRIBUTION ......................................... 109
Creative Problem Solving Profile (CPSP) ............................................................................... 109 Adjective Check List (ACL)..................................................................................................... 113
E FIRST PLACE PRESENTATION .......................................................................................... 118
Release Permission.................................................................................................................... 118 First Place Team’s Presentation ............................................................................................... 119
LIST OF REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 120
Table page 3-1 Discipline distribution by teams according to outcome rankings ....................................... 63
4-1 Sample personality variables compared to ACL normative data for males ....................... 75
4-2 Sample personality variables compared to ACL normative data for females .................... 75
4-3 Sample creative personality traits compared to ACL-Cr normative data ........................... 75
4-4 Problem solving styles by occupation in CPSP normative data.......................................... 75
4-5 Problem solving styles by discipline ..................................................................................... 76
4-6 Descriptive summary of ACL-Cr and problem solving scales by gender .......................... 75
4-7 Descriptive summary of ACL-Cr and problem solving scales by discipline ..................... 76
4-8 ANOVA for comparison of problem solving scales by discipline ..................................... 76
4-9 Post-Hoc test in comparing mean differences among problem solving scales .................. 76
4-10 Discipline distribution by team ............................................................................................. 75
4-11 Problem solving style distribution by team .......................................................................... 77
4-12 Composite team problem solving style scales ...................................................................... 75
4-13 Team departure from an idealized problem solving style profile ....................................... 75
4-14 ANOVA for comparison of ACL personality traits by team .............................................. 75
4-15 Post-Hoc test in comparing mean differences among ACL-Cr ........................................... 78
4-16 Descriptive summary of ACL personality trait scores ......................................................... 78
4-17 Descriptive summary of perception of team processes (TPS)............................................. 78
4-18 ANOVA for comparison of perception of team processes (TPS) ....................................... 79
4-19 Post-Hoc test in comparing mean differences among process variables ............................ 79
4-20 Coefficient values from linear regression models of CPSP problem solving styles and ACL personality traits in relation to perception of team processes (TPS) ......................... 79
9
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure page 1-1 An input-process-output framework for analyzing group behavior and performance ...... 18
1-2 Relationships between variables in the present study .......................................................... 18
2-1 Simplex model ........................................................................................................................ 47
2-2 Interactionist model for organizational creativity ................................................................ 48
2-3 Traditional input-process-output (I-P-O) model. ................................................................ 49
2-4 I-P-O model alternative. ....................................................................................................... 49
2-5 I-P-O model with synergy. ................................................................................................... 49
3-1 A sample plot of the Creative Problem Solving Profile (CPSP) ......................................... 64
3-2 Summary of present study methodology .............................................................................. 64
3-3 Research steps in relation to the ACRA charrette schedule for the study procedure ........ 65
4-2 Content analysis of challenges in team processes ................................................................ 82
4-3 Composite problem solving profile for the winning team ................................................... 83
4-4 Scatter plot with regression for thinking by team ranking .................................................. 83
4-5 Scatter plot with regression for evaluation by team ranking ............................................... 84
4-6 Scatter plot with regression for degree of variation in problem solving by team ranking .................................................................................................................................... 84
4-7 Plot of canonical analysis by team ranking .......................................................................... 85
5-1 Composite team problem solving profile comparison of 1st place and 6th place ............. 100
10
Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Interior Design
SUPPORTING CREATIVITY IN INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAMWORK: EXAMINING RELATIONSHIPS AMONG INDIVIDUAL TRAITS, GROUP CHARACTERISTICS, TEAM
PROCESS, AND CREATIVE PERFORMANCE IN AN APPLIED SETTING
By
Sung Eun Chung
December 2009 Chair: Jason Meneely Major: Interior Design
Teamwork and creativity are vital components for businesses to stay competitive.
Although there has been incessant research on both teamwork and creativity, only a few studies
have focused on team creativity and even fewer from a systems approach. The purpose of this
study is to understand the individual and group characteristics that form the team composition
and the process that enhances the quality of creative outcome through a systemic approach.
Creative team processes were examined in forty-two business and interior design students
who were participating in a focused five-day competition held at a large university campus.
Participants were divided into six teams of seven in a charrette challenge of solving a real-world
retail design problem. The participants were profiled on their problem solving styles using the
Creative Problem Solving Profile (CPSP) and their personalities through the Adjective Check
List (ACL) with Domino’s creativity (Cr) scale used to profile creative personalities. To
understand the team process during the problem solving task, participating students completed a
locally developed team process survey. A panel of expert judges consisting of noted retailers,
designers, and the client assessed the teams’ outcomes to award a winning submission.
11
Teams differed in the distribution of discipline and problem solving styles, with the
winning team being the most diverse, yet balanced team. Teams that perceived team processes
positively were more successful than those that assessed the processes negatively. The winning
team as well as the least preferred team both had the highest score for creativity (ACL-Cr), yet
had opposing outcomes. The winning team also perceived the conflicts in their process to be
positive, while the least preferred team had not.
Results suggest that individual creativity is necessary for creative team performance yet
not sufficient. Although team creativity may benefit from the individual contributions, it is not
the simple aggregate of individuals that impacts team performances. The findings of this study
imply that teams that are diverse, yet well-balanced in problem solving styles, and have the
ability to transform conflict in the process to creative abrasion have the potential for creative
performance.
12
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
Today, many businesses are challenged to generate and implement creative ideas to remain
competitive. In a time when businesses are trying to keep up with the rapid social and
technological change, creativity paves the way for success. ‘Creativity’ is indeed a necessity in a
variety of fields, and whether we recognize it or not; we live in a culture that is hungry for
creative solutions.
Many businesses incorporate teamwork as a fundamental component of creative problem
solving. Teamwork is a dynamic that emerges between individuals working cooperatively to
accomplish a goal that is beyond their individual capabilities (Marks, Mathieu, & Zaccaro, 2001;
Osborn & Moran, 2000). Organizations utilize teamwork from the belief that group interaction
stimulates others and results in increased productivity, efficiency (Levi, 2001), and even
creativity (Hargadon & Bechky, 2006). The potential of teamwork is that the whole is greater
than the sum of its parts; the collective work of a team is more than what the individuals could
accomplish alone. Consequently, businesses are now focusing on how to optimize creative
potential in teamwork.
Organizations must rely on group creativity for the reason that the problems they face are
often too complex and multifaceted for the scope of an individual’s expertise. The problems that
businesses contend with cut across organizational boundaries and demand multidisciplinary
perspectives to develop creative solutions (Levi, 2001; Brown & Eisenhardt, 1998; Eisenhardt,
1990). Efficacy is not only achieved through the number of people in the team, but incorporating
the right mix of people. Individuals with knowledge, skills, and abilities in a variety of fields and
specializations need to come together to fully maximize the problem solving process. Nowadays,
13
the call for both creativity and teamwork is of the essence as the demands in society rapidly
change.
