Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-tj2md Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T05:24:37.725Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

18 - Can Teams Have a Creative Personality?

from Part III - Creativity and Personality

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 May 2017

By
Robert C. Litchfield ,
Lucy L. Gilson  and
Christina E. Shalley
Edited by
Gregory J. Feist ,
Roni Reiter-Palmon  and
James C. Kaufman
Gregory J. Feist
Affiliation:
San José State University, California
Roni Reiter-Palmon
Affiliation:
University of Nebraska, Omaha
James C. Kaufman
Affiliation:
University of Connecticut
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity and Personality Research , pp. 354 - 371
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2017

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Amabile, T. M. (1988). A Model of Creativity and Innovation in Organizations. In Staw, B. M. & Cummings, L. L. (eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior (Vol. 10, pp. 123–67). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
Baer, M. (2010). The strength-of-weak-ties perspective on creativity: a comprehensive examination and extension. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 95, 592–601. doi: 10.1037/a0018761Google Scholar
Baer, M., Oldham, G., Jacobsohn, G., & Hollingshead, A. (2008). The personality composition of teams and creativity: the moderating role of team creative confidence. Journal of Creative Behavior, 42, 255–82. doi: 10.1002/j.2162–6057.2008.tb01299.xGoogle Scholar
Barrick, M. R., and Mount, M. K. (1991).The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: a meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1–26. doi: 10.1111/j.1744–6570.1991.tb00688.xGoogle Scholar
Barron, F., & Harrington, D. M. (1981). Creativity, intelligence, and personality. Annual Review of Psychology, 32, 439–76. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ps.32.020181.002255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barry, B., & Stewart, G. (1997). Composition, process, and performance in self-managed groups: the role of personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 62–78. doi: 10.1037/0021–9010.82.1.62Google Scholar
Bell, S. T. (2007). Deep-level composition variables as predictors of team performance: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 595–615. doi: 10.1037/0021–9010.92.3.595Google Scholar
Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L. (2003). Exploitation, exploration, and process management: the productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of Management Review, 28, 238–56. doi:10.5465/AMR.2003.9416096Google Scholar
Bolin, A. U., & Neuman, G. A. (2006). Personality, process, and performance in interactive brainstorming groups. Journal of Business and Psychology, 20, 565–85. doi: 10.1007/s10869-005–9000-7Google Scholar
Bradley, B. H., Klotz, A. C., Postlethwaite, B. E., & Brown, K. G. (2012). Ready to rumble: how team personality composition and task conflict interact to improve performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 385–92. doi: 10.1037/a0029845Google Scholar
Burgelman, R. A., (2002). Strategy as vector and the inertia of coevolutionary lock-in. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 325–57. doi: 10.2307/3094808Google Scholar
Campbell, D. T. (1960). Blind variation and selective retention in creative thought as in other knowledge processes. Psychological Review, 67, 380–400. doi: 10.1037/h0040373Google Scholar
DeShon, R. P., & Gillespie, J. Z. (2005). A motivated action theory account of goal orientation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1096–1127. doi: 10.1037/0021–9010.90.6.1096Google Scholar
Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41, 1040–8. doi: 10.1037/0003–066X.41.10.1040Google Scholar
Feist, G. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2, 290–309. doi: 10.1207/s15327957pspr0204_5Google Scholar
Ford, C., & Sullivan, D. M. (2004). A time for everything: how the timing of novel contributions influences project team outcomes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 279–92. doi: 10.1002/job.241Google Scholar
George, J. M. (2007). Creativity in organizations. Academy of Management Annals, 1, 439–77. doi: 10.1080/078559814Google Scholar
Gilson, L. L. (2008). Why Be Creative: A Review of the Practical Outcomes Associated with Creativity at the Individual, Group, and Organizational Levels. In Zhou, J. & Shalley, C. E. (eds.), Handbook of Organizational Creativity (pp. 303–22). New York: ErlbaumGoogle Scholar
Gilson, L. L., Lim, H. S., Litchfield, R. C., & Gilson, P. W. (2015). Creativity in Teams: A Key Building Block for Innovation and Entrepreneurship. In Shalley, C. E. & Zhou, J. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Creativity, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship. Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199927678.013.0015Google Scholar
Gilson, L. L., & Madjar, N. (2011). Radical and incremental creativity: antecedents and processes. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5, 21–8. doi: 10.1037/a0017863Google Scholar
Gilson, L. L., Litchfield, R., & Gilson, P. W. (2014). An Examination of the Relationship between Time and Creativity. In Shipp, A. J. & Fried, Y. (eds.), Time and Work: Current Issues in Work and Organizational Psychology (pp. 141–62). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Glynn, M. A. (1996). Innovative genius: a framework for relating individual and organizational intelligences to innovation. Academy of Management Review, 21, 1081–1111. doi:10.5465/AMR.1996.9704071864Google Scholar
