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-848d4c4894-nr4z6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-02T01:28:56.625Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

25 - Creativity and Meetings

Do Team Meetings Facilitate or Hinder Creative Team Performance?

from Tools and Models for Promoting Meeting Success

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 August 2015

By
Roni Reiter-Palmon  and
Stephanie Sands
Edited by
Joseph A. Allen ,
Nale Lehmann-Willenbrock  and
Steven G. Rogelberg
Joseph A. Allen
Affiliation:
University of Nebraska, Omaha
Nale Lehmann-Willenbrock
Affiliation:
Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam
Steven G. Rogelberg
Affiliation:
University of North Carolina, Charlotte
Get access

Summary

Abstract

This chapter explores factors that may enhance or inhibit creativity in team meetings. Teams may have additional creative performance benefits compared to individuals, but research on creativity at the team level has not found consistent results. In past research, the context in which teams work has received limited attention, and no research has focused exclusively on creativity in the context of meetings directly. The purpose of this chapter is address that research gap. We begin with a definition of creativity and a discussion of its importance to organizations. We then discuss the ways in which meetings provide the opportunity for teams to be creative. Specifically, we review the cognitive process of creativity, including problem identification and construction, identification of relevant information, generation of new ideas, and the evaluation of these ideas. Next, we outline the social processes that take place in team meetings, including communication, trust and psychological safety, team support for innovation, and team conflict. Finally, we provide recommendations for facilitating creativity in team meetings.

Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Meeting Science , pp. 585 - 614
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2015

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. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, N., De Dreu, C., K. W., & Nijstad, B. A. (2004). The routinization of innovation research: A constructively critical review of the state-of-the-science. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 147–173. doi:10.1002/job.236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berger, C., & Dibattista, P. (1992). Information seeking and plan elaboration: What do you need to know to know what to do? Communication Monographs, 59, 368–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berger, R. M., Guilford, J. P., & Christensen, P. R. (1957). A factor-analytic study of planning abilities. Psychological Monographs, 71, 1–31. doi:10.1037/h0093704CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burningham, C., & West, M. (1995). Individual, climate, and group interaction processes as predictors of work team innovation. Small Group Research, 26, 106–117. doi:10.1177/1046496495261006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byrne, C. L., Mumford, M. D., Barrett, J. D., & Vessey, W. B. (2009). Examining the leaders of creative efforts: What do they do, and what do they think about? Creativity and Innovation Management, 18, 256–268. doi:10.1111/j.1467–8691.2009.00532.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caldwell, B., & Everhart, N. (1998). Information flow and development of coordination in distributed supervisory control teams. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 10, 51–70. doi: 10.1207/s15327590ijhc1001_4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Salas, E., & Converse, S. (1993). Shared mental models in expert team decision making. In Castellan, N. J. Jr. (Ed.), Individual and group decision making: Current issues (pp. 221–246). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Carmeli, A., Gelbard, R., & Reiter-Palmon, R. (2013). Leadership, creative problem solving capacity, and creative performance: The importance of knowledge sharing. Human Resource Management, 52, 95–122. doi:10.1002/hrm.21514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carmeli, A., Reiter-Palmon, R., & Ziv, E. (2010). Inclusive leadership and employee involvement in creative tasks in the workplace: The mediating role of psychological safety. Creativity Research Journal, 22, 250–260. doi:10.1080/10400419.2010.504654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carmeli, A., & Spreitzer, G. (2009). Trust, connectivity, and thriving: Implications for innovative behaviors at work. Journal of Creative Behavior, 30, 893–917. doi:10.1002/j.2162–6057.2009.tb01313.xGoogle Scholar
