Creativity in Groups: Volume 12

Creativity is increasingly being recognized as an important source of competitive advantage because a single creative idea that is both novel and useful may take an organization in a profitable new direction. A long tradition of research has focused on individual creativity; especially the traits and social situations that make some people more creative than others. Over time, however, there has been a major shift in the way work is conducted such that organizations are becoming increasingly “team” based and employees are spending more time working as a member of a group. In line with this shift, research on creativity also moved from a focus on the individual to a focus on groups of people who collaborate to generate creative ideas. The growing interest in group creativity reflects an underlying assumption that the exchange of ideas that occurs in a group setting is more likely to result in a wider range of ideas that are more creative than any one person could have come up with alone. Although the evidence to support this assumption is somewhat mixed, there is a great deal of work yet to be done. Our goal in this volume is to promote the already burgeoning interest in group creativity by identifying new questions that will drive future research in this area.

Psychologists have created highly specific and elaborate models of the creative process and the variables affecting creative performance. Unfortunately, much of this research has tended to take either an overanalytical or an underanalytical approach. By overanalytical we mean that researchers have studied single, isolated stages of group creativity, such as idea generation. By underanalytical we mean that researchers have tended to treat “creative group performance” as a single, unitary construct. However, we argue that it would be better to approach creativity as a multidimensional sequence of behaviors. In support of this argument, we discuss research on individual as well as group creativity showing that, firstly, there are multiple routes toward creative performance (e.g., flexibility and persistence), which may be pursued alone or in combination. It is likely that these different routes are subject to distinct influences. Secondly, we argue and show that different stages of the creative process (problem finding, idea generation, idea selection, idea implementation) are not necessarily affected by the same variables, or in the same way. We highlight some new questions for research, and discuss implications for the management of groups and teams.

Much of the idea exchange and evaluation that are part of the creative process occur in groups. It is often presumed that groups facilitate these processes, but much research indicates that groups often hinder effective exchange of ideas and that they may not facilitate their evaluation. We summarize the factors that limit the potential of groups in these domains and use the cognitive–social–motivational model (Paulus & Brown, 2003, 2007) to highlight the conditions under which group creativity is enhanced. In particular, we focus on the conditions under which groups can actually outperform similar size sets of individuals and thus provide evidence for synergy in creative groups.

Dominance complementarity, which is the tendency for people to respond oppositely to others along the control dimension of interpersonal behavior, is a means by which people create and perpetuate informal forms of interpersonal hierarchy within social relationships (Tiedens, Unzueta, & Young, 2007b). In the present chapter, I explore the likely effects of such complementarity on group creativity. I propose specifically that expressions of dominance, even those borne not out of formal hierarchy but rather out of such factors as expertise and enthusiasm for the task, are likely to elicit submissive responses from fellow group members when the group is trying to generate creative ideas. As group members behaving submissively are likely to contribute fewer ideas to group discussion, I argue that group members who behave dominantly may, through their influence on other group members, reduce both the number and diversity of ideas generated within the group. I, therefore, propose that dominance complementarity may impair groups' abilities to generate creative ideas.

This chapter presents a theoretical framework for the effects of prior task experience on team creativity. We distinguish among different types of experience within teams, namely direct and indirect prior task experience. We argue that different types of prior task experience differentially influence team creativity, and that the prior experience–creativity relationship is mediated by the development and use of transactive memory systems (TMS). We also argue that team characteristics such as identity and communication moderate the effect of prior task experience on TMS, and task characteristics such as uncertainty and interdependence moderate the effect of TMS on group creativity.

A growing literature has recognized the importance of mental simulation (e.g., imagining alternatives to reality) in sparking creativity. In this chapter, we examine how counterfactual thinking, or imagining alternatives to past outcomes, affects group creativity. We explore these effects by articulating a model that considers the influence of counterfactual thinking on both the cognitive and social processes known to impact group creative performance. With this framework, we aim to stimulate research on group creativity from a counterfactual perspective.