The purpose of this study is to better understand how individual traits, and group
characteristics, and team processes interact to support creative performance. While prior research
has primarily employed unidimensional approaches in controlled experimental settings (e.g.,
* Significant correlation at the 0.05 level (2-tailed) Table 4-3. Sample creative personality traits compared to ACL-Cr normative data
Normative Date (Davis & Bull) Present study Z p μ SD M SD
ACL-Cr 45.2 11.5 51.40 9.78 3.50 0.000* * Significant correlation at the 0.05 level (2-tailed) Table 4-4. Problem solving styles by occupation in CPSP normative data Problem Solving Style
* Dual profiles were split into halves Table 4-6. Descriptive summary of ACL-Cr and problem solving scales by gender Variables Male (n =11) Female (n =31) Total (n =42)
Table 4-7. Descriptive summary of ACL-Cr and problem solving scales by discipline Variables Business (n =17) Merchandising (n =13) Interior Design (n =12)
Table 4-8. ANOVA for comparison of problem solving scales by discipline Problem solving scales p Experiencing 0.963 Ideation 0.470 Thinking 0.007* Evaluation 0.057
* Significant correlation at the 0.05 level (2-tailed) Table 4-9. Post-Hoc test in comparing mean differences among problem solving scales Thinking Mean Differences p Business (M = 24.00; SD=4.460)
Merchandising (M = 29.40; SD=3.406)
-5.462 0.004*
Interior Design (M = 28.67; SD=5.483)
-4.667 0.014*
* Significant correlation at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
77
Table 4-10. Discipline distribution by team Discipline 1st place 2nd place 3rd place 4th place 5th place 6th place Total Business 2 3 3 3 4 2 18 Merchandise 3 2 2 2 1 3 12 Interior Design 2 2 2 2 2 2 12 Total 7 7 7 7 7 7 42
Note: n = 42 Table 4-11. Problem solving style distribution by team Problem Solving Style
1st place 2nd place 3rd place 4th place 5th place 6th place Total
Table 4-13. Team departure from an idealized problem solving style profile Problem Solving Style 1st place 2nd place 3rd place 4th place 5th place 6th place Generator 1.0 2.0 2.8 1.4 4.7 0.7 Conceptualizer 0.9 2.4 3.2 2.7 1.9 3.9 Optimizer 1.5 2.0 2.9 1.8 4.6 1.2 Implementer 0.4 2.4 3.3 3.1 1.8 4.4 Skew Factor (∆) 3.8 8.8 12.2 9.0 13.0 10.2
Table 4-14. ANOVA for comparison of ACL personality traits by team Personality Variables p Achievement 0.071 Dominance 0.304 Order 0.191 Affiliation 0.967 Autonomy 0.440 Change 0.144 Deference 0.604 Personal Adjustment 0.106 ACL-Cr 0.037*
* Significant correlation at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
78
Table 4-15. Post-Hoc test in comparing mean differences among ACL-Cr ACL-Cr Mean Differences p 4th (M = 42.49; SD=7.41) 1st (M = 56.43; SD=10.37) -14.14 0.005* 2nd (M = 54.57; SD=9.20) -12.28 0.014* 3rd (M = 54.57; SD=9.20) -6.86 0.159 5th (M = 54.57; SD=9.20) -7.29 0.135 6th (M = 56.43; SD=10.23) -14.14 0.005*
* Significant correlation at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
Table 4-16. Descriptive summary of ACL personality trait scores 1st place 2nd place 3rd place 4th place 5th place 6th place Total Personality Variables M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD
Table 4-18. ANOVA for comparison of perception of team processes (TPS) Process Variables p Success 0.000* Interaction 0.003* Appreciate Challenge 0.001* Creative w/Team 0.013* Preference in Teams 0.003*
* Significant correlation at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
* Significant correlation at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
80
Table 4-20. Coefficient values from linear regression models of CPSP problem solving styles and ACL personality traits in relation to perception of team processes (TPS)
Process Variables Problem Solving Style/Personality Trait Beta p Success Optimizer 0.039 0.034* Thinking 5.660 0.008* ACL-Cr 0.060 0.010* Creative w/Team ACL-Cr 0.072 0.043* Change -0.077 0.043*
* Significant correlation at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
81
Figure 4-1. Composite problem solving profile by team
82
1st place 2nd place 3rd place Success /Challenges
-respect -excellent group dynamics -common goal -collaboration -openness -did not dwell on conflict -time management -communication -a lot of conflicting ideas
-respective -equal effort -team bonding -good team chemistry -have a good time -communication -too many ideas -fall behind an ideal schedule
-honesty -diversity -funny -commitment to goals -support for each member -collaboration -communication -team leader
Conflicts /Resolutions
-more than one leader -differences in ideas and strategy -stressful and tiring -minimal conflict -strong cohesion -very open and collaborated -someone to drive the process -simplified our ideas -managed to solve it well -delegated work very well and efficiently -always on the same page -just “went with the flow”
-time -tension occurred once due to lack of sleep and overall fatigue
-one team member rarely showed up -constructive debates -brainstorming arguments -time -did not disrupt the dynamic of our group -organized ourselves and assigned tasks -the 6 of us became stronger
4th place 5th place 6th place Success /Challenges
-different methods in research -time use -not open to constructive criticism -arguments
-different attitudes -strong-minded natural leaders -time management -conflict management -did not get along well and did not work well together
-picking on people’s work and started deleting all the progress from dislike -became very rude and cruel -did not respect others’ ideas -too critical -chose to separate themselves and ignore the group -delayed progress and completion -time crunch helped people concentrate and focus on the main concept of challenge
-pushed aside -ideas unaccounted for; completely disregarded -a lot of arguing -struggled with collectively working together -personality conflicts -control over everything; dominant -everyone wanted to lead -different ideas about what is considered creative -some were mediated
-personality clashes -insensitivity to issues and people -unwillingness to share/collaborate -stress levels rose and things were taken personally -feelings were hurt, then talked and got over it -different personalities/ways of handling situations -worked through them and found each other’s strengths and weaknesses
Figure 4-2. Content analysis of challenges in team processes
83
Figure 4-3. Composite problem solving profile for the winning team
Figure 4-4. Scatter plot with regression for thinking by team ranking
84
Figure 4-5. Scatter plot with regression for evaluation by team ranking
Figure 4-6. Scatter plot with regression for degree of variation in problem solving by team
ranking
85
Figure 4-7. Plot of canonical analysis by team ranking
86
CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION
Individual Creativity vs. Team Creativity
Much of the existing research on creativity emphasizes individual creativity (e.g., Oldham
& Cummings, 1996; Pirola-Merlo & Mann, 2004). It is only now when the importance of teams
has surfaced that attention has started to steer towards understanding team creativity. In linking
the research between creativity and teams, researchers are taking many different directions in
explaining this phenomenon. One justification entails the debate between whether team creativity
is achieved by individual contributions or from the resultant synergies among collaborators
(Hargadon & Bechky, 2006).
Does individual creativity factor in as a crucial element when achieving a successful
outcome as a team? Some theorize that individuals with high creative personality traits usually
prefer to work alone and have the tendency for being autonomous (Sawyer, 2007; VanGundy,
1984). When these individuals are comprised into a team, do they reach their highest potential?
In relation, this study found that individuals with a high personality score in change, the
characteristic of seeking novelty in experience and avoiding routine, responded negatively
towards feeling creative with a team. These individuals may have felt constrained by the team,
which could have suppressed spontaneous idea generation. Following their preference in
working alone and their spontaneous tendency, would highly creative individuals prefer to ignore
the interaction with team members and independently attempt to complete the task? When
creative individuals do not collectively come together, what becomes of the outcome? Team
members that have lower creative personality traits may benefit from the highly creative
members’ ideas at the beginning of process and standby while waiting to implement their own
strengths later on in the process. When this happens, the team process cannot be considered
87
synergistic; rather, individuals are just working independently to complete the task. A creative
product can only be claimed to be originated from teamwork when creative collaboration
emerges from interpersonal interaction.