Gilson, L. L., Mathieu, J. E., Shalley, C. E., & Ruddy, T. M. (2005). Creativity and standardization: complementary or conflicting drivers of team effectiveness? Academy of Management Journal, 48, 521–31. doi:10.5465/amj.2005.17407916Google Scholar
Glynn, M. A. (1996). Innovative genius: a framework for relating individual and organizational intelligences to innovation. Academy of Management Review, 21, 1081–1111. doi:10.5465/AMR.1996.9704071864Google Scholar
Gong, Y., Kim, T. Y., Zhu, J., & Lee, D. R. (2013). A multilevel model of team goal orientation, information exchange, and creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 827–51. doi: 10.5465/amj.2011.0177Google Scholar
González-Romá, V., Fortes-Ferreira, L., & Peiró, J. M. (2009). Team climate, climate strength, and team performance: a longitudinal study. Journal of Occupatinal and Organizational Psychology, 82, 511–36. doi: 10.1348/096317908X370025Google Scholar
Gough, H. G. (1979). A creative personality scale for the Adjective Check List. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1398–1405. doi: 10.1037/0022–3514.37.8.1398Google Scholar
Gupta, A. K., Smith, K. G., & Shalley, C. E. (2006). The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 693–706. doi: 10.2307/20159793Google Scholar
Hackman, J. R., & Morris, C. G. (1975). Group Tasks, Group Interaction Process, and Group Performance Effectiveness: A Review and Proposed Integration. In Berkowitz, L. (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 8, pp. 45–99). New York: Academic Press. doi: 10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60248–8Google Scholar
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, 484–500. doi: 0.1287/orsc.1060.0200Google Scholar
Harrison, S. H., & Rouse, E. D. (2014). Let’s dance! Elastic coordination in creative group work: a qualitative study of modern dancers. Academy of Management Journal, 57, 1256–83. doi: 10.5465/amj.2012.0343Google Scholar
Harvey, S. (2014). Creative synthesis: exploring the process of extraordinary group creativity. Academy of Management Review, 39, 324–43. doi: 10.5465/amr.2012.0224Google Scholar
He, Z. L., & Wong, P. K. (2004). Exploration vs. exploitation: an empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science, 15, 481–94. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1040.0078Google Scholar
Hunter, S. T., & Cushenbery, L. (2014). Is being a jerk necessary for originality? Examining the role of disagreeableness in the sharing and utilization of original ideas. Journal of Business and Psychology, 30, 621. doi: 10.1007/s10869-014–9386-1Google Scholar
Jabri, M. M. (1991). The development of conceptually independent subscales in the measurement of modes of problem solving. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 51, 975–83. doi: 10.1177/001316449105100417Google Scholar
Kirton, M. (1976). Adaptors and innovators: a description and measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 622–9. doi: 10.1037/0021–9010.61.5.622Google Scholar
Kohn, N., Paulus, P., & Choi, Y. (2011). Building on the ideas of others: an examination of the idea combination process. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 554–61. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2011.01.004Google Scholar
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. J. (2000). A Multilevel Approach to Theory and Research in Organizations: Contextual, Temporal, and Emergent Processes. In Klein, K. J. & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (eds.), Multilevel Theory, Research, and Methods in Organizations: Foundations, Extensions, and New Directions (pp. 3–90). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press: doi: 10.5897/PPR2013.0102.Google Scholar
Litchfield, R. C. (2008). Brainstorming reconsidered: a goal-based view. Academy of Management Review, 33, 649–68. doi:10.5465/AMR.2008.32465708Google Scholar
Madjar, N., Greenberg, E., & Chen, Z. (2011). Factors for radical creativity, incremental creativity, and routine, noncreative performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 730–43. doi: 10.1037/a0022416CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mainemelis, C. (2010). Stealing fire: creative deviance in the evolution of new ideas. Academy of Management Review, 35, 558–78.Google Scholar
March, J. G. (1976). The Technology of Foolishness. In March, J. G. & Olsen, J. P. (eds.), Ambiguity and Choice in Organizations (pp. 69–81). Bergen: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Mathieu, J., Maynard, M. T., Rapp, T., & Gilson, L. (2008). Team effectiveness 1997–2007: a review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future. Journal of Management, 34, 410–76. doi: 10.1177/0149206308316061CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mathieu, J. E., Tannenbaum, S. I., Donsbach, J. S., & Alliger, G. M. (2014). A review and integration of team composition models moving toward a dynamic and temporal framework. Journal of Management, 40, 130–60. doi:10.1177/0149206313503014Google Scholar
Mathisen, G. E., Martinsen, Ø., & Einarsen, S. (2008). The relationship between creative personality composition, innovative team climate, and team innovativeness: an input-process-output perspective. Journal of Creative Behavior, 42, 13–31. doi:10.1002/j.2162–6057.2008.tb01078.xGoogle Scholar
