Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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
2
© 2009 Sung Eun Chung
3
To my family and all who have contributed their support and prayers
4
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This thesis would not have been possible without the dedication and support of many
people. First, I would like to thank my supervisory committee chair, Jason Meneely, for all his
insight and effort in this work. His guidance, encouragement, and feedback helped me generate
this thesis and complete it. Dr. Margaret Portillo, my other committee member, stimulated this
thesis by introducing me to the field of creativity in a creativity seminar. Her valuable comments
and ideas kept the whole process challenging. Dr. Nam-kyu Park contributed her research
knowledge and thoughtful insight. She is a great mentor and has guided me to explore my
research interests and passion. All interior design faculty members have challenged me in this
profession and helped me to discover my capabilities, potential, and future direction.
Also, this thesis could not have existed if not the assistance given by ACRA and Dr.
Hyunjoo Oh, the Research Director of University of Florida David F. Miller Center for Retailing
Education and Research. Thank you for the opportunity to work alongside the charrette and
understand interdisciplinary teamwork in a real-world situation. I have a wider perspective and
appreciation towards other disciplines through the whole experience.
Furthermore, I would like to thank all my friends who supported me throughout this
process in many ways. Thank you for all your encouragement, advice, and of course, all your
prayers. Especially, the love and support of my family has empowered me all through my life.
Time and distance is of no matter when it comes to family—there are truly no words that can
describe how grateful I am for your love, support, and prayers.
Above all, I thank God. May you be glorified through not just this thesis, but through the
whole process that came before it and through all that will come afterwards. You alone are
worthy of praise, for if not of your grace, this thesis would not have existed.
5
TABLE OF CONTENTS page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................................................................................................................... 4
LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................................ 8
LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................................................. 9
ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................................ 10
CHAPTER
1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 12
Gaps in Previous Research ......................................................................................................... 13 Scope of Study and Research Questions.................................................................................... 15
2 LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................................... 19
Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 19 Creativity ..................................................................................................................................... 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
Application .................................................................................................................................. 44 Multidisciplinary Real-Problem Approach ........................................................................ 44
3 METHODS .................................................................................................................................. 50
6
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
4 RESULTS .................................................................................................................................... 66
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
5 DISCUSSION .............................................................................................................................. 86
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
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ........................................................................................................... 131
8
LIST OF TABLES
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.,
Hambrick, Cho & Chen, 1996; Barrick, Stewart, Neubert, & Mount, 1998; Pegels & Yang, 2000;
Schepers & van den Berg, 2007) little to no work has elucidated a systems understanding of
creative teamwork in real world settings. In contrast, the current study examines systemic
relationships among individual problem solving styles, personality traits, and team process
variables in relation to creative performance on a real world business problem.
Gaps in Previous Research
Scholarly research on creativity has primarily focused on individual creativity (Oldham &
Cummings, 1996; Woodman & Schoenfeldt, 1989; Barron & Harrington, 1981) with little
attention paid to the creative synergy generated by teams during the collective process
(Kurtzberg & Amabile, 2001). However, the growing effort to explore creativity in interpersonal
settings suggests that teamwork may bring additional synergies to support creative outcomes
(Barlow, 2000; Kasl, Marskcik, & Dechant, 1997). As a result, there has been a recent shift in
perspective and many researchers are beginning to focus on elucidating team creativity
(Hargadon & Bechky, 2006).
The present study addresses this gap by focusing on the aspects of creativity in teamwork.
It acknowledges individual creativity as the basis for creative performance, although, does not
perceive it to be the sole contribution. In order to most effectively turn an individual’s creativity
into a productive team process, it is important to understand how individuals work, think, and
interact with each other when working towards a creative outcome (Kurtzberg, 2000). Each
14
individual can contribute their knowledge, skills, and abilities to the team; however, a team is
only successful when teamwork, the intra-group process, is in play. A basis for creativity in
teamwork can be achieved when there is an understanding of individual behaviors and
interpersonal relations. Team creativity, is in fact a function of individual creative behavior that
looks into the interaction of the members within the team, team characteristics, team processes,
and environmental influences (Jackson, 2005). When organizations comprehend these elements,
they will be able to compose, manage, and train creative teams according to their organizational
goals.
Businesses in particular, must understand the diversity of the components that drive
creativity in teamwork in order to remain competitive. Today, creative teams are a vital
component of a competitive organization. Teams are effective at generating innovation because
they bring together far more concepts and bodies of knowledge than any one individual can
(Leonard & Swap, 1999). Composing a team with the appropriate knowledge and skills is
essential for team performance (Spreitzer, Cohen, & Ledford, Jr., 1999; Stewart & Barrick,
2000). In fact, diversity among individual characteristics may influence the very nature of social
and cognitive interactions within the team.
Most prior research on teamwork have employed unidimensional approaches that primarily
focused on the inputs to team problem solving (Watson, 2007; Mumford, Campion, & Morgeson,
2006), the process of teamwork (West, 1994; Simons & Peterson, 2000), or team outputs (Guzzo
& Dickson, 1996; Sundstrom, DeMeuse, & Futrell, 1990). While some researchers examined
relationships between team inputs and processes (Eysenck, 1994; Heckhausen, 1989) and
relationships between team processes and outputs (Forbes & Milliken, 1999; Davis, 1969), few
studies have examined systemic relationships among team inputs, team processes, and team
15
outcomes simultaneously. Most systemic approaches in this field have theoretically connected
the relationship between variables without conducting data collection across them (McGrath,
1964; Hackman 1987; Steiner, 1972; Schweiger & Sandberg, 1989).
Another significant gap in the study of creativity and teamwork lies between research and
practice. Apart from accessibility issues of research findings to the general public, the biggest
gap between research and practice lies in the applicability of the findings to real world settings
(Morrison, 1995). The application of knowledge is just as important as the generation of
knowledge, yet research has not extended or supplied knowledge applicable to the questions that
organizations face. Prior research has primarily examined teamwork in experimental settings
(e.g., Hambrick, Cho & Chen, 1996; Barrick, Stewart, Neubert, & Mount, 1998; Pegels & Yang,
2000; Schepers & van den Berg, 2007). However, increasingly, researchers are making an effort
to put their work in the context of applied business settings (e.g., Ely, 1995). Researchers and
practitioners should consistently work hand in hand to break down the barriers to the applied use
of research and close the gap between research and applications by becoming more proactive in
building partnerships that encourage field research and practical application of the findings
(Morrison, 1995).
Overall, there is still insufficient data on creative teamwork, especially in applied settings.
Although many studies have focused on creativity and teamwork separately, little empirical
evidence has advanced a systems understanding of creative teamwork. Therefore, research on
creative teamwork employing a systems approach in an applied setting is in need.
Scope of Study and Research Questions
The current study addresses the need to bridge the gap between research and practice by
conducting a field study with interdisciplinary teams challenged to solve a real world business
problem. While globalization challenges many businesses with international issues the current
16
study examined business issues within a North American context. The current study also
employed a systems approach which examines interactions among team inputs, team processes,
and team outcomes.
From a systems approach, creativity can be examined by focusing on the person, the
process, and the product (Amabile, 1996). From these characteristics, creativity can also be
observed at the individual, group, or organizational level. Especially in a complex social setting
that involves all three levels, creativity is defined as, “the creation of a valuable, useful new
product, service, idea, procedure, or process by individuals working together in a complex social
system (Woodman, Sawyer, & Griffin, 1993, p. 293).” Creativity and teamwork are interrelated
in the sense that can both be understood through the connections and interactions between
components of a system. A systems approach can be defined as the interdependency,
interconnectedness, and interrelatedness of a set of components that represent the whole (Tan,
1998). Teams can be seen as part of a system, or an organization, that is also made up of
subsystems of individuals. Particularly in teamwork, teams work in a system that deals with the
individual’s contributions (inputs), the interactions between individuals (processes), and the
results (outputs) described through McGrath’s (1964) input-process-output framework for
analyzing group behavior and performance (Figure 1-1).
Using a systems approach, the current study examined problem solving styles, personality
traits, and process variables at individual and group levels in relation to creative performance
(Figure 1-2). Problem solving style relates to preferred modes of thinking during different stages
of problem solving (generating, conceptualizing, optimizing, and implementing ideas).
Personality traits associated with creativity and interpersonal traits essential to teamwork were
also assessed to further understand an individual’s contribution to the team. Team characteristics
17
observe the combination of these individual characteristics, particularly the diversity of problem
solving styles and cohesiveness among team members. The team process is investigated on an
individual’s perception of success and resulting cohesions and conflicts during problem solving.
Finally, team outcomes are evaluated by a panel of expert judges to provide a measure of
creative performance. To accomplish these goals this study asks the following research
questions:
• Question 1: What problem solving styles and personality traits characterizes each team’s composition? How do these vary from normative populations?
• Question 2: How do teams differ in their perception of team process?
• Question 3: How do problem solving styles and personality traits relate to perceptions of the team process?
• Question 4: What team composition and process characteristics describe the winning team?
• Question 5: What are the main factors that relate to creative team performance?
These questions require rationales from the literature reviewed in Chapter Two. Chapter
Three describes the methodology: the setting of the study, sample, instruments, and procedure,
utilized while conducting this thesis study. Chapter Four addresses the research questions by
presenting the results from both quantitative and qualitative analyses. Finally, Chapter Five
interprets and discusses the study, states the research implications, limitations, and future study
suggestions.
18
Figure 1-1. An input-process-output framework for analyzing group behavior and performance
Figure 1-2. Relationships between variables in the present study
INPUT PROCESS OUTPUT
Individual Level Factors
(e.g., pattern of member skills, attitudes, personality characteristics)
Group Level Factors (e.g., structure, level of “cohesiveness,” group size)
Environmental Level Factors
(e.g., group task characteristics, reward structure, level of environmental stress)
Performance Outcomes (e.g., performance quality, speed to solution, number of errors)
Other Outcomes (e.g., member satisfaction, group “cohesiveness,” attitude change, sociometric structure)
Group Interaction
Process
Personality Traits Problem Solving
Perception of
Perception of
Creative
Cohesion/Conflict
Role Clarity
Diversity
Goal Specification
Cohesiveness
Team Viability
TEAM COMPOSITION PROCESS
1st
OUTCOME
19
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
This chapter reviews the most relevant literature on creativity and teamwork to develop a
theoretical framework for answering the research questions raised in this thesis. This review
contains definitions and contemporary theories of creativity and systems approaches for
examining creativity in a business context. The relation between creativity and teamwork is
examined through understanding the characteristics of team processes within the working
environment. In particular, the review emphasizes the need for creative multidisciplinary
teamwork in business settings.
Creativity
A variety of theoretical and methodological perspectives exist in researching creativity;
however, the challenge of empirically defining the term remains. Finding examples of creative
people, things, or situations seems to come easier than actually defining the term. Although an
exact definition of creativity has not been collectively accepted, a majority of creativity
researchers generally support the concept that creativity involves the creation of novel and yet
appropriate solutions (Amabile, 1983, 1996; Davis, 1999). This definition also acknowledges
that creative people are those who create new and useful products and that creative cognitive
processes occur whenever a new and useful product or idea is created (Mayer, 1999). Based on
this concept of creativity, multiple theoretical approaches are examined to better understand the
construct.
Four Ps in Creativity: Person, Process, Press, Product
The most widely accepted framework for describing creativity identifies the person,
process, press, and product —commonly known as the four Ps in creativity (Mooney, 1963).
20
Although prior research on creativity employed different approaches, Mooney stated that prior
studies tended to employ one or a combination of these four foci. Because these four key
elements are expansive and practical, this framework has been widely accepted and recognized
by many researchers (Davis, 1999; Torrance, 1988). The following sections review each focus in
turn.