On the other hand, when all the team members are highly creative individuals, is the team
capable of completing the task to their high expectations? Literature suggests that when too
many creative individuals with different styles come together, friction can occur (Sawyer, 2007;
Staehle, 1999). Success is determined by whether or not individuals can channel this creative
abrasion into a positive force to drive a better solution. Although individual creativity is
important and should be considered when composing a team; it is important to point out that
individual creativity alone is not sufficient. Regardless of a team’s composition, they must have a
great process to reach new levels of creativity. The focus in cultivating a creative outcome is not
solely focused on finding the right combination of individuals to make the best team, but equally
important to manage the team process for maximum synergy.
The present study provides insight to the debate between individual creativity and team
creativity. For example, the 6th place team had the highest score for Domino’s Creative
Personality scale (ACL-Cr); however, their solution was least preferred by the judges. This team
showed high levels of creative personality traits, but appeared to have failed in overcoming
group tensions to synergize their collective creativity. The qualitative responses from the 6th
place team members indicated that they had some personal conflict during the process: “[we had
tensions in] personality clashes, some insensitivity to issues/people, [and] unwillingness to
share/collaborate.” Although they reported to have resolved these conflicts in the end, they did
not note any improvements in team dynamics after resolving these conflicts.
88
The 1st place team also had high scores for creativity personality traits (ACL-Cr); in fact
mean scores were identical with the 6th place team. Although the members in the winning team
reported some conflict, they did not perceive it to be personal. Instead, the conflict appeared to
become a force that pushed the team’s ideas to new heights. The winning team commented: “it
[the tension] helped because it simplified our ideas,” “[having more than one leader] caused
conflict however it was good that . . . there was still someone there to drive the process.”
From the comparison between the 1st place team and the 6th place team, can it be assumed
that team processes has a significant impact on the creative performance? Both teams had
individuals with similar levels of creative personality traits, yet their outcomes were radically
different. Leonard & Swap (1999) stated that people renowned for their individual creativity
have cited and emphasized that interaction is important. The findings from this study also
provides data that individuals with high creative personality traits feel more creative when
working in a team (refer to Table 4-18). Hargadon & Bechky (2006) comment that at times, the
locus of creative problem solving shifts from the individual to the interactions of a collective
team. Although team creativity must benefit from the creativity of individuals, team creativity is
not the simple aggregate of all the team members’ creativity (Woodman, Sawyer, & Griffin,
1993).
Creative Abrasion
The team process is a huge component towards a successful outcome. Many social
creativity studies refer to team interaction as a key ingredient in success (e.g., Hackman, 1987;
Steiner, 1972; Hargadon & Bechky, 2006), and identify the team process as the ‘make or break’
In short, how people interact during the process can either help or hinder the work.
89
Successful teams tend to perceive conflicts as creative opportunities. Nemeth (1997)
identified that dissent is key to promote group creativity, commenting that it encourages the team
to view an issue from multiple perspectives. Team members acknowledge personal differences
and respect conflicting views, while using their diverse perspectives as a tool for more creative
solutions. When the team is exposed to contradictory ideas, the team’s thinking process is
stimulated and more creative ideas are produced. Leonard and Straus (1997) call this process
creative abrasion where different approaches of team members produce conflict within the group
but the result of this tension is a successful output. Creative abrasion is what sets free the creative
potential that is latent in a collection of individuals, which is summed in the comment, “Put
enough different individual lenses together, and you have a kaleidoscope of ideas (Leonard &
Swap, 1999, p.21).”
On the other hand, when members take conflicts personally, problems can occur.
Personal conflicts are ineffective because their interactions are divisive and angry (Leonard &
Swap, 1999). These conflicts do not produce any creativity, but rather bring unnecessary
emotions that create process losses. The team not only suffers from the loss in time, but also in
interaction, relationships, communication, respect, and even trust. Personal conflicts lose a lot
while gaining nothing.
This study presented examples where creative abrasion supported the team process, and
personal conflict resulted in failure. The delineation between successful and unsuccessful
creative abrasion was apparent when comparing the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place teams to the 4th, 5th, and
6th place teams. While the top three teams perceived team conflict to be a positive force, the
bottom three teams took the team conflicts to be personal in nature. Tensions within the top three
teams include: “we had a little tension for the short time we had left but we did [well] in
90
organizing ourselves and assigning tasks,” and “[the conflict] helped because it simplified our
ideas.” Conflicts within bottom three teams include: “stress levels rose and things were taken
personally,” “they . . . didn’t like anything and started arguments within our group,” “they . . .
became very rude and cruel; they could not take on other’s opinions and chose to separate
themselves and ignore the group,” and “two members never got along and their personal tension
hurt the team dynamic.”
In addition, through extensive research, evaluation has been found to have a negative
effect on group creativity when introduced too early in the process (Amabile, 1996). People in a
group often evaluate each other’s ideas, and the likelihood of negative evaluation makes team
members uneasy of their inputs; in the end, discouraging creativity (Levi, 2001). The present
study found that team ranking and CPSP evaluation scores had a negative relationship
(approaching significance with a p-value of 0.075)—teams low in ranking had higher scores for
evaluation. The 6th place team in particular, had many Implementers and the highest score for
evaluation. Their composite team profile shows a distortion towards evaluation compared to the
balanced 1st place team (Figure 5-1). Overall, the 6th place team may have struggled in
generating sufficient novel ideas because evaluation was dominant during the process.
Conversely, the 6th place team had a low score in CPSP thinking, another variable that was
approaching significance (positive correlation with a p-value of 0.097) when compared to team
ranking. Although the members of the 6th place team may have been strong in evaluation, their
evaluations may not have been based in rational thinking processes. The MANOVA results
correspond with this interpretation and add that the judgments of the 6th place team may have
been more personal or intuitive in nature rather than verbally expressed (see Figure 4-7). When
compiling this information with the composite team profile, the interpersonal work
91
characteristics of the 6th place team may have been implicit rather than explicit and introduced
too early in the process. On the other hand, the 1st place team had a low CPSP evaluation score
and a high CPSP thinking score. This team may have applied rational logic when thinking
through and evaluating their ideas.
In these cases, creative performance may be related to different combinations of problem
solving styles. Benefits resulting in creative performance are attainable when a cross-functional
team appreciates the positive constructive potential of differences in values and attitudes,
personalities and styles, and knowledge and skills, and is more likely to welcome the expression
of those differences (Northcraft, Polzer, Neale, & Kramer, 1995). In what team climate are these
benefits reaped? Do certain combinations of personality traits and problem solving styles support
creative abrasion?
The Holistic Team
Leonard and Swap (1999) note that ‘creative abrasion’ can be more successful within
heterogeneous teams. While a homogenous team may be productive, many studies have shown
that there is more potential for creative solutions in a heterogeneous team composition
(VanGundy, 1984; Amabile, 1996; Kurtzberg, 2000). Leonard and Straus (1997) explain that the
intelligence of the individual team members do not matter as much as finding the right mix of
diverse individuals. It is not just about mixing right-brain and left-brain individuals, but creating
a whole-brained team with several different styles that overlap. Diversity in teams not only offer
more opportunities for abrasion, but also creates more chances for creativity.
In the present study, the 1st place team was the most heterogeneous team in terms of
discipline and problem solving styles. They had members representing all problem solving styles
on the CPSP, with each of the four styles approaching 25% which resulted in a very balanced
profile and the lowest skew factor (3.8) among teams (refer to Figure 4.3). In addition, the 1st
92
place team did not report any personal conflicts during the team processes, but described
tensions that helped push their thinking, “we were successful because we were able to get along
well and communicate calmly, [although] at one time there were a lot of conflicting ideas.”
While the heterogeneity of opposing styles increased problem solving differences, the relative
balance between all styles could have prevented unproductive conflicts.
The 2nd place team was also heterogeneous in discipline and problem solving styles.