Carter, S., & West, M. (1998). Reflexivity, effectiveness, and mental health in BBC-TV production teams. Small Group Research, 29, 583–601. doi:10.1177/1046496498295003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, M. A., Rogelberg, S. G., Allen, J. A., & Luong, A. (2011). Meeting design characteristics and attendee perceptions of staff/team meeting quality. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 15, 90–104. doi:10.1037/a0021549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coskun, H., Paulus, P., Brown, V., & Sherwood, J. (2000). Cognitive stimulation and problem presentation in idea-generating groups. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 4, 307–329. doi:10.1037/1089–2699.4.4.307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curşeu, P. L., & Schruijer, S. G. L. (2010). Does conflict shatter trust or does trust obliterate conflict? Revisiting the relationships between team diversity, conflict, and trust. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 14, 66–79. doi:10.1037/a0017104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 555–590. doi:10.2307/256406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeChurch, L. A., & Haas, C. (2008). Team planning through an episodic lens: Effects of deliberate, contingency, and reactive planning on effectiveness. Small Group Research, 39, 542–568. doi:10.1177/1046496408320048CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Dreu, C. (2002). Team innovation and team effectiveness: The importance of minority dissent and reflexivity. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 11, 285–298. doi:10.1080/13594320244000175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Dreu, C. K. W. (2006). When too little or too much hurts: Evidence for a curvilinear relationship between task conflict and innovation in teams. Journal of Management, 32, 83–107. doi:10.1177/0149206305277795CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Dreu, C. K. W. (2008). The virtue and vice of workplace conflict: Food for (pessimistic) thought. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 5–18. doi:10.1002/job.474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Dreu, C. K. W., Nijstad, B. A., Bechtoldt, M. N., & Baas, M. (2011). Group creativity and innovation: A motivated information processing perspective. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5, 81–89. doi:10.1037/a0017986CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Dreu, C. K. W., & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 741–749. doi:10.1037/0021–9010.88.4.741CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Dreu, C. K. W., & West, M. A. (2001). Minority dissent and team innovation: The importance of participation in decision-making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1191–1201. doi:10.1037//0021–9010.86.6.1191CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 350–383. doi:10.2307/2666999CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edmondson, A. (2004). Psychological safety, trust, and learning in organizations: A group-level lens. In Kramer, R. M. & Cook, K. S. (Eds.), Trust and distrust in organizations: Dilemmas and approaches (pp. 239–272). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Edmondson, A. C., & Mogelof, J. P. (2006). Explaining psychological safety in innovation teams: Organizational culture, team dynamics, or personality? In Thompson, L. & Choi, H. S. (Eds.), Creativity and innovation in organizational teams (pp. 109–136). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Edmondson, A., & Roloff, K. (2009). Overcoming barriers to collaboration: Psychological safety and learning in diverse teams. In Salas, E., Goodwin, G. F., & Burke, C. S., (Eds.), Team effectiveness in complex organizations: Cross-disciplinary perspectives and approaches (pp. 183–208). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Farh, J. L., Lee, C., & Farh, C. I. C. (2010). Task conflict and team creativity: A question of how much and when. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 1173–1180. doi:10.1037/a0020015CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Finke, R. A., Ward, T. B., & Smith, S. M. (1992). Creative cognition: Theory, research, and applications. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ford, C., & Gioia, D. (1995). Creative action in organizations: Ivory tower visions & real world voices. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Getzels, J. W., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). From problem solving to problem finding. In Taylor, I. A., & Getzels, J. W. (Eds.), Perspectives in creativity (pp. 90–116). Chicago, IL: Aldine.Google Scholar
Gilson, L. L., & Shalley, C. E. (2004). A little creativity goes a long way: An examination of teams' engagement in creative processes. Journal of Management, 30, 453–470. doi:10.1016/j.jm.200.3.07.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gong, Y., Cheung, S., Wang, M., & Huang, J. (2012). Unfolding the proactive process for creativity: Integration of employee proactivity, information exchange, and psychological safety perspectives. Journal of Management, 38, 1611–1633. doi: 10.1177/0149206310380250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gong, Y., Kim, T., Lee, D., & Zhu, J. (2013). A multilevel model of team goal orientation, information exchange, and creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 827–851. doi: 10.5465/amj.2011.0177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffin, M. A., Neal, A., & Parker, S. K. (2007). A new model of work role performance: Positive behavior in uncertain and interdependent contexts. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 327–347. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2007.24634438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5, 444–454. doi:10.1037/h0063487CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harvey, S., & Kou, C. Y. (2013). Collective engagement in creative tasks: The role of evaluation in the creative process in groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 58, 346–386. doi:10.1177/0001839213498591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hennessey, B. A. and Amabile, T. (2010). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 569–598. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100416CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hoegl, M., Weinkauf, K., & Gemuenden, H. (2004). Interteam coordination, project commitment, and teamwork in multiteam R&D projects: A longitudinal study. Organization Science, 15, 38–55. doi:10.1287/orsc.1030.0053CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoever, I. J., van Knippenberg, D., van Ginkel, W. P., & Barkema, H. G. (2012). Fostering team creativity: Perspective taking as key to unlocking diversity's potential, Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 982–996. doi: 10.1037/a0029159CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Howell, J., & Shea, C. (2006). Effects of champion behavior, team potency, and external communication activities on predicting team performance. Group & Organization Management, 31, 180–211. doi:10.1177/1059601104273067CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hulsheger, V., Anderson, N., & Salgado, J. (2009). Team-level predictors of innovation at work: A comprehensive meta-analysis spanning three decades of research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1128–1145. doi:10.1037/a0015978CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunter, S., Bedell, K, & Mumford, M. (2007). Climate for creativity: A quantitative review. Creativity Research Journal, 19, 69–90. doi:10.1080/10400410701277597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ilgen, D., Hollenbeck, J., Johnson, M., & Jundt, D. (2005). Teams in organizations: From input-process-output models to IMOI models. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 517–543. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070250CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Isaksen, S. G., & Akkermans, H. J. (2011). Creative climate: A leadership lever for innovation. Journal of Creative Behavior, 45, 161–187. doi:10.1002/j.2162–6057.2011.tb01425.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Isenberg, D. J. (1986). Thinking and managing: A verbal protocol analysis of managerial problem solving. Academy of Management Journal, 29, 775–788. doi:10.2307/255944CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaarsvled, S., & van Leeuwen, C. (2005). Sketches from the design process: Creative cognition inferred from intermediate products. Cognitive Science, 29, 79–101. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog2901_4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janicik, G. A., & Bartel, C. A. (2003). Talking about time: Effects of temporal planning and time awareness norms on groups' coordination and performance. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 7, 122–134. doi:10.1037/1089–2699.7.2.122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janssen, O., & Giebels, E. (2013). When and why creativity-related conflict with coworkers can hamper creative employees' individual job performance. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 22, 574–587. doi:10.1080/1359432X.2012.669524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jehn, K. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 256–282. doi:10.2307/2393638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jehn, K. (1997). Affective and cognitive conflict in work groups: Increasing performance through value-based intra- group conflict. In De Dreu, C. K. W. & van de Vliert, E. (Eds.), Using conflict in organizations (pp. 87–100). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jehn, K., & Mannix, E. (2001). The dynamic nature of conflict: A longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and group performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 238–251. doi:10.2307/3069453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kark, R., & Carmeli, A. (2009). Alive and creating: The mediating role of vitality and aliveness in the relationship between psychological safety and creative work involvement. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 785–804. doi:10.1002/job.571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kauffeld, S., & Lehmann-Willenbrock, N. (2012). Meetings matter: Effects of team meeting communication on team and organizational success. Small Group Research, 43, 128–156. doi:10.1177/1046496411429599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kauffeld, S., & Meyers, R. (2009). Complaint and solution-oriented circles: Interaction patterns in work group discussions. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 18, 267–294. doi:10.1080/13594320701693209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kay, S. (1991). The figural problem solving and problem finding of professional and semiprofessional artists and nonartists. Creativity Research Journal, 13, 185–195. doi:10.1080/10400419109534396Google Scholar