In today's knowledge-based economy, the ability to produce highly novel and practical ideas is critical to an organization's survival. This paper draws upon social perspectives of creativity (Perry-Smith & Shalley, 2003) and the vital role of recombinant information in creative development (Barron & Harrington, 1981; Hargadon, 2003) to explore information exchange probabilities; exchanges among group members who are deep-level similar fosters incremental creative potential while information exchanges among group members who are deep-level dissimilar fosters radical creative potential. The dynamics of attraction suggest group members are most likely to interact with people who are least likely to facilitate radical creativity. Using a computer simulation we examine how proximity may be used to facilitate information exchanges among deep-level diverse group members to increase the potential for radical creativity. Results suggest the use of proximity to create strong ties among deep-level dissimilar group members may facilitate radical creativity in groups.

In this chapter, we develop a theoretical model of group splits, culture shifts, and creativity in diverse groups. This model explains how the strength of informational faultlines can elicit a culture shift from a desired to an actual culture of creativity in a team, which then might differentially influence team creativity and group performance. We further argue that subgroup support and team creative efficacy may enhance the interaction of informational faultlines with a desired culture of creativity to facilitate the shift toward an actual culture of creativity. We also discuss future research directions and practical implications for stimulating creative behaviors in organizations.

Team creativity presents an interesting dilemma. On one hand, organizational teams are increasingly being asked to produce creative outcomes rapidly and within tight timelines. On the other hand, teams need sufficient time to explore different perspectives, play with ideas, and overcome the process losses that occur from working in interdependent groups. In this chapter, we address this dilemma by developing a model for understanding how teams can maximize the speed of the team creative process. We propose that teams' potential for rapid creativity is a function of aligning the team structure and standardization of the creative process with the team development cycle. When these three elements are aligned, teams are more likely to generate creative outcomes in a rapid manner.

Intuition, along with empirical research, suggests that the generation of creative ideas benefits from divergent thinking among team members. However, the generation of creative ideas represents only one stage of the innovative process; teams also must implement ideas. In this chapter, we propose that effective idea implementation may depend on the opposite of team divergence: team conformity. Specifically, we propose that conformity facilitates various group processes important for effective idea implementation, including team coordination, information exchange, conflict management, and collective efficacy. Next, we discuss the role of leaders in managing the magnitude and processes of conformity. The chapter concludes with a discussion of implications and important next steps for studying conformity in relation to team innovative effectiveness.

In this paper, we introduce the concept of the “glue role” in groups engaged in creative tasks. An individual crafts a glue role by seeking out and taking on otherwise neglected tasks that have the potential to facilitate a creative group's performance. We adopt a negotiated order perspective on roles in groups to examine how a group's emerging social structure provides opportunities for crafting the glue role. We then suggest two mechanisms through which the glue role can facilitate performance in creative groups: the coordination of group members' contributions and the management of group conflict.

Teams should be hotbeds of creativity, yet they may naturally experience many barriers that thwart their ability to generate and select the most creative ideas. We propose that team relational support – a relational process involving the exchange of help, information, advice, and emotional concern – can help teams overcome the barriers that undermine team creativity. The following chapter proposes a process model of relational support and team creativity – identifying the mechanisms through which team relational support aids team creative processes.

The papers in this volume can be characterized by a “cohesion–creativity divide.” On one side are scholars who describe the very nature of groups – its norms, interaction patterns, social influence, and hierarchy – as anathema to creativity. On the other side are advocates of cohesion and coordination, where the primary benefits of groups are to draw people together, form common ideas, and integrate knowledge into shared solutions. To bridge this “cohesion–creativity divide,” I have proposed four modes of resolution. They are: (1) searching for an overarching design that incorporates both integration and differentiation, (2) emphasizing dimensions of creativity most needed at a particular stage of the creative process, (3) promotion of a strong but creative culture, and (4) redefining creativity so that the tradeoffs inherent in the cohesion–creativity divide are drastically reduced. Each of these solutions is discussed in light of the papers in this volume as well as the creativity literature as a whole.