Although problem solving styles were not nearly as evenly spread out as the 1st place team, a
unique characteristic of the 2nd place team was that two members had dual-styles (Generator-
Implementer and Optimizer-Implementer) that added to the team’s diversity. The team profile
for the 2nd place team was symmetrically balanced (delta values for generating equals that of
optimizing, and conceptualizing equals implementing), and had the second lowest skew factor of
8.8. The only comments available that the 2nd place team wrote on the tensions during the
process were about the time constraint.
In contrast, the 6th place team was somewhat homogenous in problem solving styles
(refer to Table 4-12). Similarly, the 5th place team had the most uneven distribution of problem
solving styles, with over half the team members dominant in idea generation. The 5th and 6th
place team both had skewed CPSP profiles, and did not come close to the well-balanced shape of
the 1st or 2nd place team. Their skew factors were among the highest (6th place team: 10.2; 5th
place team: 13.0). The 6th place team’s profile was skewed towards evaluation, while the 5th
place team’s profile was skewed toward ideation. Some comments on the tensions that occurred
on the 5th place team included: “everyone wanted to lead,” and “one of the girls was too
dominant which hurt the team’s openness.” The personal conflicts reported during the team
processes by the 5th and 6th place team were not easily solved; “bickering took over ½ hour
93
sometimes,” “impact on time management.” It is likely that the conflicts of the 5th place team
resulted from a lack of Implementers and evaluators to assess the potential of proposed ideas.
Although differences commonly result in conflict, when the diversity is a combination of
well-balanced qualities in the team, creative performance may emerge. The whole-brained team
may be the key to successful creative abrasion. Individual creativity is important; however, if
creative abrasion does not occur in the team process, the outcome may not be successful. The
creative abrasion phenomenon can be seen as the group synergy effect when teams go beyond
the individual capabilities (Schweiger & Sandberg, 1989). More study in this area will give
insight to whether creative abrasion occurs mostly in a whole-brained team and whether these
two elements predict creative success.
Optimization of Team Performance
While planning for diverse teams may not always result in successful outcomes,
successful management may optimize team performance. Teams should not only be composed of
diverse individuals, but also learn to respect and value the individual differences that exist
among members. Social identity theory indicates that team education is a potential avenue in
overcoming barriers to successful collaboration in diverse teams (Northcraft et al., 1995). Teams
should work to the advantage of diversity through respecting differences (Thomas, 1990) and
using, rather than merely acknowledging, the ideas and skills of the team members (Morrison,
1992). In order for teams to fully draw on the human resource potential of every member, it is
essential that people learn to acknowledge, embrace, and think critically about the meaningful,
ongoing relationships that can bring such learning (Ely, 1995).
Individuals should be able to grasp the situation they are in. The diverse backgrounds of
team members potentially bring communication and conflict problems (Levi, 2001). Through
training programs, team members can be trained to better communicate and appreciate each other
94
(Northcraft et al., 1995). Team members should consistently be aware of the team goal and
communicate to keep all members on the same page. Teams should also be familiar with the
concept of creative abrasion. Team members often are not good at supporting each other’s ideas,
so designating times when they are not being critical is important for creativity (Levi, 2001).
When all members are aware of the different conflicts and its related factors in the team process,
there may be a better chance in avoiding negative conflict and steering it towards a more positive
outcome.
In the present study, all teams reported neutrally or positively when asked if by choice,
they preferred working with a team or working alone. Although there were some individuals that
strongly agreed in preferring to work within their team, the mean scores indicate that a majority
of the members were quite satisfied. Although the short time period of the charrette may have
brought both advantages and disadvantages to the teams, the performance could have been
optimized by applying the methods mentioned above.
Alternative Interpretation of the Findings
Creative performance may only result from a correct understanding of the definition of
creativity. Teams must keep in mind that the solution to the given problem must not only be
novel, but also appropriate. The current study demonstrates an example of team success that
provided a solution according to this definition. The judges’ feedback presents some insight into
the creative outcome. One judge commented that the 1st place team had “lots of examples of
creativity,” and the design and business plans were realistic and thoughtful. The 1st and 6th place
teams had the highest score for creative personality traits and the 2nd place team closely followed.
In contrast, this judge questioned the 4th place team, which had the lowest score for creative
personality, stating “what makes yours’ unique?” and remarked that the project “could have been
more innovative.” The comments of this judge appeared to parallel the findings of the ACL-Cr.
95
The 1st place team in particular, differed from the 2nd and 6th place team in that the judges felt the
project was also realistic and thoughtful. Considering that the 1st place team had the highest score
in thinking, reiterates the importance of rational thinking in combination to the novelty of ideas.
The 1st place team appeared to strike a balance between a novel and appropriate idea, the very
definition of creativity.
In looking at the social aspects of creativity, Amabile theorizes that creativity lies at the
intersection of personal and situational factors (1996). In this componential model for creativity,
the main factors are domain-relevant skills, creativity-relevant processes, and task motivation.
Domain-relevant skills imply the knowledge, skills, and abilities in the individual’s particular
area of application. Creativity-relevant processes are the appropriate cognitive styles and
knowledge of the creative techniques needed during the process. Finally, task motivation
incorporates intrinsic motivation of the individual toward the task, and the extrinsic
environmental factors that encourage or discourage creativity. Although the present study
explored the skills and processes, it did not thoroughly investigate intrinsic and extrinsic
motivation. The 3rd Annual ACRA Charrette offered a prize for the winning team. This was
disclosed at the welcome reception dinner at the beginning of the competition. For some
participants, this reward could have influenced an individual’s extrinsic motivation. The
participation of this nationally renowned retail competition also gives the opportunity for
students to record this in their resume which could lead to possible job offers in the future. In
addition, some participants may have been intrinsically motivated by the pure enjoyment of
solving the task problem, working in a team, establishing new relationships, and being in a
competitive environment. Some of the participants had commented that one of their team goals
and expectations was to have fun. In contrast, there were also several students that were not
96
interested in the charrette at all with comments such as, “one of the [members] did not want to be
here,” and “I had a lot of other school work” which resulted in absence during the team process.
These forms of motivation may have impacted the team processes; however, was not formally
measured in the present study.
Limitations
The present study had limitations regarding the method of outcome evaluation, data
collection, research conditions, instruments, and the work environment. First, in the evaluation of
the team proposals, the judges were inconsistent in their use of the score sheet provided for
evaluation. None of the judges consistently followed the instructions in assessing the team
presentations and only commented qualitatively without any quantitative scores. For this reason,
direct quantitative comparisons among teams were impossible. Instead the 1st place team was
decided by a verbal consensus among the judges during the time of deliberation. Because of the
controlled environment of the ACRA Charrette, the researcher did not have the time or the
control to emphasize the importance of quantitative evaluation. The judges may have felt that the
judge’s score sheet did not adhere to their evaluation criteria and hence, found an alternative
method in assessment. During the announcement of the final results, the judges commented that
they were all impressed in the quality of all the projects, but the 1st place team had stood out the
most. They did not officially announce the rank ordering of the reaming teams; however, the
ACRA official who observed the judges’ deliberation shared these results with the researcher,
and therefore, the research includes the findings according to the unpublicized rank order that
occurred in the closed judging session.
This study had a total of 42 participants that were divided into six teams. For the reason
that most of the comparisons of this study were by team, the six teams were treated as six
individual samples. Consequently, statistical power due to the sample size was somewhat
97
lacking. Nevertheless, the present study contributes in the quality of the sample considering the
elite characteristics compared to normative sample, and the pre-selection process. However, the
absence of a pre-test of domain-specific knowledge does not offer the exact understanding of
each participant’s domain relevant skills.