Person
Creativity begins with the person. The majority of prior research has examined the creative
person by examining the traits, behaviors, and characteristics of individuals. Researchers identify
three primary characteristics which combine to influence one’s creative potential: personality
traits, cognitive abilities, and biographical traits (Davis, 2004). Recurrent creative personality
traits identified through research include: aware of creativeness, original, independent, risk-
taking, high energy, curious, sense of humor, capacity for fantasy, attracted to complexity and
ambiguity, artistic, open minded, thorough, needs alone time, perceptive, emotional, and ethical
(Davis, 2004). As many personality traits there are that relate to creativity, there are also many
cognitive abilities. In fact, it is difficult to determine certain mental abilities that have no
connection with creativity (Davis, 2004). Nevertheless, long-time creativity expert Barron (1988)
lists six important cognitive traits related to creativity: recognizing patterns, making connections,
taking risks, challenging assumptions, taking advantage of chance, and seeing in new ways. As
for biographical characteristics, past experience in creative involvement seems to be a key
indicator of creativity (Torrance, 1962; Renzulli & Reis, 1991). However, not all traits will apply
to all creative persons for the reason that there are too many forms of creativity and creative
people for any specific generalizations to be made (Davis, 2004; Levi, 2001). The person-
oriented approach also has limitations in that creativity varies in degrees and is not purely of
innate nature but can also be nurtured (Levi, 2001).
21
Process
The process is also used as a means in defining creativity. Torrance’s (1988) definition of
creativity in particular, describes a process that resembles the steps that are used in scientific
methods. This approach begins by sensing difficulties, problems, gaps in information, or missing
elements. It proceeds in making guesses or formulating hypotheses about these deficiencies, then
testing these guesses and possibly revising and retesting them, and finally communicating the
results. This process definition includes the creative person (someone who can do this), the
creative product (the successful result), and the creative press (the environment that facilitates
the process).
One of the most frequently cited process models is the Creative Problem Solving (CPS)
model. Originally formulated by Osborn (1963) and further developed by Parnes (1981), the
model includes five steps: fact-finding, problem-finding, idea-finding, solution-finding (idea
evaluation), and acceptance-finding (idea implementation). The CPS steps guide the creative
process. A unique feature of this model is that each step involves both divergent and convergent
thinking. Each step first involves a phase that generates lots of ideas (facts, problem definitions,
ideas, evaluation criteria, implementation strategies), and then a phase that selects the most
promising ideas for further exploration (Davis, 2004).
The first step, fact-finding, lists the information about the problem or challenge. The list of
ideas is then narrowed down to those that might be especially productive. The goal of this step is
to explore all the information, impressions, observations, feelings, and questions of the problem.
Parnes (1981) recommended asking who, what, when, where, why, and how questions for
effectiveness at this stage. Problem-finding involves coming up with alternate problem
definitions. Exploring the real problem and asking questions of why the problem is being sought
broadens the problem definition. The step of idea-finding is when the idea generation or
22
brainstorming happens. Ideas are freely proposed for each problem defined in the prior stage. It
is vital that one does not employ criticism or evaluation at this stage to allow ideas to fully
surface. During the solution finding stage, criteria for evaluation are listed, ideas are evaluated,
and one or more of the best ideas are selected. Discreet evaluation approaches should be
considered to prevent prematurely discarding ideas with good qualities or accepting those with
faults (Parnes, 1981). Finally, the acceptance-finding step is implementing ideas by thinking of
ways to get solutions accepted by society (Parnes, 1981). Parnes commented that the creative
problem solving process can flexibly and iteratively move from one stage to another (Davis,
2004).
Similarly, Basadur (1992) proposed a model developed from CPS, called Simplex, that
circularly moves through the problem solving process in stages of problem generating, problem
formulating, problem solving, and solution implementation (Figure 2-1). Each stage contains two
steps, summarizing the Simplex model into an eight-step process—identifying the problem,
finding facts, defining the problem finding ideas, evaluating and selecting ideas, planning,
gaining acceptance, and taking action. The two steps in each stage is a mini-process of sequential
divergent and convergent thinking called ideation-evaluation (Basadur & Head, 2001). This
model extended earlier linear process models (Osborn, 1963; Parnes, Noller, & Biondi, 1977)
and was developed through real-world organizational field research and application experience
(Basadur, 1974, 1979, 1992). The model can be distinguished by its circular process, developed
so that each implemented solution can lead to new and useful problems.
Press
The creative press (also known as the creative environment), includes both the social and
the physical aspects of one’s environment. A creative climate encourages creative thinking and
innovation. Leonard and Swap (1999) described this as “a creative ecology,” saying that,
23
“organizations need a creativity ecology—an interdependent, interactive, self-sustaining, and
reinforcing system that includes not only people and processes but also settings (p.136).”
Although prior research has generally avoided the environment, interest is growing as
people and organizations are becoming more aware of the influence of climate and culture on
creativity. A social climate open to ideas, absence of threat, and willing to risk are some of the
necessary conditions for supporting creativity (Isaksen, 1987). Physical environmental elements
such as, the aesthetics of the space, structure of the building, use of internal space, or even
furniture may not individually maneuver individuals or teams toward creativity, however all of
these features have the potential to support or block creativity (Leonard & Swap, 1999).
Product
The creativity of the end product of a creative process is difficult to generalize or
determine for the reason that there are too many different forms of it. The ideas, concrete
products, or solutions produced can be assessed differently according to the evaluator or the
specific domain. Instead of trying to generalize product creativity, focus should turn towards
investigating creative products in order to identify what differentiates them from others
(MacKinnon, 1978). Basically, novelty is easily identified in that one can depict what is new or
different from others, whereas, appropriateness is far more difficult to depict contextually. Some
definitions of creativity have also emphasized that criteria in a domain are essential in assessing
creative products.
Fifth P: Persuasion
In addition to the four Ps in creativity, Simonton (1988) added a fifth “P” persuasion, the
role of leadership and selling one’s ideas to others. This emphasizes the importance of the view
that individuals become creative only insofar as they impress or persuade others with their
creativity. Simonton emphasizes that this concept, along with chance, is a factor in both the
24
generation of creative ideas and in their social acceptance. The creative idea is only recognized
when others perceive it to be creative as well. It follows that the persuasion process may be just
as important as the generation of ideas.
Assessing Creativity
The complex nature of assessing creativity requires multiple measures of the cognitive
processes, motivations, attitudes, and personality traits associated with the individual, as well as
the products, presentations, and performances that result from the creative process (Feldhusen &
Goh, 1995). Most efforts in creativity assessment have focused on persons and their cognitive
abilities, personality characteristics, motivations, or background experiences such as, the
Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT; Torrance, 1975), Kirton Adaptor-Innovator scale
(KAI; Kirton, 1987), and the Adjective Check List (ACL; Gough & Heilbrun, 1983). In
assessing creative products, so far, the most accepted method has been the rating of external
judges, including educators or experts in a domain (Amabile, 1990; Feldhusen & Goh, 1995;
Plucker & Renzulli, 1999). This approach, known as the Consensual Assessment Technique
(CAT) refined by Amabile (1983), uses appropriate observers in the domain of articulation to
independently review products. The product is claimed creative only upon agreement of the
independent responses. The multidimensional construct of creativity requires multiple channels
of measurement and therefore, theoretical models can provide the best frameworks especially in
research (Feldhusen & Goh, 1995).
Domain
The role of a domain is highlighted by many theoretical and empirical studies on creativity
as the body of knowledge moves from generality to domain specificity. The strongest evidence
for domain specificity is provided by the variety in fields that produce creative performance and
that each product is judged by appropriate experts in the field using Amabile’s CAT (Baer,
25
1998). In addition, Csikszentmihalyi (1988) proposes a three-part theory of creativity that
includes interactions among the individual, field, and domain. The creative person contributes
the necessary ability, talent, and traits which have potential for creativity; however, an individual
typically receives formal education in a domain, or discipline, which includes exposure to rules,
structure, and practices within a specific area of work. This knowledge interacts with and
influences an individual’s personality, cognitive processes, and motivation. Experts in a given
field, provide judgment on the creativeness of an individual’s products. Without the acceptance
from the field, the person and the product are not recognized as creative. Because field experts in
different domains employ different criteria to evaluate creative products, creativity becomes a
domain-specific construct which has impelled scholars to examine and define creativity in
specific disciplines as opposed to more generalist perspectives.
Systems Approach to Creativity
Csikszentmihalyi (1988) conceptualizes creativity as an act, idea, or product that changes
an existing domain, or transforms the domain into a new one. His three-part theory of creativity
is a systems model that incorporates all aspects that lead to creativity. The model considers the
individual person and the process that they go through, the press or the domain of work, and the
product assessed by gatekeepers in the given field. All of these aspects integrate together for
creativity to take place. Similarly, a systems approach can be defined as the interdependency,
interconnectedness, and interrelatedness of a set of components that represent the whole (Tan,
1998). Tan (1998) argues that complexity of organizations in particular, calls for an integrated
systems approach in order to manage creativity. His theoretical framework suggests that
creativity in organizations can be managed through successful interventions that overcome
barriers to innovation and cultivates creativity, and in turn, encourages the development of
26
creative outcomes. Although this total systems approach considers multiple factors impacting
creativity, most of his focus is on the organizational context.
The systems view of creativity in the workplace emphasizes the three levels of individual,
group, and organization (Amabile, 1983; Woodman, Sawyer & Griffin, 1993). This systems
approach explains that creative performance involves interactions among individual personality
traits, cognitive style, ability, relevant knowledge, motivation, and external environmental
factors (Jackson, 2005). Creativity can take place in the individual as a cognitive process,
between individuals as they interact, in teams as a group-level event, or in the context of
organizations (Watson, 2007). Research suggests that social domains influence individual
creativity, and teams and organizations should be analyzed as the agents in creative process and
behaviors (Watson, 2007). Hargadon and Bechky (2006) discovered that individuals contribute
distinct existing ideas within a particular social interaction, and the creative value of those ideas
evolves through their confluence with others. At the team-level, the creative team’s task is to
come up with creative solutions that are built from the recombination of these existing ideas
(Amabile, 1988; Van de Ven, 1986; Weick, 1979; Hargadon & Sutton, 1997).
The interactionist model of creativity, proposed by Woodman, Sawyer, and Griffin (1993),
is an extension of Woodman and Schoenfeldt’s original model (1990) and includes the
individual, group, and organizational levels of creativity (Figure 2-2). Individual components are
expanded into group and organizational factors that include person-situation interaction.
Individual creativity is perceived as the function of antecedent conditions, cognitive style and
ability, personality factors, relevant knowledge, motivation, social influences, and contextual
influences. Antecedent conditions are related to the biographical characteristics of a creative
person such as past experiences and behaviors, while cognitive style and ability include problem
27
solving styles, divergent thinking, and ideational fluency. These variables with the addition of
personality factors, relevant knowledge, and motivation are characteristics of the creative person.
These individual creative behavior inputs, the interaction of the individuals involved, group
characteristics, group processes, and contextual influences are the function of group creativity. In
relation to the four Ps in creativity, these elements connect with the creative process and creative
press. Finally, organizational creativity is a function of the creative outputs of the group and
contextual influences which concern the creative process and the creative product. Hence, this
model acknowledges the four Ps in creativity as well as the individual and group contributions to
creativity. Woodman et al. (1993) describes that overall, “the gestalt of creative output . . . for
the entire system stems from the complex mosaic of individual, group, and organizational
characteristics and behaviors occurring within the salient situational influences . . . existing at
each level of social organization (p.296).” Creativity comes from the integration of all
contributing elements: the person, process, press, product, and persuasion. It should be
approached from a holistic view in order to be fully understood and appreciated.
Teamwork
Teams are a widespread phenomenon in society; teams operate as a collective committed
to generating a common output (Watson, 2007). The definition of a team can be organized as two
or more individuals with specific roles interacting adaptively, interdependently, and dynamically
toward a common valued goal (Salas, Sims, & Burke, 2005). A team possesses the potential of
operating beyond the capabilities of an individual. Teams are especially valued when
interpersonal interactions produce a far greater quality than an individual working alone.
Hackman (1987) noted that working in teams has benefits such as, better quality in
decisions, effective execution of those decisions, enhancement in commitment and motivation,
and innovative ideas. However, teams may also pose some disadvantages including the
28
possibility of wasting more time and energy, making bad decisions, being destructive through
conflicts, frustrating other team members, and low productivity. These restraints impede teams in
reaching their full potential and usually occur when conflict develops among members or when
time is spent on social interaction rather than the task (VanGundy, 1984). In order for a team to
be optimally effective, all members should achieve their highest potential (VanGundy, 1984).
