Group Creativity and Team Innovation

1. Group Creativity and Team Innovation Bernard Nijstad University of Amsterdam

2. Collaborators / Co-Authors • Carsten K. W. De Dreu (University of Amsterdam) • Myriam N. Bechtoldt (University of Amsterdam) • Eric F. Rietzschel (University of Groningen) • Wolfgang Stroebe (Utrecht University) • Matthijs Baas (University of Amsterdam)

3. This talk • Background: defining (group) creativity and (team) innovation • Overview of group creativity/team innovation research • Towards a unified theory: The MIP-G model • Illustrations • Lab studies of group creativity • Field study of team innovation • Discussion

4. This talk • Background: defining (group) creativity and (team) innovation • Overview of group creativity/team innovation research • Towards a unified theory: The MIP-G model • Illustrations • Lab studies of group creativity • Field study of team innovation • Discussion

5. Pablo Picasso

6. Emily Dickenson

7. Thomas Edison

8. Creative products A product is creative to the extend it is both new (novel, original) and appropriate (useful, feasible) (e.g., Amabile, 1983; Paulus & Nijstad, 2003; Sternberg & Lubart, 1999)

10. Creative people • Create creative products (paintings, poems, inventions, equations, theories, etc.) • The best predictor of creative eminence is productivity (Simonton, 1999, 2003) • Picasso produced 147,800 works of art (Guinness book of records) • Dickenson wrote 1789 poems (latest count) • Edison has 1093 patents (in the US alone) • The equal odds rule: every product has an equal chance of being creative

11. Creative process • The process that results in creative products • Flexible thinking, but also hard work (cf. De Dreu, Baas, & Nijstad, 2008; Dietrich, 2004) • Different stages (e.g., Osborn, 1953; Nijstad & Levine, 2007) • Problem finding (definition, preparation) • Idea finding (divergent thinking) • Solution finding (selection, implementation)

13. Group creativity • The creative product resulted from the input of more than one person • This does not imply group involvement in all stages of the creative process (cf. Nijstad & Levine, 2007) • Examples: • Music, theater, film, art (e.g., Sawyer, 2003, 2006; Simonton, 2004; Farrell, 2001) • Organizational teams (e.g., Dewett, 2004; Sutton & Hargadon, 1996) • Student groups (e.g., Taggar, 2002) • Research groups (e.g., Dunbar, 1994) • Classrooms (e.g., Hennesey, 2003)

14. Team innovation The intentional introduction or application of ideas, processes, products, or procedures that are new to the team and that are designed to be useful (West & Farr, 1990) Two differences with creativity: • Newness to the unit of adoption (relative rather than absolute) • Implementation is crucial (e.g., West, 2002)

15. Innovation implementation

16. This talk • Background: defining (group) creativity and (team) innovation • Overview of group creativity/team innovation research • Towards a unified theory: The MIP-G model • Illustrations • Lab studies of group creativity • Field study of team innovation • Discussion

17. Some history • In psychology interest started in the 1950s: Guilford, 1950; Mednick, 1962; Torrance, 1969; Stein, 1975) • Initial focus on divergent thinking

18. Divergent thinking and brainstorming • Alex Osborn (1953, 1957, 1963) • Principles • Quantity breeds quality • Deferment of judgment • “always we should keep asking our imagination ‘what else?’ and again ‘what else’”

19. Does brainstorming work? (1) Brainstorming versus non-brainstorming procedures • Brainstorming instructions enhance idea production (number; Parnes & Meadow, 1959) • Quantity is related to quality (number of good ideas) (e.g., Diehl & Stroebe, 1987, r = .82; Parnes & Meadow, 1959, r = .69)

20. Does Brainstorming work? (2) Group versus individual brainstorming • Osborn (1957): “the average individual can think up twice as many ideas when working with a group than when working alone” (p. 229) • But: productivity loss(Taylor et al., 1958; Diehl & Stroebe, 1987; Mullen et al., 1991) • Interactive versus nominal groups: large and robust effect • Increases with group size

21. Social-motivational factors Based on social facilitation/social loafing literatures • Social loafing/free riding (e.g., Diehl & Stroebe, 1987) • Social matching (cf. co-action paradigms; e.g., Paulus & Dzindolet, 1993; Camacho & Paulus, 1995; but see Munkes & Diehl, 2004) • Evaluation apprehension (cf. social facilitation; e.g., Maginn & Harris, 1980; Diehl & Stroebe, 1987)

22. Evaluation apprehension

23. Production blocking • Production blocking (turn-taking) is a major cause of productivity losses • Evidence: • Introducing blocking in nominal groups causes productivity loss (Diehl & Stroebe, 1987, 1991) • Removing production blocking in interactive groups eliminates productivity loss (EBS, Gallupe et al., 1991; writing, Paulus & Yang, 2000) • Introducing blocking in EBS causes productivity loss (Gallupe et al., 1994) • The effect is due to cognitive interference (Nijstad et al., 2003)