Teams were also composed by ACRA officials according to discipline and associated
institutions and therefore, the researcher had no control over the distribution of gender, problem-
solving style, or personality traits. Due to the intense time limitation, the researcher had to adhere
to the charrette schedule in collecting data. The data collection environment was not stable or
consistent in that the methods of instrument administration were taken online, during bus transit,
and at the end of the charrette when participants were most fatigued. Especially in the case of the
final instrument, the self-constructed Team Process Survey (TPS), the qualitative questions
asked were designed to encourage participants to give detailed descriptions; however, many of
the students were tired at the conclusion of the project and did not elaborate in their responses.
One student even commented that they were too tired and sleepy to answer the questions in their
right mind (described her self as being delirious). The excitement of being done with the
charrette and awaiting the results could have hindered the concentration that was needed in
completing the overall qualitative survey. Along with the TPS, the team self-evaluation seemed
to have been influenced by the adrenaline for the reason that most teams assessed their projects
to have a perfect score. Thus, data collected from the team self-evaluation has been disregarded.
Control in providing equal circumstances for all the teams was not possible as well. For
example, some teams had faculty assistance during the reception dinner to aid them in team
building or brainstorming in projects. The accessibility to feedback differed among teams
throughout the whole process. There was no control over who gave what kind of guidance.
98
Communication with people outside of the charrette was not recommended, although not
monitored either. Especially, team members from the host university were still within their
residency and had many access opportunities during the term of the project. Since the charrette
was held during the semester, members could have gotten outside information or stimulation
during the process, although probably not direct help. Another influence could have been
through the sequence in meetings with the industry panel. The experts might have been able to
give more valuable information towards the end of the rotation since they would have known
more of the commonalities that were being questioned for the project. Teams might also have
more focused questions towards the end of the rotation and have benefitted from that industry in
particular. In contrast, both the experts and the teams may have concentrated less at the end of
the rotation due to fatigue or the monotony of repeating the same information over and over
again.
Finally, physical work space was not equivalent for all teams. Although teams were given
the freedom to choose wherever they wanted to work in, the environments that were provided for
the teams were not necessarily equal. For instance, the breakout rooms that were provided for the
teams were from a large room that was divided by partitions. Some were larger than others, some
had only one division wall while others had two. Some teams had to change rooms while others
were able to use the same room during the whole duration of the project.
Future Research
Many issues were discussed in the present study about cultivating the creative team,
process, and outcome. This study offers many opportunities for future work to advance research
on team creativity in an applied setting. Field research conducting a real problem approach in
this area is especially important for its implication in practice. Opportunities of this type of
research are encouraged to not only add to the growing body of knowledge, but also bridge the
99
gap between research and practice. A suggestion for specifically studying the ACRA Charrette
would be to replicate this study and aggregate the results to build the data into a longitudinal
study.
Future study where the teams are composed fairly equally in creativity and/or problem
solving styles may be interesting for research as well. This kind of study will help to further
examine if whole-brained teams are in fact, more likely to have productive creative abrasion and
successful outcomes. Controlling the composition of teams will allow more information on how
much diversity and what type of diversity cultivates innovations.
Another potential study could explore the element of training before team engagement.
Do teams react more successfully when they are better informed? Will training on creative
abrasion support team processes? Leonard and Straus (1997) believe that whole-brained teams
do not naturally understand one another, and often are antagonistic toward one another. When
managers facilitate the team process to enable members to acknowledge differences and potential
contributions each type of thinker brings to the table before the actual teamwork, outcomes are
more likely to end in success. Along those lines, future work on team training on creative
abrasion may be able to resolve conflicts better and even utilize those opportunities to creatively
arrive at a successful outcome.
Additional research of the potential influence of the team’s physical environment may be
interesting to study and add to the growing body of knowledge on the design of the physical
work environment. Studies that compare teams working in controlled environments may give
insight towards what elements are supportive or even synergetic to teamwork, even though
variables that are related to the social dynamics may not be controlled. Exploring design
elements that inhibit creativity in teams would also be useful.
100
All in all, more research should be conducted on team creativity. With so many factors
and variables involved in a systems understanding of creativity, it is important to thoroughly
examine all possibilities. These studies on team creativity will add to the body of knowledge so
that all levels—individuals, teams, and organizations—can benefit by insights into optimizing
creative teams.
Figure 5-1. Composite team problem solving profile comparison of 1st place and 6th place
101
APPENDIX A UF IRB APPROVAL
102
103
APPENDIX B COPY OF INSTRUMENTS
Creative Problem Solving Profile (CPSP)
104
Team Process Survey (TPS)
How well did your team meet the goals and expectations that were agreed upon during the Team Building Exercise? (Please circle according to the scale: 1= Very poor 2= Poor 3= Neutral 4= Good 5= Very good)
What were some aspects that led to the success/challenges of meeting your team’s goals and expectations?
Teamwork Style
The following statements ask about your behavior when working in your team. Please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with these statements by circling the appropriate response.
Strongly disagree
Slightly disagree Neutral Slightly
agree Strongly agree
1. I enjoyed interacting with my teammates when working on this project. 1 2 3 4 5
2. I appreciated when my teammates challenged or questioned my ideas. 1 2 3 4 5
3. I felt more creative when working with my team. 1 2 3 4 5
4. If I had the choice, I would prefer to work with my team instead of by myself. 1 2 3 4 5
Role Clarity
Describe the primary role you took with your team during the problem-solving process. How did you fall into that role?
Who was most responsible for each role? (Please check accordingly; multiple roles are possible)
Cohesion/Conflict
What were the strengths of your team?
1 3 2 4 5
Generating Ideas
Conceptualizing Ideas
Optimizing Ideas
Implementing Ideas
105
Did your team have any challenges or tensions during the process? If so, what were they?
Did these challenges help or hinder your solution? How?
Team Dynamics
What is your major? Did you find yourself contributing ideas and/or inputs into area outside of your major discipline? How?
How much time was spent during the team process in proportion (Total of 100%)? % % % working alone working in sub-groups working with whole group
Work Environment
How many locations did you work in? Describe each location your team decided to work.
From the list above, which location best supported your work and why? What specific characteristics made the location an ideal place to work in?