Keane, M. T. (1996). On adaptation in analogy: Tests of pragmatic importance and adaptability in analogical problem solving. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A: Human Experimental Psychology, 49, 1062–1085. doi:10.1080/027249896392441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keller, R. (2001). Cross-functional project groups in research and new product development: Diversity, communications, job stress, and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 547–559. doi:10.2307/3069369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kellermanns, H, Floyd, S., Pearson, A., & Spencer, B. (2008). The contingent effect of constructive confrontation on the relationship between shared mental models and decision quality. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 119–137. doi.org/10.1002/job.497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kessel, M., Kratzer, J., & Schultz, C. (2012). Psychological safety, knowledge sharing, and creative performance in healthcare teams. Creativity and Innovation Management, 21, 147–157. doi:10.1111/j.1467–8691.2012.00635.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kozlowski, S., & Bell, B. (2008). Team learning, development, and adaptation. In Sessa, V. I. & London, M. (Eds.), Work group learning: Understanding, improving and assessing how groups learn in organizations (pp. 15–44). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Kozlowski, S., & Ilgen, D. (2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7, 77–124. doi:10.1111/j.1529–1006.2006.00030.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kratzer, J., Leenders, R, & van Engelen, J. (2004). Stimulating the potential: Creative performance and communication in innovation teams. Creativity and Innovation Management, 13, 63–71. doi:10.1111/j.1467–8691.2004.00294.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, J., Leenders, R. J., & van Engelen, J. L. (2006). Team polarity and creative performance in innovation teams. Creativity & Innovation Management, 15, 96–104. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8691.2006.00372.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kurtzberg, T., & Amabile, T. (2001). From Guilford to creative synergy: Opening the black box of team-level creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 13, 285–294. doi:10.1207/s15326934crj1334_06CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Litchfield, R. C., Fan, J., & Brown, V. R. (2011). Directing idea generation using brainstorming with specific novelty goals. Motivation and Emotion, 35, 135–143. doi:10.1007/s11031–011–9203–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lovelace, K., Shapiro, D., & Weingart, L. (2001). Maximizing cross-functional new product teams' innovativeness and constraint adherence: A conflict communications perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 779–793. doi:10.2307/3069415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madjar, N., & Ortiz-Walters, R. (2009). Trust in supervisors and trust in customers: Their independent, relative, and joint effects on employee performance and creativity. Human Performance, 22, 128–142. doi:10.1080/08959280902743501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mannix, E., & Neale, M. (2005). What differences make a difference? The promise and reality of diverse teams in organizations. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 6, 31–55. doi:10.1111/j.1529–1006.2005.00022.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A conceptual framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26, 356–376. doi:10.5465/AMR.2001.4845785CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marks, M., Sabella, M., Burke, S. C., & Zaccaro, S. (2002). The impact of cross-training on team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 3–13. doi:10.1037//0021–9010.87.1.3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marks, M. A., Zaccaro, S. J., & Mathieu, J. E. (2000). Performance implications of leader briefings and team-interaction training for team adaptation to novel environments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 971–986. doi:10.1037//0021–9010.85.6.971CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marta, S., Leritz, L., & Mumford, M. (2005). Leadership skills and the group performance: Situational demands, behavioral requirements, and planning. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 97–120. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2004.04.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mathieu, J. E., Goodwin, G. H., Heffner, T. S., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (2000). The influence of shared mental models on team processes and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 273–283. doi:10.1037//0021–9010.85.2.273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merrifield, P. R., Guilford, J. P., Christensen, P. R., & Frick, J. W. (1962). The role of intellectual factors in problem solving. Psychological Monographs, 76, 1–21. doi:10.1037/h0093850CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mesmer-Magnus, J., & DeChurch, L. (2009). Information sharing and team performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 535–546. doi:10.1109/emr.2012.6172774CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Milliken, H., Bartel, C., & Kurtzberg, T. (2003). Diversity and creativity in work groups: A dynamic perspective on the affective and cognitive processes that link diversity and performance. In Paulus, P. B. & Nijstad, B. A. (Eds.), Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration (pp. 32–62). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miron-Spektor, E., Gino, F., & Argote, L. (2011). Paradoxical frames and creative sparks: Enhancing individual creativity through conflict and integration. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 116, 229–240. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.03.