McCrae, R.R.(1987).Creativity, divergent thinking, and openness to experience. Journal of Personaity and Social Psychology, 52, 1258–65. doi: 10.1037/0022–3514.52.6.1258Google Scholar
Miron-Spektor, E., Erez, M., & Naveh, E. (2011). The effect of conformists and attentive-to-detail members on team innovation: reconciling the innovation paradox. Academy of Management Journal, 54, 740–60. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2011.64870100Google Scholar
Mumford, M. D. (2003). Where have we been, where are we going? Taking stock in creativity research. Creativity Research Journal, 15, 107–20. doi:10.1080/10400419.2003.9651408Google Scholar
Mumford, M. D., & Gustafson, S. B. (1988). Creativity syndrome: integration, application, and innovation. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 27–43. doi: 10.1037/0033–2909.103.1.27Google Scholar
Murnighan, J. K., & Conlon, D. E. (1991). The dynamics of intense work groups: a study of British string quartets. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 165–85. doi: 10.2307/2393352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ohly, S., Sonnentag, S., & Pluntke, F. (2006). Routinization, work characteristics and their relationships with creative and proactive behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 257–79. doi: 10.1002/job.376Google Scholar
Osborn, A. F. (1957). Applied Imagination. New York: Scribner.Google Scholar
Paulus, P. B., Dzindolet, M. T., Poletes, G., & Camacho, L. M. (1993). Perception of performance in group brainstorming: the illusion of group productivity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 78–89. doi:10.1177/0146167293191009Google Scholar
Peeters, M. A. G., Van Tuijl, H. F. J. M., Rutte, C. G., & Reymen, I. M. M. J. (2006). Personality and team performance: a meta-analysis. European Journal of Personality, 20, 377–96. doi: 0.1002/per.588Google Scholar
Perry-Smith, J. E., & Shalley, C. E. (2014). A social composition view of team creativity: the role of member nationality heterogeneous ties outside the team. Organization Science, 25, 1434–52. doi: 10.1287/orsc.2014.0912Google Scholar
Pirola-Merlo, A. (2010). Agile innovation: the role of team climate in rapid research and development. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83, 1075–84. doi: 10.1348/096317909X480653Google Scholar
Reinig, B. A., Briggs, R. O., and Nunamaker, J. F. Jr. (2007). On the measurement of ideation quality. Journal of Management Information Systems, 23, 143–61. doi: 10.2753/MIS0742-1222230407Google Scholar
Reiter-Palmon, R., Wigert, B., & Vreede, T. d. (2012). Team Creativity and Innovation: The Effect of Group Composition, Social Processes, and Cognition. In Michael, D. M. (ed.), Handbook of Organizational Creativity (pp. 295–326). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Rhodes, M. (1961). An analysis of creativity. Phi Delta Kappan, 42, 305–310. doi:10.2307/20342603.Google Scholar
Robert, C., & Cheung, Y. H. (2010). An examination of the relationship between conscientiousness and group performance on a creative task. Journal of Research in Personality, 44, 222–31. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2010.01.005Google Scholar
Schilpzand, M. C., Herold, D. M., & Shalley, C. E. (2011). Members’ openness to experience and teams’ creative performance. Small Group Research, 42, 55–76. doi:10.1177/1046496410377509Google Scholar
Shalley, C. E. (1991). Effects of productivity goals, creativity goals, and personal discretion on individual creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 179–85. doi: 10.1037/0021–9010.76.2.179Google Scholar
Shalley, C. E., Zhou, J., & Oldham, G. R. (2004). The effects of personal and contextual characteristics on creativity: where should we go from here? Journal of Management, 30, 933–58. doi: 10.1016/j.jm.2004.06.007Google Scholar
Somech, A., & Drach-Zahavy, A. (2013). Translating team creativity to innovation implementation: the role of team composition and climate for innovation. Journal of Management, 39, 684–708. doi: 10.1177/014920631039418Google Scholar
Taggar, S. (2002). Individual creativity and group ability to utilize individual creative resources: a multilevel model. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 315–30. doi: 10.2307/3069349Google Scholar
Tett, R. P., & Burnett, D. D. (2003). A personality trait-based interactionist model of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 500–17. doi: 10.1037/0021–9010.88.3.500Google Scholar
Weick, K. E. (1989). Theory construction as disciplined imagination. Academy of Management Review, 14, 516–31. doi:10.5465/AMR.1989.4308376Google Scholar
Weick, K. E. (1998). Improvisation as a mindset for organizational analysis. Organization Science, 9, 543–55. doi: 10.1287/orsc.9.5.543Google Scholar
Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin, R. W. (1993). Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Academy of Management Review, 18, 293–321. doi:10.2307/258761Google Scholar
Zack, M. H. (2000). Jazz improvisation and organizing: once more from the top. Organization Science, 11, 227–34. doi: 10.1287/orsc.11.2.227.12507Google Scholar
Zhou, J., & Shalley, C. E. (2011). Deepening Our Understanding of Creativity in the Workplace: A Review of Different Approaches to Creativity Research. In Zedeck, S. (ed.), APA Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 1: Building and Developing the Organization (pp. 275–302). Washington, DC. American Psychogical Association. doi: 10.1037/12169-009Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×