24. Cognitive stimulation? • In (large) EBS groups (e.g., Dennis & Valacich, 1993; Valacich et al., 1994) • In brainwriting (Paulus & Yang, 2000) • In presentation paradigms (Dugosh et al., 2000; Nijstad et al., 2002)

25. The creativity perspective • Brainstorming is just one stage of creativity • Studies of idea selection(Faure, 2004; Putman & Paulus, in press; Rietzschel et al., 2006) • No consistent advantage of nominal groups • Ineffective selection and focus on feasibility • The reality of groups and teams • Refocus: what determines (high quality) group creative output? • Comparing groups with other groups

26. A few recent examples

27. Innovation Economist, 2001: “Ideas are ten a penny. Put a handful of bright engineers in a brainstorming session and they will come up with literally scores of clever ideas […]. Invention is the easy bit. Innovation, by contrast, is the genuinely difficult part […]. What it does depend on is the single-mindedness with which the business plan is executed, as countless obstacles on the road to commercialization are surmounted, by-passed or hammered flat.”

28. Team innovation versus group creativity • Group creativity: mostly ad hoc laboratory groups doing a brainstorming task • Team innovation: field studies of intact teams • With a history and a future (team climate) • Less homogeneous (team heterogeneity) • With leader/supervisor (leadership) • Working at more complex tasks (task factors)

29. A few examples

30. In sum… “Somehow it fills my head with ideas — only I don’t exactly know what they are!”

31. This talk • Background: defining (group) creativity and (team) innovation • Overview of group creativity/team innovation research • Towards a unified theory: The MIP-G model • Illustrations • Lab studies of group creativity • Field study of team innovation • Discussion

32. Motivated information processing in groups (MIP-G) De Dreu, Nijstad, & Van Knippenberg, 2008 • Groups performing cognitive tasks can be conceptualized as information processors (Hinsz, Tindale, & Vollrath, 1997) • Individual level processing (encoding, retrieval, etc) • Group level communication • Group members provide the resources (KSA) • Trough information processing the member contributions are turned into a group product

33. Motivation and information processing • Information processing can be shallow and deep (cf. dual process models): epistemic motivation • Information processing can be directed at individual or collective goals (cf. mixed motive tasks, e.g., negotiations): social motivation

34. Epistemic motivation • “the willingness to expend effort to achieve a thorough, rich, and accurate understanding of the world, including the group task, rather than relying on routine or habitual thought” • Rooted in individual differences • Need for cognition (+) • Need for closure/need for structure (-) • Openness to experience (+) • Affected by situational factors • time pressure (-) • process accountability (+) • Preference diversity, minority dissent (+)

35. For example: High need for structure

36. Social motivation • “the preference for outcome distributions between oneself and other team members” • pro-self (own outcomes) – pro-social (joint outcomes) • Rooted in individual differences • Social Value Orientation • Agreeableness (+) • Affected by situational factors • Transformational leadership (+) • Team climate (e.g., participative safety) (+) • Task and outcome interdependence (+)

37. Social motivation (TEAM)

38. The different combinations

39. The basic prediction • Groups and teams are most creative/innovative when high levels of epistemic motivation are paired with high levels of pro-social motivation • Members are processing information to reach collective goals • Boundary condition: the inputs of different members are necessary

40. This talk • Background: defining (group) creativity and (team) innovation • Overview of group creativity/team innovation research • Towards a unified theory: The MIP-G model • Illustrations • Lab studies of group creativity • Field study of team innovation • Discussion

41. Study 1 & 2:Group creativity • Brainstorming task: improve teaching • Creativity: original and useful • Three dependent variables: • Fluency (# ideas) • Originality • Feasibility

42. Study 1 • Design: Epistemic Motivation x Social Motivation • EM: process accountability (no/yes) • SM: incentive schemes (reward personal performance or collective performance) • 3-person groups (N = 39 groups) • 10 min sessions (individually write down your non-redundant ideas)

43. Results (Study 1): Fluency

44. Results (Study 1): Originality

45. Results (Study 1): Feasibility

46. Conclusion Study 1 • The combination of high EM and pro-social motivation increased originality • It did not affect fluency and feasibility • Conceptual replication: Study 2

47. Study 2 • Design: EM x SM • EM: time pressure (yes (5 min) vs. no (15 min)) • SM: agreeableness (continuous, group average) • 3-person groups (N = 36 groups) • 10 min sessions (individually write down your non-redundant ideas)

48. Results (Study 2): Fluency

49. Results (Study 2): Originality

50. Results (Study 2): Feasibility