Systems Approach to Teamwork
A frequently cited framework for understanding team dynamics in business settings is the
input-process-output model (Gladstein, 1984; Guzzo & Shea, 1992; Hackman, 1987; McGrath,
1964). This model examines the factors that individual members bring to the team (input), the
interaction (process), and the product (output). At the same time, this model describes how
individuals affect intra-group processes and outcomes. According to McGrath’s analysis on team
behavior and performance (1964), the inputs in this model can be further grouped into three
categories: individual-level factors, group-level factors, and environmental-level factors. Various
inputs that are combined from the individual, group, and organizational level (McGrath, 1964),
such as team-member attributes, structure and size, task characteristics, and reward structures.
Intra-group processes refer to the interactions that take place among team members and include
communication patterns, cohesion and conflict, and efforts toward leadership and other forms of
influence. Team output refers to team outcomes associated with productivity, as well as the
capability of team members to continue working cooperatively.
Figure 2-3 illustrates the basic concept of the input-process-output model; the team
composition affects the outcome exclusively through the interaction in the team process
(Hackman, 1987). This model disregards the direct impact that individuals in the team have on
the outcome. Individuals are considered as part of a collective unit, where interaction among
members influences team performance. As an alternative, Hackman (1987) suggests that adding
29
to the traditional model mentioned above, the team also directly affects the outcome (Figure 2-4).
In this case, both team process and individual influence provides a context which can
systematically drive the outcome.
Hackman (1987) introduces yet another component to this model by introducing the
concept of group synergy. Synergy results from the members’ interactions as they carry out the
task. When group synergy is achieved, process losses are minimized and synergistic gains are
created (Hackman, 1987). This synergy is present when the performance or outcomes of a group
go beyond the capacities of individual members (Schweiger & Sandberg, 1989) as seen in Figure
2-5. This effect can regulate the performance conditions—group design and context—into a
more or less favorable one.
While there is some variation among the models, it is important to note that they all
comprise the same variables: team composition, team process, and team outcome. Similarly,
these reflect the components of the creativity model: person, process, and product. These
variables are all integrated in teamwork and should be examined in detail to better understand
how to cultivate a creative team that generates a successful outcome.
Team Composition (Inputs)
Team composition comprises both individual characteristics and collective group
characteristics that both cultivate the unique team composition. Individuals can be first
distinguished by many variables such as, knowledge, skills, and abilities, personality traits, roles,
and preferences. In addition, individual variables can be combined to explain the characteristics
of a team.
30
Individual Characteristics
Knowledge, skills, and abilities
The knowledge, skills, and abilities of an individual differ among disciplines or fields of
interest (Csikszentmihalyi, 1988). Knowledge includes information the individual has acquired
and retained, while skills or abilities refer to what an individual can do competently (VanGundy,
1984). The mixture of an individual’s knowledge, skills, and abilities is a complex and unique
combination of resources accumulated through time. The creativeness of the new combination of
existing ideas can only come from the material that has been previously gathered and deposited
in the individual’s mind. Therefore, many studies hypothesize that higher knowledge, skills, and
abilities of team members predict higher team performance (e.g., Barrick et al., 1998; Stevens &
Campion, 1994; Williams & Sternberg, 1988).
Problem solving styles or roles
Individuals typically take on different roles within a team to complete a task. Roles are
defined as a collection of related and goal-directed behaviors featured within a specific situation
(Stewart, Fulmer, & Barrick, 2005). When individuals understand the problem solving process
and concurrently have knowledge of the role that needs to be taken, effective team performance
can take place.
Many team role typologies exist, however many are similar to one another. For instance,
based on the early work by Benne and Sheats (1948), roles within a team can be sorted into task
roles, maintenance roles, and individual roles. Task roles support and organize the team’s effort
in selecting, defining, and solving common problems; maintenance roles orient toward
strengthening, regulating, and managing the team; and individual roles take interest in satisfying
individual needs that are not related to the team’s task. Similarly, Mumford, Campion, and
31
Morgeson (2006) organized and integrated roles into three broad categories: task, social, and
boundary-spanning.
Along these lines, other typologies identify an individual’s primary problem solving role,
such as, the collaborator, contributor, challenger, and communicator (Parker, 1996); the
coordinator, shaper, planter, specialist, completer, implementer, monitor evaluator, teamworker,
and resource investigator (Belbin, 1993); and the contractor, creator, contributor, completer,
critic, cooperator, communicator, calibrator, consul, and coordinator (Mumford et al., 2006).
However, problems may occur when specific roles are named despite individual differences
(McCrimmon, 1995). McCrimmon (1995) opposed team roles for the reason that they do not
allow creative emergence. He finds that individuals with specified roles oftentimes have the
sense of a restrictive obligation and rigidity towards the team process. Instead, individuals should
have the freedom to be flexible according to the situation or problem, and break out of their
defined style and create opportunities for personal development.
Identifying the role one plays on a team can be valuable to team performance (Belbin,
2000). Often these are assigned, but are usually recognized during the team adaption process
through emerging interactions (Carnall, 1999; Heckhausen, 1989). Therefore, instead of focusing
on the role determined prior to interaction, it is important to determine roles by situation. Team
role knowledge and situational contingencies governing their use, can affect team member
performance more than personality because it allows members to review the situation and
acclimatize to the needed role (Mumford, Morgeson, Van Iddekinge, & Campion, 2008). Team
members with adequate knowledge of roles and when they are needed in the problem solving
process brings clarity to the situation and allows individuals to work with flexibility. Fulfillment
and coordination of team roles are thought to be necessary so the team can perform effectively
32
and so it can avoid process losses associated with unnecessarily harmful conflict, role ambiguity,
and social loafing (Steiner, 1972).
The knowledge of an individual’s problem solving style makes it possible for that
individual to work along the problem solving process by taking advantage of their strengths and
yielding to their weaknesses. In particular, the Creative Problem Solving Profile (CPSP) is a
psychometric instrument based on the Simplex model, which is an extension of the Creative
Problem Solving (CPS) process (Basadur & Gelade, 2002). The CPSP measures the unique
blend of the individual’s problem solving style according to their preference for ways of gaining
and utilizing knowledge. Peterson’s study (2004) on the success factors for problem-based
learning found that the self-awareness of the CPSP provides students with information in not
only realizing their own thinking process, but also the problem solving process in general.
Students have commented on learning their strengths and appreciating complementary styles of
team members as well.
Personality traits
Personality traits are elements that contribute to how well individuals can perform on the
given task and relates to what kind of interaction they have with team members. In a meta-
analysis by Hough (1992), three personality constructs were correlated with teamwork:
conscientiousness, related to both achievement and dependability; emotional stability; and
agreeableness. Conscientiousness, in particular, found to have consistent and strong relationships
with individual performance in work environments (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Mount & Barrick,
1995). Individuals with high conscientiousness tend to support each team member in
contributing more to the overall team outcome in spite of roles, tasks, or relationships with other
team members. At the team level, high motivation for achievement relates to more concern of
team success (Zander & Forward, 1968), and results in higher team performance (French, 1958).
33
Barrick et al. (1998) found that agreeable team members have high potential in cooperation as
they are helpful, friendly, warm, trusting, and tolerant. This gravitation towards cooperation
within the team also improves long-term team viability. Members with similar levels of
agreeableness should also have similar styles in managing conflict, which in turn, facilitates
effective mediation of any differences among the team (Jackson, Stone, & Alvaarez, 1992).
Leonard and Swap (1999) state that in businesses, people are motivated to succeed
(achievement), to be in charge (dominance), and to have relationships with others (affiliation),
yet vary at the extent. However, creativity is hindered when an individual dominates or over-
powers, or is not open to others’ opinions (Sawyer, 2007).
Additionally, Oldham and Cummings (1996) summarize some of the stable characteristics
which relate consistently and positively to measures of creative performance across a variety of
domains: broad interests, attraction to complexity, intuition, aesthetic sensitivity, toleration of
ambiguity, and self-confidence. A group of factors that appear in creative individuals mentioned
by VanGundy (1984) are: self-esteem and self-confidence, independence of judgment,
perseverance, and locus of control. Some factors that stimulate creativity are freedom in carrying
out the work; a sense of positive challenge in the work; work teams that are collaborative,
diversely skilled, and idea focused; and norms of actively sharing ideas across (e.g. Amabile et
al., 1996; Kanter, 1988; West & Anderson, 1996). In addition, autonomy within work groups
greatly increases member motivation and in turn, encourages the innovation process and
enhances productivity (Paulus, 2008). Anything that supports the development of expertise,
creativity-relevant skill, and intrinsic motivation should facilitate creativity (Amabile & Mueller,
2008).
34
The personality characteristics of creative individuals and those that support successful
teamwork somewhat interrelate. From the literature reviewed on personality traits, the creative
person and the successful team member both have a sense for achievement, self-control, and are
open to change. Creative individuals tend to prefer an autonomous atmosphere, whereas team
members usually work together according to an order of set plans. Teams generally have a
leader, who has dominant qualities that enables decision making, and members that follow or
support the choice made. With regards to interpersonal relationships, successful team members
have a strong affiliation with their team.
These various personality traits can be measured through psychometric instruments. The
Adjective Check List (ACL), especially, has been employed in research to investigate a wide
range of human behaviors in applied work settings using several standardized scales (McDermid,
1965; Arvey, Dewhirst, & Boling, 1976; Mani, 1995; Oldham & Cummings, 1996). Arvey et al.
(1976) found that the need for achievement, autonomy, and affiliation were significantly related
to employee satisfaction at a multidisciplinary research center. The study concluded that
supervisory goal clarifying and planning activities and participation in goal setting were
positively associated with subordinate satisfaction; however, this study did not observe any
interactions. The ACL also incorporates a separate creative personality scale (ACL-Cr) in
addition to the one provided in the manual. Research in creativity has used the ACL-Cr scale to
examine creativity in specific domains (Davis & Bull, 1978; Domino & Giuliani, 1997; Meneely
& Portillo, 2005) rather than using the scale with normative results from students, professionals,
and randomly selected adults (Gough & Heilbrun, 1983).
Group Characteristics
Team behavior is partly determined by specific combinations of individuals interacting
together (VanGundy, 1984). Although ideas begin in the minds of individuals, they are later
35
shaped and changed by the members in the team (Kurtzberg, 2000). When individuals form
teams, they benefit from one another as each brings their own knowledge, skills, abilities, and
perspectives (Bradley & Hebert, 1997). Well-composed groups are made up of individual
members just large enough to do the given task, have high task-relevant expertise, have
interpersonal and task skills, and are moderately diverse (Hackman, 1987).
A variety of behaviors indicate potential to successful teamwork including
interdependence, goal specification, cohesiveness, roles and norms, communication, and trust.
Interdependence is the issue of how each member’s outcomes are determined by the actions of
the other members (Rousseau, 2001). Goal specification and cohesiveness refer to the
attractiveness of the team member relationships, which moderately relates to social and task
cohesiveness (Besser, 1995; Latham, 2001). Each team must also manage its efforts by requiring
members to hold common or overlapping cognitive accounts of the task requirements, goals,
procedures, and role responsibilities (Thompson & Fine, 1999). Communication enables team
goals to be understood by every member of the team, while receiving thoughtful feedback
(Clampitt, DeKock, & Cashman, 2000). Along the way, team members need to trust the people
and process, and be willing to contribute to constructive conflicts (Bryant & Harvey, 2000).
Naturally, team members who are low in social anxiety and who enjoy group interaction will
perform better. The flow of a team also increases when the members feel autonomy, competence,
and relatedness (Sawyer, 2007).
Diversity
Diverse team members bring a wider range of approaches to problem solving due to the
variety of problem solving styles within the team and higher levels of group creativity in finding
solutions (Pegels & Yang, 2000; West & Slater, 1995; West, 1994). Research shows that when
solving complex, non-routine problems, teams are more effective when they’re composed of
36
people who have a variety of skills, knowledge, and perspective (Sawyer, 2007). Diversity also
provides an environment which encourages each individual to contribute, which leads to a higher
quality team output (Thompson, 2000; Katzenbach & Smith, 1993).
However, a combination of individuals with different personality traits or cognitive styles
may encounter difficulty in working in harmony. Higher levels of diversity tend to hold a greater
conflict potential, which reduces the quality of problem-solving (Staehle, 1999). In the case of
creativity, too much diversity can cause communication problems to arise and conflicts to grow,
inhibiting the advantages of teamwork. In Kurtzberg’s (2000) investigation on the relationship of
diversity, creativity, and conflict, he showed that a diverse mixture of creative and non-creative
people leads to higher levels of creative performance, but at the expense of team member
satisfaction. On the other hand, if team members are too similar, the flow of a team begins to
wither for the reason that the interaction is no longer challenging (Sawyer, 2007). Team diversity
is most often perceived as an opportunity for creative team outcomes that are not possible by
homogeneous teams (Amabile, 1996; Hambrick, Cho & Chen, 1996). This only enhances the
team’s performance when there is some degree of shared knowledge, a culture of close listening
and open communication, a focus on well-defined goals, autonomy, fairness, and equal
participation (Sawyer, 2007).