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohammed, S., Hamilton, K., & Lim, A. (2009). The incorporation of time in team research: Past, current, and future. In Salas, E., Goodwin, G. F., & Burke, C. S. (Eds.), Team effectiveness in complex organizations: Cross-disciplinary perspectives and approaches (pp. 321–348). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mortensen, M., & Hinds, P. (2001). Conflict and shared identity in geographically distributed teams. International Journal of Conflict Management, 12, 212–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mouchiroud, C., & Lubart, T. I. (2001). Social creativity: A cross-sectional study of 6- to 11-year old children. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 26, 60–69. doi:10.1080/01650250042000591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mullen, B., Johnson, C, & Salas, E. (1991). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: A meta-analytic integration. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 12, 3–23. doi:10.1108/eb022856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mumford, M. D., Baughman, W. A., Threlfall, K. V., Supinski, E. P., & Costanza, D. P. (1996). Process-based measures of creative problem-solving skills: I. Problem construction. Creativity Research Journal, 9, 63–76. doi:10.1207/s15326934crj0901_6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mumford, M. D., Feldman, J. M., Hein, M. B., & Nagao, D. J. (2001). Tradeoffs between ideas and structure: Individuals versus group performance in creative problem solving. Journal of Creative Behavior, 35, 1–23. doi:10.1002/j.2162–6057.2001.tb01218.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mumford, M. D., Lonergan, D. C., & Scott, G. (2002). Evaluating creative ideas: Processes, standards, and context. Inquiry: Critical Thinking across the Disciplines, 22, 21–30.Google Scholar
Mumford, M., Mobley, M., Uhlman, C., Reiter-Palmon, R., & Doares, L. M. (1991). Process analytic models of creative capacities. Creativity Research Journal, 4, 91–122. doi:10.1080/10400419209534428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mumford, M., Reiter-Palmon, R., & Redmond, M. (1994). Problem construction and cognition: Applying problem representations in ill-defined domains. In Runco, M. (Ed.), Problem finding, problem solving, and creativity (pp. 3–39). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Nembhard, I. M., & Edmondson, A. C. (2006). Making it safe: The effects of leader inclusiveness and professional status on psychological safety and improvement efforts in health care teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 941–966. doi:10.1007/978–90–481–2605–7_5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nijstad, B. A., Rietzschel, E. F., & Stroebe, W. 2006. Four principles of group creativity. In Thompson, L. L. & Choi, H. S. (Eds.), Creativity and innovation in organizational teams (pp. 161–179). Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.Google Scholar
Osborn, A. F. (1953). Applied imagination: Principles and procedures for creative problem-solving. New York, NY: Scribner.Google Scholar
Paletz, S. B. F., & Schunn, C. D. (2010). A social-cognitive framework of multidisciplinary team innovation. Topics in Cognitive Science, 2, 73–95. doi:10.1111/j.1756–8765.2009.01029.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Paulus, P., & Brown, V. (2003). Enhancing ideational creativity in groups: Lessons from research on brainstorming. In Paulus, P. B. & Nijstad, B. A. (Eds.), Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration (pp. 110–136). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paulus, P., & Paulus, L. (1997). Implications of research on group brainstorming for gifted education. Roeper Review, 19, 225–229. doi:10.1080/02783199709553834CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearce, C., & Ensley, M. (2004). A reciprocal and longitudinal investigation of the innovation process: The central role of shared vision in product and process innovation teams (PPITs). Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 259–278. doi:10.1002/job.235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plucker, J. A., Beghetto, R. A., & Dow, G. T. (2004). Why isn't creativity more important to educational psychologists? Potentials, pitfalls, and future directions in creativity research. Educational Psychologist, 39, 83–96. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3902_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Post, C. (2012). Deep-level team composition and innovation: The mediating roles of psychological safety and cooperative learning. Group & Organization Management, 37, 555–588. doi: 10.1177/1059601112456289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putman, V. L., & Paulus, P. B. (2009). Brainstorming, brainstorming rules and decision making. Journal of Creative Behavior, 43, 23–39. doi:10.1002/j.2162–6057.2009.tb01304.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reiter-Palmon, R., Herman, A., & Yammarino, F. (2008). Creativity and cognitive processes: Multi-level linkages between individual and team cognition. In Mumford, M. D., Hunter, S. T., & Bedell-Avers, K. E. (Eds.), Multi-level issues in creativity and innovation (Vol. 7, pp. 203–267). New York, NY: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Reiter-Palmon, R., Mumford, M. D., O'Connor Boes, J., & Runco, M. A. (1997). Problem construction and creativity: The role of ability, cue consistency, and active processing. Creativity Research Journal, 10, 9–23. doi:10.1207/s15326934crj1001_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reiter-Palmon, R., Mumford, M. D., & Threlfall, K.V. (1998). Solving everyday problems creatively: The role of problem construction and personality type. Creativity Research Journal, 11, 187–197. doi:10.1207/s15326934crj1103_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reiter-Palmon, R., & Robinson, E. (2009). Problem identification and construction: What do we know, what is the future? Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 3, 43–47. doi:10.1037/a0014629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reiter-Palmon, R., Wigert, B., & de Vreede, T. (2011). Team creativity and innovation: The effect of group composition, social processes, and cognition. In Mumford, M. D. (Ed.), Handbook of organizational creativity (pp. 295–326). San Diego, CA: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Rietzschel, E. F., Nijstad, B. A., & Stroebe, W. (2006). Productivity is not enough: A comparison of interactive and nominal brainstorming groups on idea generation and selection. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 244–251. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2005.04.0051.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rhodes, M. (1987). An analysis of creativity. In Isaksen, S. G. (Ed.), Frontiers of creativity research: Beyond the basics (pp. 216–222). Buffalo, NY: Bearly. Rickards.Google Scholar
Rollof, J. (2009). Creative meetings. Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice, 11, 357–372. doi:10.5172/impp.11.3.357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rostan, S. M. (1994). Problem finding, problem solving, and cognitive controls: An empirical investigation of critically acclaimed productivity. Creativity Research Journal, 7, 97–110. doi:10.1080/10400419409534517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rousseau, V., Aube, C., & Savoie, A. (2006). Teamwork behaviors: A review and an integration of frameworks. Small Group Research, 37, 540–570. doi:10.1177/1046496406293125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Runco, M., & Mraz, W. (1992). Scoring divergent thinking tests using total ideational output and a creativity index. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52, 213–221. doi:10.1177/001316449205200126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Runco, M. A., & Smith, W. R. (1992). Interpersonal and intrapersonal evaluations of creative ideas. Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 295–302. doi: 10.1016/0191–8869(92)90105-XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salas, E., Burke, C., & Stagl, K. (2004). Developing teams and team leaders: Strategies and principles. In Day, D. V., Zaccaro, S. J., & Halpin, S. M. (Eds.), Leader development for transforming organizations: Growing leaders for tomorrow (pp. 325–355). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Salas, E., Cooke, N., & Rosen, M. (2008). On teams, teamwork, and team performance: Discoveries and developments. Human Factors, 50, 540–547. doi:10.1518/001872008×288457CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Salas, E., Sims, D., & Burke, C. (2005). Is there a “Big Five” in teamwork? Small Group Research, 36, 555–599. doi:10.1177/1046496405277134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salas, E., Stagl, K., Burke, S., & Goodwin, G. (2007). Fostering team effectiveness in organizations: Toward an integrative theoretical framework. In Shuart, B., Spaulding, W., & Poland, J. (Eds.), Modeling complex systems (pp. 185–243). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
Santanen, E. L., Briggs, R O., & De Vreede, G. J. (2004). Causal relationship in creative problem solving: Comparing facilitation interventions for ideation. Journal of Management Information Systems, 20167, 197.Google Scholar
Schippers, M., Den Hartog, D., & Koopman, P. (2007). Reflexivity in teams: A measure and correlates. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 561, 89–211. doi:10.1111/j.1464–0597.2006.00250.xGoogle Scholar
Scott, S., & Bruce, R (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 580–607. doi:10.2307/256701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schulz-Hardt, S., Brodbeck, F. C., Mojzisch, A., Kerschreiter, R., & Frey, D. (2006). Group decision making in hidden profile situations: Dissent as a facilitator for decision quality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 1080–1093. doi:10.1037/0022–3514.91.6.1080CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scott, G. M., Leritz, L. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2004). The effectiveness of creativity training: A quantitative review. Creativity Research Journal, 16, 361–388. doi:10.1207/s15326934crj1604_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Serfaty, D., MacMillan, J., Entin, E. E., & Entin, E. B. (1997). The decision-making expertise of battle commanders. In Zsambok, C. E. & Klien, G. (Eds.), Naturalistic decision making (pp. 233–246). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Shalley, C., Zhou, J., & Oldham, G. (2004). The effects of personal and contextual characteristics on creativity: Where should we go from here? Journal of Management, 30, 933–958. doi:10.1016/j.jm.2004.06.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharma, A. (1999). Central dilemmas of managing innovation in large firms. California Management Review, 41, 65–85. doi:10.2307/41166001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silverman, B. G. (1985). The use of analogs in the innovation process: A software engineering protocol analysis. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, & Cybernetics, 15, 30–44. doi:10.1109/tsmc.1985.6313392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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. doi:10.1037//0021–9010.85.1.102CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith-Jentsch, K. A., Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Tannenbaum, S. I., & Salas, E. (2008). Guided team self-correction impacts on team mental models, processes, and effectiveness. Small Group Research, 39, 303–327. doi:10.1177/1046496408317794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Song, M., Dyer, B., & Thieme, R. (2006). Conflict management and innovation performance: An integrated contingency perspective. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34, 341–356. doi:10.1037//0021–9010.85.1.102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sternberg, R. J. (1988). A three-facet model of creativity. In Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.), The nature of creativity: Contemporary psychological perspectives (pp. 125–147). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stewart, D., & Stasser, G. (1995). Expert role assignment and information sampling during collective recall and decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 619–628. doi:10.1037//0022–3514.69.4.619CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stout, R., Cannon-Bowers, J., Salas, E., & Milanovich, D. (1999). Planning, shared mental models, and coordinated performance: An empirical link is established. Human Factors, 41, 61–71. doi:10.1518/001872099779577273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tesluk, P., Farr, J., & Klein, S. (1997). Influences of organizational culture and climate on individual creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 31, 27–41. doi:10.1002/j.2162–6057.1997.tb00779.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tracy, K., & Dimock, A. (2004). Meetings: Discursive sites for building and fragmenting community. In Kabfleisch, P. J. (Ed.), Communication yearbook (Vol. 28, pp. 127–165). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
van Ginkel, W. P., & van Knippenberg, D. (2012). Group leadership and shared task representations in decision making groups. Leadership Quarterly, 23, 94–106. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.11.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Knippenberg, D., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Homan, A. C. (2004). Work group diversity and group performance: An integrative model and research agenda. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 1008–1022. doi:10.1037/0021–9010.89.6.1008CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weingart, L. (1992). Impact of group goals, task component complexity, effort, and planning on group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 682–693. doi:10.1037/0021–9010.77.5.682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weingart, L. R., Todorova, G., & Cronin, M. A. (2010). Task conflict, problem solving, and yielding: Effects on team cognition and performance in functionally diverse innovation teams. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 3, 312–337. doi:10.1111/j.1750–4716.2010.00063.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
West, M. (1990). The social psychology of innovation in groups. In West, M. A. & Farr, J. L. (Eds.), Innovation and creativity at work: Psychological and organizational strategies (pp. 309–333). Oxford, UK: Wiley.Google Scholar
West, M. A. (1996). Reflexivity and work group effectiveness: A conceptual integration. In West, M. A (Ed.), Handbook of work group psychology (pp. 555–579). Chlchester, UK: Wiley.Google Scholar
West, M. (2002). Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: An integrative model of creativity and innovation implementation in work groups. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 51, 355–387. doi:10.1111/1464–0597.00951CrossRefGoogle Scholar
West, M., & Anderson, N. (1996). Innovation in top management teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 680–693. doi:10.1037/0021–9010.81.6.680CrossRefGoogle Scholar
West, M., Hirst, G., Richter, A, & Shipton, H. (2004). Twelve steps to heaven: Successfully managing change through developing innovative teams. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 13, 269–299. doi:10.1080/13594320444000092CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woolley, A. W., Gerbasi, M. E., Chabris, C. F., Kosslyn, S. M., & Hackman, J. R. (2008). Bringing in the experts: How team composition and collaborative planning jointly shape analytic effectiveness. Small Group Research, 39, 352–371. doi:10.1177/1046496408317792CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodman, R, Sawyer, J., & Griffin, R (1993). Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Academy of Management Review, 18, 293–321. doi:10.5465/AMR.1993.3997517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woods, M. F., & Davies, G. B. (1973). Potential problem analysis: A systematic approach to problem prediction and contingency planning: An aid to the smooth exploitation of research. R & D Management, 4, 25–32. doi:10.1111/j.1467–9310.1973.tb01028.xCrossRefGoogle 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
×