= 100 %
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
106
Judge’s Score Sheet – Presentation Feedback
Creativity (based on your own definition): / 10 Overall Concept and Private Label Development: / 10 Store Design (Front & Interior): / 10 Store Layout: / 10 Assortment Plan & Merchandising Strategy: / 10 Income Statements for Start-up and Growth Phases: / 10 Marketing Plan: / 10 Use of Technology: / 10 Evidence-based Research: / 10 Presentation Style: / 10 Additional Comments: TEAM: JUDGE:
107
APPENDIX C ACRA CHARRETTE SCHEDULE
March 17, Tuesday 2009 3:00 pm – 5:30 pm Arrival and Hotel (Reitz Union) check-in
Reitz Union Hotel Address: UF Reitz Union (Museum Road) Campus Map: http://campusmap.ufl.edu/?loc=0686&zoom=17 Driving direction: http://www.union.ufl.edu/hotel/directions.asp Hotel contact information: (352) 392-2151 or [email protected]
5:00 pm Registration (Friends Music Room at University Auditorium) 6:00 pm – 8:30 pm Kick-off & Opening reception dinner Team building activities and Team Introduction March 18, Wednesday 2009 (Field trip to Client: ALL Day) 8:00 am Departure from Reitz Union at 8 am Sharp 11:00 am – 4:00 pm Meet the Client (Headquarter) and Store Visit 4:00 pm – 5:30 pm Team meeting for brainstorming and having fun at beach 6:00 pm – 7:00 pm Dinner 10:00 pm Arrival at Reitz Union March 19, Thursday 2009 (Reitz Union Grand Salon A) – 11:00 am Project research by group 11:30 am – 12:30 pm Presentation, “Design as a Marketing Tool”, by Kenneth Walker
from WalkerGroupDesign (Reitz Union Grand Salon A) 12:30 pm – 1:30 pm Lunch 1:30 pm – 1:50 pm Industry Panel Introduction 2:00 pm – 5:00 pm Industry Experts (Group Rotation) Creative Design Kenneth Walker, WalkerGroupDesign Communication/advertising Paul Daigle, President, PYPERPAUL+KENNEY Advertising/Communication
Merchandising Don Niemann, Director of Merchandise Buying, Client Finance Bill Alcorn, former Sr. Vice President, Controller & CPO – JCPenney Retail technology Julia Arnette, VP in Global Industry, IBM HR Mary Beth Garcia, Director, Novations Group Inc. 5:30 pm – 6:30 pm Dinner 6:30 pm – Project work by group March 20, Friday 2009 (Reitz Union: Break-out room for each group) – 2:00 pm Project work by group 2:00 pm – 3:30 pm Presentation skill workshop (feedback will be provided to one
volunteered team) Reitz Union Rion Room 235 3:30 pm – Project work by group March 21, Saturday 2009 (Bryan 232 Bill Alcorn Room) 9:00 am – 12:30 pm Presentations 12:30 pm – 1:30 pm Lunch/Evaluations by Judges 1:30 pm – 2:30 pm Award reception/closing
109
APPENDIX D RESIDUAL HISTOGRAMS FOR NORMAL DISTRIBUTION
Creative Problem Solving Profile (CPSP)
110
111
112
113
Adjective Check List (ACL)
114
115
116
117
118
APPENDIX E FIRST PLACE PRESENTATION
Release Permission
119
First Place Team’s Presentation
(double click icon below to view presentation)
120
LIST OF REFERENCES
Al-Rawi, K. (2008). Cohesiveness within teamwork: The relationship to performance effectiveness-case study. Education, Business and Society: Contemporary Middle Eastern Issues, 1(2), 92–106. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Amabile, T. M. (1981, April). Brilliant but Cruel: Perceptions of Negative Evaluators. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association, New York, NY.
Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. In B. Staw & L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, (Vol. 10, pp.123–167). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, Inc.
Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1154–1184.
Arvey, R. D., Dewhirst, H. D., & Boling, J. C., (1976). Relationships between goal clarity, participation in goal setting, and personality characteristics on job satisfaction in a scientific organization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61(1), 103–105.
Amabile, T. M., & Mueller, J. S. (2008). Studying creativity, its processes, and its antecedents: An exploration of the componential theory of creativity. In J. Zhou & C. Shalley (Eds.), Handbook of organizational creativity (pp. 33–64). New York: Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.
Baer, J. (1998). The case for domain specificity of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 11(2), 173–177.
Barlow, C. A. (2000). Deliberate insight in team creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 34(2), 101–117.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1–26.
Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., Neubert, M. J., & Mount, M. K. (1998). Relating ability and personality to work-team processes and team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(3), 377–391.
Barron, F. (1988). Putting creativity to work. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Barron, F. B., & Harrington, D. M. (1981). Creativity, intelligence, and personality. In M. R. Rosenzweig & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Annual Review of Psychology, (Vol. 32, pp. 439–476). Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.
121
Basadur, M. S. (1974). Think or sink. The deliberate methods change bulletin, July-September, Procter & Gamble Management Systems Division, Cincinnati, OH.
Basadur, M. S. (1979). Training in creative problem solving: Effects on deferred judgment and problem finding and solving in an industrial research organization. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH.
Basadur, M. S. (1992). Managing creativity: A Japanese model. Academy of Management Executive. 6(2), 29–42.
Basadur, M. S., & Basadur, T. (in press). Where are the Generators? The Journal of Pyschology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts.
Basadur, M. S., & Gelade, G. (2002). Simplifying organization-wide creativity – A new mental model (Working Paper No. 107). Hamilton, Ontario, Canada: McMaster University, Management of Innovation and New Technology Research Centre.
Basadur, M. S., & Gelade, G. (2003). Using the Creative Problem Solving Profile (CPSP) for diagnosing and solving real-world problems. Emergence, 5(3), 22–47.
Basadur, M. S., Graen, G. B., & Wakabayashi, M. (1990). Identifying individual differences in creative problem solving style. Journal of Creative Behavior, 24(2), 111–131.
Basadur, M. S., & Head, M. (2001). Team performance and satisfaction: A link to cognitive style within a process framework. Journal of Creative Behavior, 35(4), 227–248.
Beebe, S., & Masterson, J. (1994). Communicating in small groups. New York: HarperCollins.
Belbin, M. R. (1993). Team roles at work. Oxford, England: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Belbin, M. R. (2000). Team Roles at Work, 9th ed. Portland, OR: Butterworth-Heinemann
Benne, K. D., & Sheats, P. (1948). Functional roles of group members. Journal of Social Issues, 4, 41–49.
Berkowitz, L. (1954). Group standards, cohesiveness, and productivity. Human Relations, 7, 509–519.
Besser, T. L. (1995). Rewards and organizational goal achievement: A case study of Toyota Motor manufacturing in Kentucky. Journal of Management Studies, 32, 383–398.
Bradley, J. H., & Hebert, F. J. (1997). The effect of personality type on team performance. Journal of Management Development, 16(5), 337–353.
Brophy, D. R. (1998). Understanding, measuring, and enhancing individual creative problem-solving efforts. Creativity Research Journal, 11(2), 123–150.
Brown, S. L., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (1998). Competing on the Edge: Strategy as Structured Chaos. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
122
Bryant, A. & Harvey, G. (2000), Acute Stress Disorder, American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.
Buros, O. S. (1985). The ninth mental measurements yearbook. Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.
Carnall, C. A. (1999). Managing change in organizations, (3rd ed.). Hernel Hempstead: Prentice-Hall.
Carrano, A. L., & Thorn, B. K. (2005). A multidisciplinary approach to sustainable product and process design. Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 24(3), 209–214.
Cartwright, D. (1968). The nature of group cohesiveness. In D. Cartwright & A. Zander (Eds.), Group dynamics: Research and theory (3rd ed., pp. 91–109). New York: Harper & Row.
Clampitt, G., DeKock, R. & Cashman, T. (2000). A strategy for communicating about uncertainty. Academy of Management Executive, 14(4), 41–57.
Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. (1997). What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23, 239–290.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1988). Society, culture, and person: A systems view of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity: Contemporary psychological perspectives (pp. 325–339). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Davis, G. (1999). Creativity is forever (4th rev. ed.). Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt.
Davis, G. (2004). Creativity is forever (5th ed.). Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt.
Davis, G. A., & Bull, K. S. (1978). Strengthening affective component of creativity in a college course. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70(5), 833–836.
Davis, J. (1969). Group performance. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Domino, G. (1970). Identification of potentially creative persons from the Adjective Check List. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 35, 48–51.
Domino, G., & Giuliani, I. (1997). Creativity in three samples of photographers: A validation of the Adjective Check List Creativity Scale. Creativity Research Journal, 10(2&3), 193–200.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1990). Speed and strategic choice: How managers accelerate decision making. California Management Review, 32(3), 39–54.
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Zbaracki, M. J. (1992). Strategic decision making. Strategic Management Journal, 13, 17–37.