Goal specification
Team goals are defined as, “a desirable state of affairs members intend to bring about
through combined efforts (Zander, 1994, p.15).” A clear understanding of a team’s objectives
through well-articulated goals is the most common characteristic of successful teams (Larson &
LeFasto, 1989), improving team performance and internal team processes (McComb, Green, &
Compton, 1999). The value of team goals is to provide direction to the team and motivation for
the team members (Levi, 2001).
37
At the team-level, there are constant struggles between the individual perspectives brought
into the group and the amalgamation among team members that is required for well-coordinated
processes and interactions. Nevertheless, team members must synchronize their plans for
accomplishing the given task; they must come to a common understanding of the problem
definition, agree on the evaluation of ideas, and work interpersonally with each other (Kurtzberg,
2000). Team members should develop communication and interaction patterns that aid the team
in working together successfully (Al-Rawi, 2008).
The concept of team employs the properties of sharing goals. As long as it is clear and
shared, a common mission unites people and gives the members a sense of purpose (Leonard &
Swap, 1999). A team’s goal is the task recognized by team members as the purpose of the team’s
existence; the effectiveness of a team depends on the members’ ability to recognize the goal
(Larson & LaFasto, 1989). It is vital for team members to have common goals for team
achievement, as well as to communicate clearly about the individual goals they may share (Al-
Rawi, 2008). Clear goals and immediate feedback through a mutual response in communication
are the critical elements to the flow within a team (Sawyer, 2007). On the other hand, when
objectives are unclear, these become barriers against effective team performance (Sawyer, 2007).
Team goal ambiguity and misinterpretation can lead team members to communicate in ways that
prevent them from accomplishing the team goal. Clarity in the common goals guide the team
members to think about how they can develop this potential and work effectively together to
ensure that everyone plays to their strengths and maximize the team’s effort.
Team Process
The process plays an essential role in team performance. A team’s process is what pulls
together the creative energy from individual minds into a team level outcome. Individuals impact
team problem solving processes by bringing their personality and behavior into the team work
38
(James & Asmus, 2001; Osche, 1990; Amabile, 1981; Barron & Harrington, 1981; Eysenck,
1994; Weisberg, 1993). Team members must be able to combine their efforts successfully. Team
members need to communicate well, work cooperatively, and provide support for each other.
Prospective measures of interaction include communication patterns, conflict levels, individual
inputs, and distribution of team-member assignments (Gladstein, 1984). Hargadon and Bechky
(2006) state that creative outcomes are produced through the collective effort of a team. From
this perspective, creative insights emerge during social interaction as ideas are connected across
team members. Collective creativity occurs when interaction enables individuals to come up with
new interpretations or discoveries they could not generate alone. The attention and energy that an
individual commits in the interaction and the feedback given by that individual triggers a
dynamic which transfigures the creative outcome (Hargadon & Bechky, 2006).
Team Problem Solving
In a work environment, teams are given a task or a problem to solve. A problem is
identified as a dilemma with no apparent way out, an undesirable situation without a solution, a
question that cannot currently be answered, the difference between the current situation and a
desired state, or a situation when group members must respond in order to function effectively
(Pokras, 1995). In solving a problem, the process of problem definition, generation,
implementation, and evaluation of issues is addressed, but in general, the most effective way is to
define the problem and then decide how to solve it (Levi, 2001).
Teams go through the same problem solving process as individuals do; however,
interaction among individuals and integration of ideas is added. Brophy (1998) developed a tri-
level matching theory of CPS, which is a systemic view that can help identify relationships
between individual and social influences, CPS components, and outcomes. He considered
individuals, groups, and organizations as the three levels of this theory, and identified the best
39
type of problem that can be solved in each level. In particular, the success in group CPS have
additional requirements than that of individuals, for instance, a leader should elicit, organize, and
coordinate the team members’ contributions, members should have varied knowledge and
thinking styles and have positive and tolerant attitudes for the full use of potential contributions.
Brophy (1998) suggested that when the group is comprised of adequate problem solvers, the
group is able to solve single-part problems and several-part problems in need of the complete
CPS process and in-depth knowledge of multiple subjects. Although this theory thoroughly
details each level according to the characteristics of CPS, it does not fully embrace the
characteristics of interpersonal interaction during the process.
An effective team should include intelligent problem solvers, or observant critical thinkers.
Researchers have identified a number of characteristics of effective team problem solving (Beebe
& Masterson, 1994; Janis & Mann, 1977). For example, a successful team considers a variety of
options or alternative before selecting a particular solution; a successful team’s discussion is
focused on the problem; skilled problem solvers test alternative solutions relative to established
criteria. On the other hand, teams that jump too quickly into the solution stage without doing an
adequate job of defining the problem and do not discuss their problem-solving strategies or
develop plans to follow typically fail during the problem solving process.
Communication
Communication is the process by which a person or group sends information to another
person or group. This process is comprised by the sender, receiver, and message. Understanding
the characteristics of these three components is the foundation of successful communication but
also creates the opportunity for miscommunication. In order to avoid miscommunications, the
communication climate should be open, supportive, inclusive, and rewarding (Levi, 2001).
Supportive climates in particular, encompass diverse ideas and expressions of both agreement
40
and disagreement. This kind of communication climate affects the willingness of team members
to participate, offering members the sense of affiliation, commitment, pride, and trust in their
teams. In addition, supportive communication behaviors include description, problem
orientation, spontaneity, equality, and provisionalism, whereas, defensive behaviors include
evaluation, control, neutrality, superiority, and certainty (Levi, 2001).
The key to good communication within the team is trust. Trust is the expression of the
confidence one has that other team members will honor their commitments (Thompson, 2000).
Trust has a direct relationship to interpersonal communication, cooperation, and teamwork.
People are more willing to commit to team goals, help others in a variety of situations, and
become involved in the team’s activities when trust is high (Levi, 2001).
Cohesion and Conflict
When the whole team is fully engaged, or cohesive, a flow within the team is more likely
to emerge (Sawyer, 2007). Team cohesion refers to the interpersonal bonds that hold a team
together (Levi, 2001). Presumably, when cohesion is strong, the team is motivated to perform
well and is better able to direct activities for successful performance (Cartwright, 1968; Davis,
1969). The more interdependent the members need to be so as to complete the task, the greater
the likelihood that they will feel like part of a cohesive team (Guzzo & Dickson, 1996). The
effects of cohesion are more important when the task requires high levels of interaction,
coordination, and interdependence. However, high cohesiveness endangers the process by
allowing “groupthink” to surface. Groupthink results from illusions among team members that
everyone is in agreement, censoring any doubts, while pressuring team members that dissenter
(Sawyer, 2007; Leonard & Swap, 1999). The emergence of groupthink inhibits the creativity
within the team and further influences the quality of the product.
41
Although researchers agree that the importance of teamwork cohesiveness is in sustaining
initiative, empathy, and flexibility; conflict still arises from differences (Al-Rawi, 2008). When
individuals come together in teams, their differences naturally contribute to the creation of
conflict. Conflict is seen as any disagreement among two or more people, and can be
distinguished into task-based, process-based, and relationship-based conflict (West, 1994). The
source of conflict can usually be found in disagreements about objectives or working processes,
often a result of communication problems and differences in working or thinking methods. Based
on this, Staehle (1999) concludes that diverse teams have inherently a higher conflict potential
than homogenous teams. Perceived similarity in homogenous teams increases attractiveness and
result in high cohesion, which can also hurt creativity due to conformity pressure and
domineering members. On the other hand, heterogeneous teams generally demonstrate greater
levels of disagreement, including a reduced common understanding of goals and processes and a
stronger tendency to undergo process-based and relationship-based conflicts.
Process-based and relationship-based conflicts create the most severe damage to
performance in a team (Heckhausen, 1989). Especially when conflicts turn personal, damage is
made in the process as well as the outcome. Teams with frequent personal conflict are relatively
ineffective because their interactions are divisive and angry (Leonard & Swap, 1999). Some also
argue that if cognitive conflict exceeds a limit, it can lead into unproductive actions, and even
take away the trust built within the team (Simons & Peterson, 2000).
Creative Abrasion
Conflict is an integral part of group dynamics, and though it is possible to suppress all
creativity in group work (Thomas, 1992), lack of disagreements of any kind can hinder both the
team’s productivity and their creativity (Nemeth, 1995). Research has also shown that some
42
degree of conflict may be beneficial to group process and outcomes. Conflict can be very
productive when competitive and substantive conflict benefit from pushing individuals to higher
standards and clarifying individual perspectives (Eisenhardt & Zbaracki, 1992). Cognitive or
task-based conflict can open thought processes, which then can drive group creativity (Staehle,
1999), and cognitive conflict in particular is essential for effective team performance (Forbes &
Milliken, 1999).
In order to make conflict beneficial, team members need to challenge one another and
welcome differences (Leonard & Swap, 1999). This process, called creative abrasion enables the
team to unleash the creative potential that is hidden in a collection of unlike-minded individuals
(Hirshberg, 1998). Although facilitating creative abrasion in the process may be a challenge,
nonetheless, diversity makes teams more creative because of this friction and the diversity and
multiplicity in ideas drives the team to more original and more complex work (Sawyer, 2007).
Overall, the creativity of a team depends on how the process is managed (Levi, 2001).
Team Outcome
Many factors can be related to measuring the creative team outcome. Hackman (1987)
proposed that a comprehensive assessment of team success must capture both current and future
team effectiveness. The present performance can be evaluated by the success, overall
productivity, or the creativity of the generated idea or product, whereas the viability of the team
can be assessed through team process evaluation.
Performance is defined as realizing the specific outcomes of the people, processes and
programs in an organization (Tregaskis, 2003), in other words, the result of inputs. A successful
team completes its task, maintains good social relations, and promotes its members’ personal and
professional development. The success of a team depends on four conditions: the right group of
43
people to perform the task; a task suitable for teamwork; resources to complete the task; and
finally, a supportive context for the team (Levi, 2001). Similarly, Hackman (1987) lists five
factors as necessary for the successful development and use of teams: clear direction and goals,
good leadership, tasks that are suited for teamwork, necessary resources to perform the jobs, and
supportive organizational environment.
Team performance is most commonly assessed through ratings of team effectiveness. In
Barrick et al.’s (1998) study on the relationship of member ability and personality to team
processes and team effectiveness, organizations used eight dimensions that were developed
based on the task in measuring team performance. The dimensions were knowledge of tasks,
quality of work, quantity of work, initiative, interpersonal skills, planning and allocation,
commitment to the team, and an overall evaluation of team performance. Although the task-
based assessment of team performance has its merits, most tasks given to teams are
multidimensional and therefore, cannot be classified as a single type. Rather, the primary focus
of a production team should be on team execution. The final product and the evaluation of team
process should also be examined.
Team Viability
The actual product or the successful result of a team is not the only consideration for
assessing the outcome of team creativity. Consequently, another important factor of the team
outcome is to look at the team viability, the capability of team members to continue working
cooperatively (Barrick et al., 1998). Cooperation is the key to developing a team that is able to
work interdependently in the long run (Hackman, 1990). This team viability criterion should be
influenced by personality traits associated with positive social interaction, which foster
cooperation and trust (Forsyth, 1990). Most research consistently show that liking and
44
interpersonal attraction are related to team viability, attraction, and member satisfaction
(Berkowitz, 1954; Haythorn, 1953; Terborg, Castore, & DeNinno, 1976; Tjosvold, 1984; Tziner
& Vardi, 1982). Once team performance and team viability are effectively produced, we can
assess the creativity of the team overall. From the data on team components (team composition,
team process, and team outcome) we may gain insight on the elements that cultivate a
collaborative and creative team.
Application
Multidisciplinary Real-Problem Approach
This literature review demonstrates that extensive research has been conducted on both
creativity and teamwork. Although creativity studies have been focused mostly on the individual
level, interest in the team level has been gradually growing particularly in the business sector.
