Search results

Purpose – We investigate the antibias norm, “political correctness” (PC), and explore the consequences of the PC norm for group processes and group performance.

Methodology/approach – We define the term PC as it is used in public discourse and distinguish the PC norm from the related antibias norm of color blindness.

Findings – We suggest that the PC norm may play a unique role in reducing a critical type of uncertainty that would otherwise constrain performance, in particular, group creativity and decision making, in diverse work groups. We then explore the controversial argument that being politically incorrect can actually promote freedom of expression.

Originality/value of chapter – We conclude by reflecting on the costs of the PC norm and why the PC norm may remain prevalent in work groups for some time to come.

This study examined educators’ self-perception as practitioners of inquiry-based math and science instruction, their motivation to produce videos to share that practice, and the impact of video production on their use of inquiry and role in the professional development community. Semi-structured interviews were used to address the research questions. Participant responses indicated a high level of self-reflection and a keen understanding of the nature of inquiry-based math and science teaching. Participants were motivated to share their practice largely by their desire to help other educators develop as inquiry practitioners. Articulating how and why they used inquiry-based techniques for the videos deepened their already reflective teaching. The positive aspects of participation also increased their confidence in their ability to engage in professional development as teacher-leaders. Overall this study indicated that videos created for the purposes of professional development had a transforming effect on those who produced them in addition to their benefit for others.

Organizations may fail to innovate because receivers exhibit bias against adopting creative ideas. This paper explores many motivational, cognitive, and affective factors that can cause receivers to hinder the creativity–innovation process. In particular, receivers may engage in motivated reasoning and skepticism against creative ideas, face barriers to recognizing creative value, and experience negative affect when receiving creative ideas. Each creative adoption decision point during the creativity–innovation process is an opportunity for bias to derail progress. This helps explain why innovation can be so difficult. Understanding the biases that hinder the creativity–innovation process allows individuals and organizations to take action to mitigate them.