123
Ely, R. (1995). The role of dominant identity and experience in organizational work on diversity. In S. E. Jackson & M. N. Ruderman (Eds.), Diversity in work teams: Research paradigms for a changing workplace (pp. 161–186). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Ely, R. (2004). A field study of group diversity, participation in diversity education programs, and performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 755–780.
Eysenck, (1994). Creativity and personality: Word association, origence, and psychoticism. In M. A. Runco & R. Richards (Eds.), Eminent Creativity, Everyday Creativity, and Health, (pp. 107–118). Santa Barbara, CA: Greenwood Publishing Group.
Farnham-Diggory, S. (1972). Cognitive processes in education. New York: Harper & Row. Focus Groups for the Business Fellows Program. (1999). College Station, TX: Mays Business School.
Feldhusen, J. F., & Goh, B. E. (1995). Assessing and accessing creativity: An integrative review of theory, research, and development. Creativity Research Journal, 8, 231–247.
Forbes, D. P. & Milliken, F. J. (1999). Cognition and corporate governance: Understanding boards of directors as strategic decision-making groups. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 489–505.
Forsyth, D. R. (1990). Group dynamics (2nd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
French, E. (1958). Development of a measure of complex motivation. In J. W. Atkinson (Ed.), Motives in fantasy, action and society (pp. 242–248). Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.
Gladstein, D. L. (1984). Groups in context: A model of task group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 499–517.
Gough, H. G., & Heilbrun, A. B. (1983). The Adjective Check List manual (1983 edition). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Guzzo, R. A., & Dickson, M. (1996). Teams in organizations: Recent research on performance and effectiveness. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 307–338.
Guzzo, R. A., & Shea, G. P. (1992). Group performance and intergroup relations in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette & L. H. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 3, 2nd ed., pp. 269–313). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Hackman, J. R. (1987). The design of work teams. In Handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 315–342). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hackman, J. R. (1990). Conclusion: Creating more effective work groups in organizations. In J. R. Hackman (Ed.), Groups that work (and those that don't). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
124
Hambrick, D., Cho, T., & Chen, M. (1996). The influence of top management team heterogeneity on firms’ competitive movers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 659–684.
Hargadon, A. B., & Sutton, R. I. (1997). Technology brokering and innovation in a product development firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(4), 716–749.
Hargadon, A. B., & Bechky, B. A. (2006). When collections of creatives become creative collectives: A field study of problem solving at work. Organization Science, 17(4), 484–500.
Haythorn, W. (1953). The influence of individual members on the characteristics of small groups. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 48, 276–284.
Heckhausen, H. (1989). Motivation und Handln, 2nd ed., Springer Verlag, Hamburg.
Higgins, E. T. (1996). Knowledge activation: Accessibility, applicability, and salience. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles, (pp. 133–168). New York: Guilford Press.
Hirshberg, J. (1998). The Creative Priority: Driving Innovative Business in the Real World. New York: Harper Business.
Hough, L. M. (1992). The "Big-Five" personality variables—construct confusion: Description versus prediction. Human Performance, 5, 139–155.
Houtz, J. C., & Krug, D. (1995). Assessment of creativity: Resolving a mid-life crisis. Educational Psychology Review, 7(3), 269–300.
Houtz, J. C., Selby, E. C., Esquivel, G. B., Okoye, R. A., Peters, K. M., & Treffinger, D. J. (2003). Comparison of two creativity style measures. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 96, 288–296.
Isaksen, S. G., & Geuens, (2006). A technical report of the relationships between an assessment of problem solving style and creative problem solving. Buffalo, NY: The Creative Problem Solving Group, Inc.
Isaksen, S. G. (Ed.), (1987). Frontiers of creativity research: Beyond the basics. Buffalo, New York: Bearly Limited.
Jackson, M. C. (2005). Reflections on knowledge management from a critical systems perspective. Knowledge Management Research and Practice, 3, 187–196.
Jackson, S. E., Stone, V. K., & Alvarez, E. B. (1992). Socialization amidst diversity: Impact of demographics on work team oldtimers and newcomers. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 15, pp. 45–110). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
125
James, K., & Asmus, C. (2001). Personality, cognitive skills, and creativity in different life domains. Creativity Research Journal, 13(2), 149–159.
Janis, I., & Mann, L. (1977). Decision making. New York: Free Press.
Kanter, R. M. (1988). When a thousand flowers bloom: Structural, collective, and social conditions for innovation in organization. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 10, pp. 169–211). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Kasl, E., Marsick, V. J., & Dechant, K. (1997). Teams as learners. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 33, 227–246.
Katzenbach, J. R. & Smith, D. K. (1993). The wisdom of teams: Creating the high-performance organization. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Kirton, M. J. (1987). Kirton adaption-innovation manual (2nd ed.). Hatfield, England: Occupational Research Center.
Kolb, D. A. (1976). Management and the learning process. California Management Review, 18, 21–31.
Kurtzberg, T. R. (2000). Creative styles and teamwork: Effects of coordination and conflict on group outcomes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.
Kurtzberg, T. R., & Amabile, T. M. (2001). From Guilford to creative synergy: Opening the black box of team level creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 13, 285–294.
Larson, C. E., & LaFasto, F. M. J. (1989). Teamwork: What must go right/what can go wrong. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Latham, P. (2001). The importance of understanding and changing employee outcome expectancies for gaining commitment to an organizational goals. Personnel Psychology, 54, 707–716.
Leonard, D. A., & Straus, S. (1997). Putting your company’s whole brain to work. Harvard Business Review, 75(4), 110–123.
Leonard, D. A., & Swap, W. C. (1999). When Sparks Fly. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Levi, D. (2001). Group dynamics for teams. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
MacKinnon, D. W. (1978). In search of human effectiveness: Identifying and developing creativity. Buffalo, NY: Creative Education Foundation.
126
Mani, B. G. (1995). Progress on the journey to total quality management: Using the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and the Adjective Check List in management development. Public Personnel Management, 24(3), 365–398.
Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E. & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26, 356–376.
Mayer, R. E. (1999). Fifty years of creativity research. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 449–460). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McComb, S., Green, S., & Compton, W. (1999). Project goals, team performance, and shared understanding. Engineering Management Journal, 11(3), 7–12.
McCrimmon, M. (1995). Teams without roles: Empowering teams for greater creativity. The Journal of Management Development, 14(6), 35–41.
McDermid, C. D. (1965). Some correlates of creativity in engineering personnel. Journal of Applied Psychology, 49(1), 14–19.
McGrath, J. E. (1964). Social psychology: A brief introduction. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Meneely, J., & Portillo, M. (2005). The adaptable mind in design: Relating personality, cognitive style, and creative performance. Creativity Research Journal, 17(2&3), 155–166.
Mooney, R. L. (1963). A conceptual model for integrating four approaches to the identification of creative talent. In C. W. Taylor, & F. Barron (Eds.), Scientific creativity: Its recognition and development (pp. 331–339). New York: Wiley.
Morrison, A. M. (1992). The new leaders. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Morrison, A. M. (1995). Closing the gap between research and practice. In S. E. Jackson & M. N. Ruderman (Eds.), Diversity in work teams: Research paradigms for a changing workplace (pp. 219–224). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Mount, M. K., & Barrick, M. R. (1995). The Big Five personality dimensions: Implications for research and practice in human resources management. Research in Personnel and Human esources Management, 13, 153–200.