The importance of creativity in teamwork has also been acknowledged as critical for successfully
competing in this society of constant change. However, research on creativity and teamwork is
still in need for practical application—the gap between research and practice remains.
Special considerations of multidisciplinary teams have typically not been acknowledged in
most of the precedent literature. The studies that do exist tend to focus on the individual
perceptions and variables rather than team outcomes. A notable exception to this is Schepers and
van den Berg’s (2007) study that investigated how work-environment creativity is related to
social factors by administering questionnaires to individuals that had various work experience
with diverse teams. Although results found several factors including adaptable organizational
culture perceptions and knowledge sharing to be related to creativity in hierarchical regression, it
did not have a particular outcome from a team consensus.
Another limitation to the research on creativity and teamwork is that only a few are field-
based. Studies using samples from organizations of businesses exist; however, these assess the
45
individual’s overall perception rather than the actual team dynamic that is in play. The focus of
these studies looks at the general picture of the field rather than actual problem solving within
teams. Another exception is Ely’s (2004) study that examined the impact of diversity on
performance by assessing whether employee participation in the organization’s diversity
education program influenced the relationships. This field study was conducted at the individual
level although some reports connected to team processes and performance. Findings from this
study imply that the complexity of the research variables and the organization characteristics
make it difficult for any propositions. Boundaries seem to form when research attempts to
integrate with the organizational characteristics of the practical setting.
The complexity of the many variables contributing to team creativity has limited the
application of research in practical settings. Therefore, the teams that are being observed should
be working on real problems in order to grasp the practical setting of the study. Hargadon and
Bechky (2006) conducted six intensive case studies of organizations that generated creative
solutions to novel problems. The field study relied on ethnographic-research methods in order to
understand the individual perspectives and discover the creative moments within the problem
solving process. Although this study identifies the social interactions that contribute to team
creativity when solving a real problem, it does not fully embrace the systems approach for
creativity in teamwork. The elements that comprise the systems are not examined in detail due to
the limitation of the research environment, and thus, it is difficult to understand the variables that
support creativity. The complexity of conducting research in the actual workplace may be
overcome through examining the real-problem approach in student teams working on projects
that are provided by real clients. Carrano and Thorn (2005) describes the administration of
multidisciplinary student design teams working on a client project for a sustainable product and
46
process design. Although this study did not conduct research on the actual team dynamics, it did
find the sequence of student courses to be successful in supporting student teams with the
knowledge and training needed for the design project.
Although research in the theoretical and empirical perspective of teamwork and knowledge
are rich and add to the body of knowledge; however, implications in the applied setting are still
limited. Research should focus on replicating the contextual background and situation of
practical settings in organizations. One way to advance the knowledge base in this area is to use
a multidisciplinary real problem approach that embraces the systems view of creativity in
teamwork. This approach will allow social factors to interact with individual factors and for
creative synergy to emerge from a collective mind, while acknowledging the complexity of
creativity as it spans through the individual, team, and organizational level. Another issue that
should be taken into account of future research design is domain specificity. Each specific
domain has different criteria in determining creativity. As domains change, so do the defining
traits of creativity. All in all, research should incorporate a domain-specific systemic view of
team creativity through a multidisciplinary approach in an applied setting.
47
Figure 2-1. Simplex model
48
Figure 2-2. Interactionist model for organizational creativity
49
Figure 2-3. Traditional input-process-output (I-P-O) model.
Figure 2-4. I-P-O model alternative.
Figure 2-5. I-P-O model with synergy.
TEAM COMPOSITION TEAM PROCESS TEAM OUTCOME
TEAM COMPOSITION
TEAM PROCESS
TEAM OUTCOME
TEAM COMPOSITION
TEAM PROCESS
TEAM OUTCOME SYNERGY
INDIVIDUAL CONTRIBUTIONS
INDIVIDUAL CONTRIBUTIONS
50
CHAPTER 3 METHODS
Introduction
This study examines the relationship of individual personality traits to teamwork
processes and successful performance. The methodology includes the completion of two
standardized psychometric instruments and a locally developed survey to describe the
background and process of the participating students. The standardized psychometric instruments
assessed each participant’s individual personality traits and problem solving style, while the self-
constructed survey evaluated team process variables. A panel of expert judges consisting of
noted retailers, designers, and the client evaluated the success of the final team projects. Finally,
each team completed a self-evaluation of their project.
Setting for the Study
This field study was conducted alongside the 3rd Annual ACRA Charrette, where the
sample, project problem statement, results, research environment, and conditions were all under
a controlled environment. The ACRA Charrette is an event sponsored by the American
Collegiate Retailing Association (ACRA) and a client company in the retail field. A real world
problem is presented by a retail company for student teams to solve in a competitive
environment. Previous ACRA Charrette problem statements include a retail concept for the
Toronto International Film Festival Center, and one for the Maple Leaf Square, a sports and
entertainment center in Toronto. In both of the previous charrettes, sponsoring organizations
provided prizes for the first and second place teams.
The 3rd Annual ACRA Charrette, in particular, was sponsored by the client, Ron Jon Surf
Shop, and hosted by the University of Florida’s David F. Miller Center for Retailing Education
and Research. The 2009 challenge was to develop a business plan for Ron Jon Surf Shop’s new
51
store in Destin, Florida. The business plan was to include marketing, communication,
merchandising, financial, human resource plans, and a design for the interior of the store. The
Ron Jon Surf Shop was looking for a retail environment that embraced the company’s brand
image and would maximize potential of the new location. The Ron Jon Surf Shop provided
information about their company by offering a tour of their largest store in Cocoa Beach and
through presentations on their corporate strategy, marketing programs, and operations.
Merchandise/assortments and marketing overview documents based on the Cocoa Beach store,
client information from other Ron Jon Surf Shops in Florida, TV and radio spots, and the interior
and exterior store drawings of the Panama City store were provided as well.
Undergraduate students—mostly from the United States with some international
representation (Canada and the United Kingdom)—were invited to the University of Florida to
meet Ron Jon officials and compete in teams for the winning project. Charrette participants work
together in an intense environment in order to reach a solution for the challenge. In an academic
charrette like this, students are given the opportunity to express their creativity, apply learned
skills and knowledge for transferring ideas into appropriate and practical plans, work on real
issues with industry experts, and experience the value of interdisciplinary teamwork—all in a
short period of time.
This study chose to utilize the ACRA Charrette for the reason that it uses
interdisciplinary teams of students who have not worked together before. This charrette also
engages a real world problem solving situation judged by a panel of experts, which provides
ecological validity to this study.
Sample
42 college students from multi-disciplines and various institutions were selected to
participate in the 3rd Annual ACRA Charrette. These students majored in marketing, retailing,
52
business administration, finance, merchandising, and interior design. Students came from the
following twelve universities: University of Florida (n=19), Indiana University (n=2), University
of Arkansas (n=1), University of Alabama at Birmingham (n=2), Georgia Southern University
(n=3), Florida State University (n=3), University of Minnesota-Twin Cities (n=1), University of
Wisconsin-Madison (n=2), Albright College (n=3), Michigan State University (n=1), Tampa Art
Institute (n=1), Ryerson University in Canada (n=3), and Brunel University in United Kingdom
(n=1). These students were pre-selected by faculty from their institutions according to ACRA
participant requirements. Applicants attained eligibility through sufficient grades, a
recommendation letter from a sponsoring faculty member, a resume, and a letter of interest for
participation. Due to a limitation on the number of seats (a maximum of 42 students); applicants
were selected by ACRA officials (coordinator of the 3rd Annual ACRA Charrette and related
faculty members) based on their affiliated institution, discipline, and expressed interest.
Students from various institutions were considered to ensure that participants would be in
an environment that was new to them and the team. Interior design students, however, were all
supported by the host university to provide a stable work environment that may lessen the
intensity of the workload required from the discipline. These interior design students were
recommended by faculty members that were in the junior class and similar in knowledge, skills,
and abilities in the area of expertise. All of these interior design students were educated in the
same academic curriculum and thus, had considerable consistency in the level of design ability.
Students were selected from business and retailing disciplines to make certain that each
team had similar distribution in knowledge from different areas of expertise. The general
distribution of disciplines can be divided into three categories: business, merchandising, and
interior design. Business students included business administration, marketing, management, and
53
finance. Merchandising students included: retail merchandise, apparel design, fashion retail
management, merchandising, retailing, fashion merchandising, and retail management.
The selected students were divided by ACRA officials into six teams of seven (Table 3-
1). Each team was comprised of two interior design students, at least one merchandising student,
and at least two business students. Students from the same institution were separated by ACRA
officials to ensure that all team members had not met before. All 42 students agreed to
participate in this study when approached prior to the event. The sample was 11 males and 31
females with a mean age of 22.4
The expert judges and judging criteria were provided by ACRA. The panel evaluating the
final presentations consisted of a total of six judges: four from the Ron Jon Surf Shop company
and two experts in design. The judges were the president, chief financial officer, director of
marketing, and director of merchandise buying of the Ron Jon Surf Shop, the designer in charge
of the new Destin store, and another designer related to the project. All of the judges were in one
way or another related to the Ron Jon Surf Shop’s new Destin location.
Instruments
Assessing Problem Solving Style: The CPSP
The Creative Problem Solving Profile (CPSP) was used to inventory each individual’s
problem solving style (see Appendix B). This instrument was designed by Min Basadur in 1981
to help individuals and teams learn how they prefer to think and thereby maximize team
effectiveness (Basadur & Gelade, 2003). Through this inventory, individuals, teams, and
organizations are able to draw resources from each problem-solving style to enhance team
problem solving processes. As individuals learn their problem solving preferences from the
CPSP inventory, they are able to work according to their strengths in the problem solving
process and maximize team performance.
54
The CPSP was developed to assess the individual’s problem solving style according to
the problem solving theories of Osborn and Parnes (Basadur & Gelade, 2002). Osborn’s creative
problem solving model consists of fact finding, idea finding, and solution finding (Osborn,
1953). Fact finding is related to problem definition and preparation, idea finding with idea
production and idea development, and solution finding with evaluation and adoption. Parnes
(1977) adds problem finding and acceptance finding into this model of the creative problem
solving process. The CPSP expands this by identifying eight steps in the process: problem
finding, fact finding, problem definition, idea finding, evaluating and selecting potential
solutions, planning for action, gaining acceptance, and taking action (Basadur & Gelade, 2002).
By taking two steps each and grouping them together, the CPSP perceives creative problem-
solving as a four stage process. New problems and opportunities are first generated (generation),
then defined and comprehended in order to craft potentially useful ideas (conceptualization).
These ideas are then nurtured into practical solutions (optimization), and then finally executed
(implementation). Each stage entails different thinking skills which reflect the individual’s
preferences.
In order to investigate the individual’s preference in the problem solving process,
Basadur (1998) found that in problem solving, individuals attain and utilize knowledge
interchangeably. Knowledge is gained through concrete experience or through reflective
thinking, based on Kolb’s (1976) learning process, and utilized through the creation and
evaluation of new opportunities, based on the divergent-convergent theory (Farnham-Diggory,
1972). The construct of the CPSP combines these theories by perceiving each problem solving
stage to consist a style of gaining knowledge and a style of utilizing knowledge. Combining this
with the Simplex model, each stage of the problem solving process consists of a method of
55
gaining knowledge and utilizing it. The bipolar values of experiencing-thinking and ideation-
evaluation overlay the eight-step creative problem solving process and define each quadrant.
The CPSP is a standardized self-report instrument composed of 18 rows of four words.
Respondents rank order each four-item set based on how self-descriptive the word is, for
example, a four is given to the word that most describes the person whereas a one is given to
least descriptive word. When all 18 rows are completely ranked, each column is calculated to
indicate the scores for each problem-solving orientation. The first column is tallied to give the
respondent a score for experiencing (processing information through observation). The second
column gives a score for ideation (the generation of ideas without judgment). The third column
gives a score for thinking (processing information through abstract theorizing). The fourth
column gives a score for evaluation (the judgment and evaluation of ideas).