Mumford, T. V., Campion, M. A., & Morgeson, F. P. (2006). Situational judgment in work teams: A team role typology. In J. A. Weekley & R. E. Ployhart (Eds.), Situational judgment tests: Theory, measurement, and application (pp. 319–343). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Mumford, T. V., Morgeson, F. P., Van Iddekinge, C. H., & Campion, M. A. (2008). The Team Role Test: Development and validation of a team role knowledge situational judgment test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(2), 250–267.
127
Nemeth, C. (1997). Managing innovation: When less is more. California Management Review, 40(1), 58–66.
Nemeth, C. J. (1995). Dissent as driving cognition, attitudes, and judgments. Social Cognition, 13, 273–291.
Northcraft, G., Polzer, J., Neale, M., & Kramer, R. (1995). Diversity, social identity, and performance: Emergent social dynamics in cross-functional teams. In S. Jackson & M. Ruderman (Eds.), Diversity in work teams: Research paradigms for a changing workplace (pp. 69–95). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Oldham, G. & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at work. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 607–634.
Osborn, A. F. (1953). Applied imagination: Principles and procedures of creative thinking. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
Osborn, A. F. (1963). Applied imagination, 3rd ed. New York: Scribners.
Osborn, D. & Moran, L. (2000). The new-self directed work teams, 2nd ed. Blacklick, OH: McGraw-Hill.
Osche, R. (1990). Before the Gates of Excellence. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Parker, G. M. (1996). Team players ad teamwork. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Parnes, S. J. (1977). CPSI: The general system. Journal of Creative Behavior, 11(1), 1–11.
Parnes, S. J. (1981). Magic of your mind. Buffalo, NY: Bearly Limited.
Parnes, S. J., Noller, R. B., & Biondi, A. M. (1977). Creative actionbook. New York: Scribners.
Paulus, P. B. (2008). Fostering creativity in groups and teams. In J. Zhou & C. Shalley (Eds.), Handbook of organizational creativity. New York: Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.
Pegels, C. C. & Yang, B. (2000). The impact of managerial characteristics on strategic assets management capabilities. Team Performance Management, 6, 97–107.
Peterson, T. O. (2004). So you’re thinking of trying problem based learning?: Three critical success factors for implementation. Journal of Management Educatioin, 28(5), 630–647.
Pirola-Merlo, A., & Mann, L. (2004). The relationship between individual creativity and team creativity: Aggregating across people and time. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 235–257.
Plucker, J. A., & Renzulli, J. S. (1999). Psychometric approaches to the study of human creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 35–61). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
128
Pokras, S. (1995). Team problem solving. Menlo Park, CA: CRISP Publications.
Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1991). The assessment of creative products in programs for gifted and talented students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 35(3), 128–134.
Rousseau, M. (2001). The idiosyncratic deal, flexibility versus fairness. Organizational Dynamics, 29(4), 260–273.
Salas, E., Sims, D. E., & Burke, C. S. (2005). Is there a “big five” in teamwork? Small Group Research, 36, 555−599.
Sawyer, K. (2007). Group Genius: The Creative Power of Collaboration. New York: Basic Books.
Schepers, P., & van den Berg, P. (2007). Social factors of work-environment creativity. Journal of Business and Psychology, 21(3), 407–428.
Schweiger, D. M., & Sandberg, W. R. (1989). The utilization of individual capabilities in group approaches to strategic decision-making. Strategic Management Journal, 10, 31–43.
Simons, T. L. & Peterson, R. S. (2000). Task conflict and relationship conflict in top management teams: The pivotal role of intragroup trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 102–111.
Simonton, D. K. (1988). Creativity, leadership, and chance. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity. New York: Cambridge Universtity Press.
Spreitzer, G. M., Cohen, S. G., & Ledford, Jr., G. E. (1999). Developing effective self-managing work teams in service organizations. Group & Organization Management, 24(3), 340–366.
Staehle, W. (1999), Management, 8th ed., Verlag Vahlen, München.
Steiner, I. D. (1972). Group processes and productivity. New York: Academic Press.
Stevens, M. J., & Campion, M. F. (1994). The knowledge, skill, and ability requirements for teamwork: Implications for human resource management. Journal of Management, 20, 503–530.
Stewart, G. L., & Barrick, M. R. (2000). Team structure and performance: Assessing the mediating role of intrateam process and the moderating role of task type. Academy o Manangement Journal, 43(2), 135–148.
Stewart, G. L., Fulmer, I. S., & Barrick, M. R. (2005). An exploration of member roles as a multilevel linking mechanism for individual traits and team outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 58, 343–365.
Sundstrom, E., DeMeuse, K., & Futrell, D. (1990). Work teams. American Psychologist, 45, 120–133.
129
Tan, G. (1998). Managing creativity in organizations: A total system approach. Creativity and Innovation Management, 7(1), 23–31.
Terborg, J. R., Castore, C., & DeNinno, J. A. (1976). A longitudinal ield investigation of the impact of group composition n group performance and cohesion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 782–790.
Thomas, K. W. (1992). Conflict and negotiation processes in organizations. In M. Dunette and L. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational Psychology (pp. 651–718). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Thomas, R. R. (1990, March-April). From affirmative action to affirming diversity. Harvard Business Review, 68, 107–117.
Thompson, L. (2000). Making the team. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Thompson, L. & Fine, G. (1999). Socially-shared cognition, affect, & behavior: A review and integration. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 278–302.
Tjosvold, D. (1984). Effects of leader warmth and directiveness on subordinate performance on a subsequent task. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 422–427.
Torrance, E. P. (1962). Guiding creative talent. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Torrance, E. P. (1974). Norms and technical manual: Torrance tests of creative thinking. (Rev. ed.). Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service.
Torrance, E. P. (1988). The nature of creativity as manifest in its testing. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity: Contemporary psychological perspectives (pp. 43–75). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tregaskis, O. (2003). Networks, power and legitimacy in multinational subsidiaries. International Journal of HRM, 14(3), 431–447.
Tziner, A., & Vardi, Y. (1982). Effects of command style and group cohesiveness on the performance of self-selected tank crews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 769–775.
Van de Ven, A. H. (1986). Central problems in the management of innovation. Management Science, 32(5), 590–607.
VanGundy, A. B. (1984). Managing Group Creativity. New York: American Management Associations.
Watson, E. (2007). Who or what creates? A conceptual framework for social creativity. Human Resource Development Review, 6(4), 419–441.
Weick, K. E. (1979). The Social Psychology of Organizing. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
130
Weisberg, R. W. (1993). Creativity: Beyond the myth of genius. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.
West, M. A. (1994). Effective Teamwork. London: British Psychological Society and Routledge.
West, M. A. & Slater, M. A. (1995). Teamwork: Myths, realities and research. The Occupational Psychologist, 24, 24–29.
West, M. A., & Anderson, N. R. (1996). Innovation in top management teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 680–693.
Williams, W. M., & Sternberg, R. J. (1988). Group intelligence: Why some groups are better than others. Intelligence, 12, 351–377.
Woodman, R. W., & Schoenfeldt, L. F. (1990). An interactionist model of creative behavior. Journal of Creative Behavior, 24, 279–290.
Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin, R. W. (1993). Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Academy of Management Review, 18(2), 293–321.
Zander, A. (1994). Making groups effective. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Zander, A., & Forward, J. (1968). Position in group, achievement motivation, and group aspirations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8, 282–288.
131
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Chung, S. received her Bachelor of Arts (major in interior design) with high honors from
Michigan State University in 2006. Following her aspiration in bridging the gap between
research and practice in the design field she continued her studies and received her Master of
Interior Design from the University of Florida. Her research interests are focused on nurturing
creativity in interior design education and its relation to cultivating a creative workplace.