After all columns are added up, these measures are then plotted onto a two-dimensional
graph which illustrates the respondent’s problem solving profile (see Figure 3-1). The vertical
axis plots the degree of how the individual gains knowledge by experiencing or thinking. The
graph’s horizontal axis shows the individual’s preference in using their knowledge; through
evaluation or ideation. The numeric value of each preference—experiencing, thinking, ideation,
and evaluation —are plotted to form a diamond shape with four quadrants. The four quadrants
represent generating, conceptualizing, optimizing, and implementing ideas. The quadrant that is
the largest can be seen as the individual’s dominant creative problem-solving profile. Generators
have strongest preferences in both experiencing and ideation; Conceptualizers in both ideation
and thinking; Optimizers in both thinking and evaluation; Implementers in both evaluation and
experiencing.
56
In developing this instrument Basadur (1998) has found that the opposing scales have
weak correlation and the opposing quadrants have strong negative correlation. Low correlations
exist between adjacent quadrants which demonstrate satisfactory independence among the four
problem solving styles. Basadur (1998) also finds that all subareas are addressed in equal
proportions, validating the content. He also finds relation to the Kirton Adaption-Innovation
Inventory (KAI; Houtz et al., 2003; Basadur, 1998) and the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator
(MBTI; Basadur, 1998 ).
The CPSP not only assessed individuals, but also groups. In a study assessing groups of
MBA students, Basadur and Head (2001) report that although heterogeneous groups
outperformed homogeneous groups, the heterogeneous groups were less satisfied. Basadur and
Gelade (2002) also conducted a study relating the CPSP with occupations (N=3,942). In this
study, Generators were abundant in professions like marketing, teaching, academia, and art;
Conceptualizers in market research, design, and R&D; Optimizers in engineering design and
finance; and Implementers in management, sales, and customer relations.
In addition to the studies that Basadur has conducted exhibiting the validity of the CPSP
(e.g., Basadur, 1998; Basadur, Graen, & Wakabayashi, 1990), independent reviews also exist
(e.g., Isaksen & Geuens, 2006; Higgins, 1996; Houtz & Krug, 1995). The Creative Problem
Solving Group, an independent organization offering research studies on creativity for
application in practice, reviews the construct validity to be sound for the reason that the CPSP is
an assessment tool that directly applies to learning and applying Creative Problem Solving (CPS;
Isaksen & Geuens, 2006).
Assessing Personality: The ACL
The Adjective Check List (ACL) designed by Harrison Gough at the Berkeley Institute of
Personality Assessment and Research in 1949 and further developed by Gough and Heilbrun in
57
1980 (Gough & Heilbrun, 1983). In this study, the ACL was used to profile personality traits for
each participant. ACL respondents self-describe themselves by choosing from a list of 300
alphabetically ordered adjectives commonly describing diverse personality attributes, which is
ultimately compiled into a personality profile.
A personality profile is assembled first by the total number of adjectives checked. From
this number, males and females are separately categorized into groups in order to transfer raw
scores into standard scores. According to the subscale used for interpretation, the raw number of
associated adjectives checked is changed into a standard t-score. The conversion to a standard
score removes the influence of the actual number of adjectives selected from any of the
measures.
A total of 37 subscales can be utilized for interpretation from the adjectives that are
checked. Subscales used in this study include: Achievement, the need to be excellent when
pursuing socially recognized significance; Dominance, the need to seek and maintain the role of
a leader; Affiliation, the need to seek and maintain personal friendships; Autonomy, the need to
act independently of others or of social values and expectations; Change, the need to seek
novelty of experience and avoid routine; and Personal adjustment, the ability to adapt to
situations with interpersonal demands, and a feeling of efficacy. These scales were derived from
literature that discovered several personality traits related to teamwork and creativity. For
instance, achievement, dominance, and affiliation were personality traits that were especially
found in businessmen (Leonard & Swap, 1999). While dominance is a trait that is found in
leaders, deference can be seen as the opposing trait that is most commonly found in subordinate
roles. Order is a trait that relates to the success in work and the pursuit of a goal through seeking
objectivity and rationality (Gough & Heilbrun, 1983). Creative teams are usually given tasks that
58
need to satisfy the continually changing society, and therefore, team members need to adapt
according to this situation. Autonomy and change are some traits that are essential for teamwork
(Sawyer, 2007; Paulus, 2008). Personal adjustment can be seen as an extension of these traits in
that a high-scorer feels capable of initiating activities and carrying them through to conclusion,
enjoys the company of others, and has a positive attitude towards life (Gough & Heilbrun, 1983).
This study chose to utilize the Adjective Check List (ACL) in that it assesses all the mentioned
traits in one instrument. Independent reviews by Teeter and Zarske (Buros, 1985) report that the
instrument is sound in both reliability and validity.
In addition to these traits, creativity itself is also perceived as an essential personality trait
for creative teamwork. In the case of assessing creative personality traits, this study in particular
chose to use the Domino’s Creativity Scale (ACL-Cr) instead of Gough’s Creative Personality
Scale (ACL-Cps: referred in the ACL manual) for the reason that the ACL-Cr provides more
relevant results to design-based research than the ACL-Cps (Domino, 1970; Davis, 1999;
Meneely & Portillo, 2005). This ACL-Cr scale was formulated by Domino (1970) from the 59
items that were most frequently reported in creative students in a three-year cross-validation
study on creative achievement among 800 art, science, and literature students. In an empirical
creativity study, Domino and Giuliani (1997) employed the ACL-Cr to assess photography
students, novice professionals, and experienced professionals. This study found statistical
differences among the three samples in the ACL-Cr scale; a progression from students having
low scores and experienced professionals having high scores. Davis (1999) also approves this
measure of creativity and includes the scale and scoring guide in the book, Creativity is Forever
(4th ed.).
59
Assessing Team Process: The Self-Constructed Survey
The Team Process Survey (TPS) was constructed for the current study in order to assess
team process variables and dynamics (see Appendix B). The first section asked respondents to
rate the overall success or failure of the whole team experience through quantitative and
qualitative items. The second section had several statements related to the respondent’s
preference toward teamwork. These statements relate to the literature found for assessing teams
(VanGundy, 1987), and were rated on a 5-point Likert scale. These statements were: ‘I enjoyed
interacting with my teammates when working on this project,’ ‘I appreciated when my
teammates challenged or questioned my ideas,’ ‘I felt more creative when working with my
team,’ and ‘If I had the choice, I would prefer to work with my team instead of by myself.’
A third section assessed role clarity and team cohesion and/or conflict. Respondents were
asked to explain their role within the team, and to check what their team members’ roles were
during the process. In the case of recognizing cohesion and/or conflict within the team, this
section asked individuals to first list the strengths of the team and then describe the challenges
that occurred during the team process. Individuals were then asked to further expand on whether
these challenges were seen as helpful or harmful towards the final solution.
Assessing Team Outcome: The Judge’s Scores & Team Self-Evaluation
The criteria in the judge’s score sheet were provided by ACRA officials. The scoring
criteria included: creativity, overall concept and branding, marketing/communication plan, store
design (front and interior), store layout, assortment plan and merchandising strategy, use of
technology, human resources, income statements for start-up and growth phases, and use of data
to support recommendations. Each criterion was evaluated on a ten point scale which summed up
to 100 points for the total score. Space for additional written comments was also provided. A
panel of expert judges assessed each team’s solution by filling out the evaluation form. Each
60
team also used this score sheet to fill out a self-evaluation of their project in order to understand
the team’s perception of the final outcome.
Procedure
Since the present study used the ACRA Charrette and its participants, data collection
efforts needed to conform to the competition schedule. This section first explains the ACRA
Charrette process and then details the procedure of this study. Figure 3-2 summarizes the
methodology of the present study and in particular, Figure 3-3 illustrates the schedule of the
ACRA Charrette and when each research instrument was used for the study. Administration of
each instrument was particularly planned to adhere to the ACRA Charrette’s schedule.
ACRA Charrette Process
Prior to ACRA: Students received a welcome e-mail from ACRA officials two weeks
prior to the event that was held between March 17th and March 21st, 2009. This e-mail welcomed
students and provided a concise explanation of the charrette challenge. Details of the project
client (Ron Jon) were not exposed to the students until the time of the charrette. However, for the
reason of time constraints, interior design students were given basic information about Ron Jon
in order to conduct some programmatic research on the client. They were also given floor plans
of the new retail store to conduct building analysis prior to the competition.
While interior design students had a head start in the design process, other students
received the contact information of their other team members (excluding the interior design
students to prevent the disclosure of the competition client). These students were also invited to
join a group for the 2009 ACRA Charrette on Facebook to communicate with their team.
Students were to utilize this virtual communication opportunity to form relationships with their
team members and develop a team identity. A copy of the ACRA schedule is included in
Appendix C.
61
Day 1: Students arrived at the event site on March 17th for a welcome reception dinner.
After registration, students gathered at a welcome reception and Ron Jon was officially
announced as the client. The 2009 challenge of developing a business plan and a store design for
Ron Jon’s new retail store in Destin, Florida was presented as well. The reception also offered
students the time to get to know their teammates, and discuss the project. Teams were asked to
come up with a team name and introduce their team branding in a short presentation. In the end,
the ACRA officials announced the award for the first place team.
Day 2: On the first official work day of the competition, participants were taken on a
field trip to the Ron Jon headquarters in Cocoa Beach, Florida. On the bus ride to the destination,
a team building exercise directed by ACRA enabled the teams to discuss their goals and
expectations as well as the project in general. Upon arriving at the field trip destination, Ron Jon
officials first took the students on a tour of their largest retail store, explaining each department
and sharing the company’s expectations in store design and layout. During lunch, Ron Jon
formally presented detailed information on the goals for the project and their current business
plans by department. Executive presentations during the Ron Jon store tour included that of the
Ron Jon Surf Shop’s president, chief financial officer, director of marketing, director of
merchandise buying, vice president of operations, and director of distribution. Students were
given the opportunity to ask questions and elaborate on the presented information. Afterwards,
the teams were given time to enjoy the beach or shop at the Ron Jon’s retail store. Teams
continued to discuss their strategies while embracing the Ron Jon’s brand image through
exploration of the store and its surroundings.
Day 3: Teams were given the time to conduct research on Ron Jon. A presentation on
“Design as a Marketing Tool” was given by an expert to help teams generate ideas for the
62
challenge. Each team made rotations to meet with the industry panel to ask questions based on
the preceding sessions. This panel included industry experts from various fields, such as, design,
communication and advertising, merchandising, finance, retail technology solution, and human
resources. Only the merchandising expert was affiliated with Ron Jon, other experts were from
outside of the company. Each team was given approximately 25 minutes to discuss their plan for
the project with the allotted expert and ask questions relevant to their field of expertise. After the
teams were through with all of their meetings, they were given the liberty to work on their own
for the rest of the day and into the fourth day.
Day 4: A presentation skill workshop was offered the next day and feedback was
available for one volunteer team. Besides this workshop, teams were allowed to work until an
hour before the final projects were due for submission. Each team was provided a breakout room
to work in; however, teams and individuals were allowed to work in any environment of their
choice.
Day 5: The final day, each team presented their solutions to the panel of judges,
consisting of Ron Jon owners, the panel of experts that assisted the students on the third day, and
to attending faculty members and all the students participating in the ACRA Charrette event.
Team presentations were approximately 20 minutes per team with five minutes allotted for
questions and comments. All teams presented their solutions using the PowerPoint. After all
teams had presented their projects, the panel of judges left the room to discuss their thoughts and
come to a consensus on the winning proposal.
Research Steps
Prior to ACRA: The welcome e-mail sent to the students prior to the event included an
invitation to participate in the present study and a link to the online informed consent form. As
students visited the link to the IRB approved online informed consent (Appendix A), they were
63
introduced to the study and given information on the procedures, benefits and risks. Upon
agreement, the webpage automatically directed participants to the online version of the Creative
Problem Solving Profile (CPSP).
Day 1: Although students were required to complete the CPSP prior to arriving to the
event, those who did not have the chance were approached by the researcher upon registration
during the first day of the event. These students were introduced to the study once again, and
were guided to complete the procedure on site. These results were combined with previous data
collection for complete team results.
Day 2: On the bus ride to the Ron Jon headquarters in Cocoa Beach, participants received
individual and team results from the CPSP. This information reviewed their dominant problem
solving style’s characteristics and how their team was placed on a scatter diagram. The results
offered participants insight into their thinking preferences, as well as what roles individuals
might play during the problem-solving process. The Adjective Checklist (ACL) was
administered during the bus trip to the Ron Jon’s retail store. Students were not given a time
limit but completed the instrument within 20 minutes.
Day 5: Research was not conducted on the third or fourth day. On the final day during
presentations, judges evaluated each team’s proposal according to the score sheet’s criteria.
When judges left the room to decide on the winning team, the participants of this study were
asked to complete the Team Process Survey (TPS) individually, and to self-evaluate their
projects on the same judging criteria as a team.
Table 3-1. Discipline distribution by teams according to outcome rankings Discipline 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 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
64
Figure 3-1. A sample plot of the Creative Problem Solving Profile (CPSP)
Figure 3-2. Summary of present study methodology
20.00
25.00
30.00
35.00
40.00Experiencing
Ideation
Thinking
Evaluation
Generating
Conceptualizing
Implementing
Optimizing
TEAM COMPOSITION PROCESS
1st
OUTCOME
Problem Solving Style
Personality Profile
Task
Process Survey
Expert Judging
ACL
CPSP
65
Figure 3-3. Research steps in relation to the ACRA charrette schedule for the study procedure
DAY 1
DAY 2
DAY 3
ACRA RESEARCH
- Registration - Welcome Dinner
- Team Building Exercise: Team Presentations
- Bus ride to Cocoa Beach (+Team Building Exercise: Team Goals&Expectations) - Tour of Client Retail Store
- Lunch & Client Presentations by Dept. - Free time (Beach/Shop)
- Dinner - Bus ride back to Gainesville
- Project research by team - “Design as a Marketing
Tool” presentation - Meetings with Industry Experts (team rotation)
- Project work by team - Presentation skill
workshop - Project work by team
- Presentations - Award reception
DAY 4
DAY 5
- Welcome Packet (E-mail) - Team distribution and
contact information
Prior Creative Problem Solving Profile
(CPSP) on-line instrument
Results for CPSP
Team Environment and Process
Survey (TEPS)
Adjective Checklist (ACL)
Judge’s Scores
Team Self-Evaluation
66
CHAPTER 4 RESULTS
All data was evaluated to ensure a normal distribution. Histograms generated from the
residuals illustrate normally distributed responses for both the CPSP and the ACL (Appendix D).
Any visually skewed distributions were further evaluated with a log transformation, and all
residuals were within acceptable limits. Responses to the TPS were concluded as normal due to
its Likert-type scale quality. All 42 students participated in the study so there were no missing
data. Problem solving profiles of the sample were based on individual scores from the Creative
Problem Solving Profile (CPSP). Personality profiles of the sample were based on scores
according to the Adjective Check List (ACL) subscales mentioned in the methodology, with the
inclusion of Domino’s creativity scale (ACL-Cr). Perception of process of the sample was
derived from the individual scores of the self-constructed Team Process Survey (TPS).
Sample Characteristics
Comparison to Normative Populations
Z-tests were conducted to compare the sample to ACL normative data (Gough & Heilbrun,
1983) by observed personality variables according to gender, shown in Table 4-1 and Table 4-2.
Both males and females show leadership characteristics through their significantly higher means
in dominance and significantly lower means in deference. This may be due to the fact that
charrette participants were pre-selected by their institutions and therefore display elite
characteristics. The sample is also significantly higher in change which may explain their interest
in participating in a dynamic problem solving competition. Females in particular also had
significantly higher scores in achievement and autonomy. This sample was also compared in the
level of creative personality traits (ACL-Cr) using the normative sample of 147 multidisciplinary
college students according to their ACL-Cr scores (Davis & Bull, 1978). The Z-test score
67
demonstrates significantly higher levels of creative personality traits, which confirms the elite
characteristics of the sample (Table 4-3).
Using the Creative Problem Solving Profile (CPSP) inventory, creative problem solving
process styles for 3,942 adults in 38 different occupations from a wide variety of organizations
were studied to understand the occupational proportions for each problem solving style (Basadur
& Basadur, in press). The problem solving style proportions for the occupations related to the
current study are noted in Table 4-4. Although the occupations of the normative data and the
disciplines of the current sample did not match entirely, data from similar occupations were used
for comparison. The current study’s sample (Table 4-5) shows that there were far more
Implementers in the field of marketing, and more Generators in finance and merchandising than
the norm. In the design field, the sample had more Generators and less Conceptualizers than the
norm.
Comparisons within the Sample
Table 4-6 summarizes the means of creative personality traits (ACL-Cr) and problem
solving scales by gender. Based on the difference in mean values, females tend to prefer
experiencing than thinking (difference of 6.16) when gaining knowledge compared to males
(difference of 3.18). When comparing these variables by discipline (Table 4-7), some differences
were shown as well. Merchandising and interior design students scored higher on ACL-Cr than
business students. Merchandising students had a somewhat lower score in ideation compared to
the other disciplines; business students had a lower score in thinking and a higher score in
evaluation. However, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) test results found significant differences
in thinking only (Table 4-8) and post-hoc tests further details this (Table 4-9).
68
Question 1: What Problem Solving Styles and Personality Traits Characterizes Each Team’s Composition? How Do These Vary From Normative Populations?
Problem Solving Style
The data on team composition comes from demographics reported by ACRA officials,
results from the Creative Problem Solving Profile (CPSP), and Team Process Survey (TPS).
Descriptive summary statistics are reported in Table 4-10 and Table 4-11 showing the number of
students on each team by discipline and problem solving style. Half of the teams (1st, 2nd, and 4th)
had at least one individual in each style, whereas the other half (3rd, 5th, and 6th) were missing
one style each. The winning team had the most even distribution in problem solving styles with
two Generators, one Conceptualizer, two Optimizers, and two Implementers. The 5th place team,
on the other hand, had the most skewed distribution with four Generators, one Conceptualizer,
no Optimizer, and two Implementers. Overall, the 2nd, 4th, and 6th place teams were dominant in
Implementers, whereas the 5th place team was dominant in Generators. The winning team was
triple-dominant with an even number of Generators, Optimizers, and Implementers; and the 3rd
place team was double-dominant with three Generators and three Implementers.
To provide further insight, mean scores for the CPSP scales determining the problem
solving styles—experiencing, ideation, thinking, and evaluation—are included for each team
(Table 4.12). From this summary, all teams preferred thinking the least among the problem
solving style scales. The 1st place team had the highest mean for thinking (29) and the 5th place
team scored the lowest (24.71).
Using the mean scores for each scale from Table 4.12 composite problem solving profiles
were generated for each team. Figure 4-1 illustrates each team’s problem solving style
accordingly. Applying CPSP protocol to determine the dominant style for each team, revealed
that the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 6th place teams are most dominant in implementing ideas with strong
69
preferences in both experiencing and evaluation and the 1st and 5th place teams are most
dominant in generating ideas with preferences in both experiencing and ideation.
Departing from the CPSP protocol, the researcher assumed that an ideal problem solving
profile would comprise an even 25 % for all problem solving styles. Applying this logic,
dominance is determined when problem solving styles are greater than or equal to 25%. This
departure from normal CPSP protocol was conducted to account for simultaneous dominance
among styles and is consistent with theoretical foundations which identify the role of paradoxical
traits and thinking styles in creative problem solving (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996; Herrmann, 1989).
According to this interpretation, all teams were dominant in both generating and implementing
ideas, while the winning team had additional dominance in conceptualizing.
Further analysis was conducted to assess a team’s departure from an idealized problem
solving profile. A skew factor for each team’s profile was determined by calculating the delta
(positive or negative departures from 25%) for each problem solving style. Delta scores for each
problem solving style were combined to establish the overall skew factor for each team (Table 4-
13). According to this data, the winning team had the lowest skew factor and was somewhat
balanced among delta scores for each problem solving style. On the other hand, the 5th place
team had the highest overall skew and the largest difference between delta values for each
problem solving style.
Personality Traits
The ACL was used to measure personality traits with the sample. An analysis of variance
(ANOVA) was administered to compare means by team. The only significant personality
difference among teams was Domino’s Creative Personality (ACL-Cr) scale (Table 4-14). Post-
Hoc tests presented in Table 4-15 identified that the 4th place team had a significantly lower
mean score for ACL-Cr than the 1st, 2nd, and 6th place teams. It is interesting to note that the 1st
70
and 6th place teams were tied with the highest mean score for ACL-Cr. Table 4-16 summarizes
the ACL mean scores and standard deviations for all of the personality variables that were
observed in this study.
Question 2: How do Teams Differ in their Perception of Team Process?
The Team Process Survey (TPS) asked questions to understand each participant’s
perception towards their team’s work. The first section asked how each participant perceived the
overall success of the team (Success). The second section asked whether the individual enjoyed
the interaction with other team members (Interaction); whether the individual appreciated when
team members challenged their ideas (Appreciate Challenge); whether the individual felt more
creative when working with their team (Creative w/team); and whether they preferred working in
their team as opposed to working alone (Preference in Teams). All questions were answered on a
5-point Likert-type scale with 1 indicating strong disagreement and 5 indicating strong
agreement. Table 4-17 summarizes the mean scores and standard deviations of these questions
by team.
Mean scores indicated that the 1st, 2nd and 3rd place teams seemed to be satisfied with their
teams. The 5th and 6th place teams, on the other hand, seemed to have had complications within
their teams. The 6th place team appeared to enjoy the interaction among the team members,
whereas the 5th place team indicated that they did not. ANOVA tests found significant
differences in all process variables (Table 4-18). Post-Hoc tests (Table 4-19) identified a clear
delineation between the teams that had positive perceptions of their teams and teamwork (1st, 2nd,
and 3rd place teams), and those that had lower responses (4th, 5th, and 6th place teams).
71
To further understand perceptions of the team processes, a content analysis was conducted
on the qualitative responses from the TPS. Figure 4-2 reports team’s successes, challenges,
conflicts, and resolutions. The 4th, 5th, and 6th place teams appeared to take team conflicts
personally. The 6th place team appeared to take their conflicts most personally which surfaced
from personality conflicts, insensitivity to issues, and unwillingness to share. However, in time,
the team members “we talked and got over it,” and “we worked through them and found each
other’s strengths and weaknesses.” From these perspectives, problems seemed to have surfaced,
and in time were dissolved. Although there were evident conflicts within the team, most of the
members commented that these conflicts first hindered the team but after working through them,
they made the team stronger and helped with the dynamics. The 4th place team also perceived
their conflicts as personal with comments like “a gentleman started picking [on others] and
started deleting all the progress because that specific person didn’t like it,” and “a few people, on
the last night, became very rude and cruel. They could not take on others’ opinions and chose to
separate themselves and ignore the group.” These conflicts caused difficulty within the team and
seemed to have delayed the progress. Although one member felt that the time constraint helped
the team to focus on their work, another member commented that the problems did not get
solved because of the time constraint. The 5th place team also “we struggled with collectively
working together.” Many of the members commented that they had personality conflicts due to
the dominance of some members and felt these arguments made the team lose effectiveness.
In comparison, the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place teams perceived challenges from external issues
such as, decision conflicts, time constraints, and fatigue. Working against time seemed to be the
only challenge for the 2nd place team. One member had commented that “we didn’t fully set team
expectations which caused us to fall behind an ideal schedule,” and “if we would have stuck to a
72
concrete schedule we would have had more time to practice presenting.” Consequently, the lack
of a goal in time management led to perception towards an underachieved success. However,
they turned this challenge around by perceiving the time pressure as a means of motivation
towards progress. The winning team perceived challenges in some conflicting decisions and
trying to deal with the exhaustive workload. Although time constraints were perceived to be
stressful, these challenges seemed to have helped teams to proceed in completing the work
before the given deadline. Additionally, the winning team seemed to agree that these challenges
were solved because “we were on the same page all the time.” One member noted, “we all
balanced each other out very well.” The 3rd place team, on the other hand, identified
communication and honesty as factors that strengthened the team dynamics. In contrast,
members in the 3rd place team were particularly displeased with one member’s constant absence.
They commented, “one of our team members rarely showed up for many of our meeting times or
would show up but leave early;” however, “[this] did not affect us because the six of us became
stronger.” This situation was dealt by stronger cohesion among the remaining members.
Question 3: How Do Problem Solving Styles and Personality Traits Relate to Perceptions of the Team Process?
Individual data from the CPSP, the ACL, and the TPS were analyzed by linear regression
to understand how problem solving styles and personality traits related to perception of the
process (Table 4-20). Only a few significant relationships were discovered. Individuals with
higher mean scores in optimizing, thinking, and creative personality traits (ACL-Cr) seemed to
have a higher perception in success. Individuals with higher creative personality traits also
appeared to feel more creative when working with a team. Individuals with high mean scores in
change also appeared to feel less creative with the team.
73
Question 4: What Team Composition and Process Characteristics Describe the Winning Team?
The 1st place team’s presentation was judged as most creative (Appendix E). The winning
team had the most balanced team composition among gender, discipline, and problem solving
style. The composite team problem solving profile was closest to an idealized profile,
approaching 25% in each style (Figure 4.3). The winning team also displayed the lowest skew
factor (refer to Table 4-11).
Comparisons in standardized mean scores for personality traits indicate that the winning
team had the highest standardized mean scores for personality traits in autonomy, change, and
creative personality traits (ACL-Cr) (refer to Table 4-14). The winning team had positive
perception towards their team, commenting that their strengths were in “strong cohesion,” and
that they had a “great work relationship!” They noted that there was “minimal conflict,” and
when there was conflict “we . . . didn’t dwell on [it].” They did not perceive conflicts to be
personal rather they recognized conflicts to be part of the decision making process. For example,
they commented, “we had a hard time putting together all of our ideas into one presentation,”
and noted that the challenge became a driving force, “it helped because it simplified our ideas.”
One member from the team commented, “we were successful because we were able to get along
well and communicated calmly,” and “we collaborated throughout the entire process, passing
ideas around openly.”
Question 5: What are the Main Factors that Relate to Creative Team Performance?
In addition to the characteristics summarized for the winning team, linear regressions were
conducted to further explore factors impacting the outcome. While none of the reported
regressions were significant at the p ≤ .05 level, some of the regressions approaching
significance are included to further understand relationships. Regressions from scatter plots of
74
the each variable’s mean score by team ranking found that thinkiing (p = .097) had a positive
relationship to team ranking (Figure 4-4), whereas, evaluation (p = .075) had a negative
relationship (Figure 4-5). Rational thinking seemed to have supported the team outcome while
untimely evaluation in the process seemed to have hindered the team outcome.
Furthermore, the skew or balance of problem solving styles (p = .139) was found to have a
negative relationship (Figure 4-6). Heterogeneity among problem solving styles was a better
predictor of creative outcome than homogeneity, with the addition of balance in all problem
solving styles. Teams having a larger skew factor seemed to have difficulty in producing a
creative outcome in that the differences were greater than what could be apprehended.
A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) using canonical coefficients was
conducted on the data generated from team rankings to further understand the factors relating to
creative team performance (Figure 4-7). Creative personality traits (ACL-Cr) and process
variables were combined to form two classification factors of teamwork characteristics:
performance-based and interpersonal. The horizontal axis explains the process variables related
to performance work characteristics, such as perceiving success and appreciating challenge in
ideas. The vertical axis on the other hand describes the interpersonal process variables such as,
creative personality traits (ACL-Cr) and the enjoyment of interaction. Comparing the responses
of the top three teams and the bottom three teams, significant differences were found in the
performance-based work characteristics. In particular, the 6th place team stands out from the
other teams in both performance-based and interpersonal work characteristics.
75
Table 4-1. Sample personality variables compared to ACL normative data for males Personality Variables
Male Population (N=262) Male (n =11) Z p μ SD M SD
Achievement 48.06 9.89 53.18 7.69 1.72 0.086 Dominance 48.4 10.1 57.36 5.87 2.94 0.003* Order 49.79 10.2 49.64 7.16 -0.05 0.960 Affiliation 49.56 8.96 53.82 8.78 1.58 0.115 Autonomy 50.08 10.07 53.91 5.61 1.26 0.207 Change 49.78 10.24 56.09 10.55 2.04 0.041* Deference 49.95 10.1 41.64 6.33 -2.73 0.006* Personal Adjustment 49.26 9.13 52.36 9.10 1.13 0.260
* Significant correlation at the 0.05 level (2-tailed) Table 4-2. Sample personality variables compared to ACL normative data for females
Personality Variables
Female Population (N=261) Female (n =31) Z p μ SD M SD
Achievement 47.62 9.68 54.00 8.31 3.67 0.000* Dominance 48.01 10.06 57.58 7.83 5.30 0.000* Order 47.9 9.58 48.42 7.68 0.30 0.763 Affiliation 50.62 10.3 51.97 8.26 0.73 0.466 Autonomy 49.15 10.34 57.35 9.75 4.42 0.000* Change 51.05 9.8 56.00 7.82 2.81 0.005* Deference 51.28 10.14 40.00 11.14 -6.19 0.000* Personal Adjustment 49.02 10.42 49.94 8.95 0.49 0.625
* 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
Marketing (n =172)
Finance (n =110)
Sales (n =379)
Design (n =73)
Generator 30.2% 10.0% 23.7% 30.1% Conceptualizer 33.7% 26.4% 14.0% 47.9% Optimizer 19.8% 36.4% 15.6% 12.3% Implementer 16.3% 27.3% 46.7% 9.6%
76
Table 4-5. Problem solving styles by discipline Problem Solving Style
Business (n =17) Merchandising (n =13)
Interior Design (n =12)
Marketing (n =12)
Finance (n =3)
Other (n =2)
Generator 2 (16.7%) 1.5* (50%) 0 (0%) 5 (38.5%) 5 (41.7%) Conceptualizer 2 (16.7%) 1 (33.3%) 0 (0%) 1 (7.7%) 2 (16.7%) Optimizer 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (23.1%) 2.5* (20.8%) Implementer 8 (66.6%) 0.5* (16.7%) 2 (100%) 4 (30.7%) 2.5* (20.8%)
* 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)
M SD M SD M SD ACL-Cr 50.27 8.753 51.81 10.229 53.17 9.666 Experiencing 30.45 7.090 33.10 5.418 32.40 5.927 Ideation 32.00 5.138 29.58 4.241 30.21 4.556 Thinking 27.27 7.682 26.94 4.419 27.02 5.358 Evaluation 30.27 6.310 30.39 4.240 30.36 4.782
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)
M SD M SD M SD ACL-Cr 48.18 9.678 54.00 9.557 53.17 9.666 Experiencing 32.59 4.651 32.54 6.936 32.00 6.836 Ideation 30.94 3.631 28.92 4.192 30.58 6.007 Thinking 24.00 5.256 29.4 3.406 28.67 5.483 Evaluation 32.47 4.460 29.08 4.030 28.75 5.190
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
Generator 2 2.5* 3 2 4 2 15.5 Conceptualizer 1 1 1 1 1 0 5 Optimizer 2 0.5* 0 1 0 2 5.5 Implementer 2 3 3 3 2 3 16
* Dual profiles were split into halves Table 4-12. Composite team problem solving style scales Problem
Solving Scale 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th M M M M M M
Experiencing 29.57 33.14 35.00 32.57 32.29 31.86 Ideation 32.00 29.43 28.57 28.86 33.14 29.29 Thinking 29.00 27.43 27.57 27.71 24.71 25.71 Evaluation 29.43 30.00 28.86 30.86 29.86 33.14
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
Achievement 49.00 6.53 57.86 8.82 48.86 5.27 54.71 7.18 53.43 6.85 58.86 9.62 53.79 8.07 Dominance 55.43 7.19 59.14 6.20 53.14 8.55 56.43 3.41 59.71 4.35 61.29 10.78 57.52 7.30 Order 43.86 6.26 49.43 6.16 48.57 6.27 52.29 6.16 45.86 9.84 52.43 7.89 48.74 7.48 Affiliation 52.71 9.16 55.00 6.98 52.57 8.87 51.14 9.46 51.14 6.34 52.14 11.04 52.45 8.33 Autonomy 60.29 9.59 53.14 6.15 53.43 6.50 53.71 4.99 59.29 8.04 58.86 14.72 56.45 8.92 Change 62.57 5.65 57.00 9.47 52.57 5.44 50.86 9.87 56.57 11.17 56.57 4.58 56.02 8.48 Deference 37.86 10.98 41.71 7.41 45.00 8.79 42.86 4.22 38.86 10.64 36.29 15.60 40.43 10.05 Personal Adjustment 43.14 9.72 54.86 5.99 50.71 8.14 55.57 5.86 50 9.47 49.14 10.42 50.57 8.95 ACL-Cr 56.43 10.37 54.57 9.20 49.14 7.95 42.29 7.41 49.57 7.85 56.43 10.23 51.4 9.78
Table 4-17. Descriptive summary of perception of team processes (TPS)
Process Variables 1st place 2nd place 3rd place 4th place 5th place 6th place n M SD n M SD n M SD n M SD n M SD n M SD
Success 6 4.75 0.42 6 5.00 0.00 6 5.00 0.00 6 4.00 0.63 6 3.67 0.52 7 3.93 0.45 Interaction 7 4.64 0.48 7 5.00 0.00 7 5.00 0.00 6 3.83 1.17 7 3.43 1.13 7 4.14 1.07 Appreciate Challenge 7 4.57 0.53 7 5.00 0.00 7 5.00 0.00 6 4.33 0.52 7 3.86 1.35 7 3.43 0.79 Creative w/Team 7 4.43 0.53 7 4.86 0.38 7 5.00 0.00 6 3.67 1.21 7 3.71 1.60 7 3.29 1.25 Preference in Teams 7 4.71 0.76 7 4.86 0.38 7 5.00 0.00 6 3.33 3.33 7 3.00 1.30 7 3.64 1.50
79
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)
Table 4-19. Post-Hoc test in comparing mean differences among process variables Process Variables Mean Differences p Success 1st (M = 4.75) 4th (M = 4.00) 0.75 0.004* 5th (M = 3.67) 1.08 0.000* 6th (M = 3.93) 0.82 0.001* 2nd (M = 5.00) 4th (M = 4.00) 1.00 0.000* 5th (M = 3.67) 1.33 0.000* 6th (M = 3.93) 1.07 0.000* 3rd (M = 5.00) 4th (M = 4.00) 1.00 0.000* 5th (M = 3.67) 1.33 0.000* 6th (M = 3.93) 1.07 0.000* Interaction 1st (M = 4.64) 5th (M = 3.43) 1.21 0.008* 2nd (M = 5.00) 4th (M = 3.83) 1.17 0.014* 5th (M = 3.43) 1.57 0.001* 3rd (M = 5.00) 4th (M = 3.83) 1.17 0.014* 5th (M = 3.43) 1.57 0.001* Appreciate Challenge 1st (M =4.57) 6th (M = 3.43) 1.14 0.005* 2nd (M = 5.00) 5th (M = 3.86) 1.14 0.005* 6th (M = 3.43) 1.57 0.000* 3rd (M = 5.00) 5th (M = 3.86) 1.14 0.005* 6th (M = 3.43) 1.57 0.000* Creative w/Team 1st (M = 4.43) 6th (M = 3.29) 1.14 0.039* 2nd (M = 4.86) 4th (M = 3.67) 1.19 0.039* 5th (M = 3.71) 1.15 0.039* 6th (M = 3.29) 1.57 0.006* 3rd (M = 5.00) 4th (M = 3.67) 1.33 0.022* 5th (M = 3.71) 1.29 0.021* 6th (M = 3.29) 1.71 0.003* Preference in Teams 1st (M = 4.71) 4th (M = 3.33) 1.38 0.028* 5th (M = 3.00) 1.71 0.005* 2nd (M = 4.86) 4th (M = 3.33) 1.53 0.016* 5th (M = 3.00) 1.86 0.003* 6th (M = 3.64) 1.22 0.043* 3rd (M = 5.00) 4th (M = 3.33) 1.67 0.009* 5th (M = 3.00) 2.00 0.001* 6th (M = 3.64) 1.36 0.025*
* 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
-good motives -similar ideas and goals -equal input -honesty -communication -personality conflicts -deadlines -technology difficulties
Conflicts /Resolutions
-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’
component of successful teamwork (Marks, Mathieu, & Zaccaro, 2001; Cohen & Bailey, 1997).
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
108
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.
![Digital storytelling for supporting children’s creativity · children’s creativity, experimentation, and language enrichmentin their own oral and written stories [Amour, 2003]](https://img.pdfslide.net/doc/110x75/60385321d07db77e3c52c42c/digital-storytelling-for-supporting-childrenas-creativity-childrenas-creativity.jpg)
