c Academy of Management Journal 2002, Vol. 45, No. 2, 315-330.

INDIVIDUALCREATIVITYAND GROUP ABILITYTO UTI'II.ZE INDIVIDUALCREATIVERESOURCES: A MULTILEVEL MODEL

SIMON TAGGAR York University The performance of 94 groups on 13 different open-ended tasks was studied. At the individual-team-member level, domain knowledge and performance-relevant behavioral measures of the three components of Amabile's (1983, 1996) theory of individual creativity related in predicted ways to individual differences. Support was found for new "cross-level"processes, labeled "teamcreativity-relevant processes." At the group level, these processes moderated the relationship between aggregated individual creativity and group creativity. Companies try numerous strategies to foster creativity, including restructuring work, selecting people on the basis of their attributes, and behavioral training; however, these strategies are often unsuccessful (Barron & Harrington, 1981; Farr, 1990; Hocevar & Bachelor, 1989). Some organizations form autonomous work teams that are tasked with identifying and solving ill-defined or poorly structured problems that require creative thought (Cannon-Bowers, Oser, & Flanagan, 1992; Goodman, Ravlin, & Argote, 1986). Given the increasing use of teams to foster creativity (Mohrman, Cohen, &Mohrman, 1995; Tesluk, Farr, & Klein, 1997), it is surprising that little is known about the social behavior that determines a group's ability to utilize individual creative resources effectively. The primary purpose of this study was to allow me to look simultaneously at individual and group creativity, their determinants, and their interrelationships. The conceptual framework that forms the backbone of this study is afforded by Amabile's (1983, 1996) componential theory of individual creativity, which allows for the impact of social influences on individual creativity. According to the theory, a product or response is creative when observers independently agree that it is novel and appropriate, useful, correct, or valuable to the task at hand, and when that task is open-ended and appropriately carried out via discovery rather than via a predetermined step-by-step procedure. To date, creativity studies have generally focused at only one level of analysis at a time (Sternberg & Lubart, 1999; Woodman, Sawyer, & Griffin, 1993). The author thanks John Usher, Jayne Taggar,and this journal's editor and three anonymous reviewers for their insightful criticisms, encouragement,and helpful suggestions, which greatly improved this article.
315

Neuman and Wright (1999) argued for the importance of examining relationships at both the individual and group levels. Below, the rationale for a multilevel model of group creativity on openended tasks that require creativity is developed (Figure 1), beginning with the individual level of analysis. Next, we develop a group-level model to assert the importance of a group's ability to utilize individual resources effectively. Factors Influencing Individual-Level Creative Outputs Amabile's (1983, 1996) componential theory of individual creativity predicts that task motivation, domain-relevant skills, and creativity-relevant processes are important components for individual creativity and that there are individual differences in levels of the three components. Mounting empirical evidence demonstrates that individuals are more creative when they possess higher levels of these components (Conti, Coon, & Amabile, 1996; Ruscio, Whitney, & Amabile, 1998). In addition, according to the theory, the work environment should affect individual creativity, especially through the motivational component. The theory also suggests that group creativity depends on both the levels of the individual components in members of a group and the group's work environment. Components of individual creativity. According to the componential theory of individual creativity, task motivation is both a state and a relatively stable trait (Amabile, Hill, Hennessey, & Tighe, 1994) demonstrated by a "general and pervasive orientation toward one's work" (Amabile, 1996: 116). Intrinsic motivation and, recent evidence suggests, a few very narrow forms of synergistic extrinsic motivators that encourage high levels of task involve-

This content downloaded from 130.237.165.40 on Fri, 31 Jan 2014 04:22:55 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

316

Academy of Management Journal

April

FIGURE 1 Multilevel Latent Variable Model of Team Performance on Tasks Requiring Creativitya
Individual Differences H7 TCRP TCRP 04) Individual Behaviors Individual-Level Creativity Group-Level Process (Aggregated) Group-Level Creativity

Agreeableness Extraversion

H5
Conscientiousness H1) .37**

H6
^4-

General

(.04) TM.65*** H2: .60*** (.04) .38** (.04

CRP

(.03) Individual

H4 Group

55** (.04)

H3: .72*** (.04)

Openness to Experience The path from team creativity-relevant processes to creativity-relevant processes was added with a coefficient of .36* path coefficients are standardized. **p < .01 ***p< .001
a

(.04). Reported

ment, are important elements of task motivation

(Collins & Amabile,

1999). Task motivation can be indicated by behaviors related to the amount and persistence of effort. Amabile and colleagues (1994), in their study of artists, found that intrinsically motivated people showed greater commitment and devoted more time to task completion. Ruscio and coauthors (1998) found that behavior related to "involvement in the task" was associated with intrinsic motivation. Motivated individuals showed deep levels of involvement in problems by focusing on solving them, minimizing distractions, and being absorbed in work (Ruscio et al., 1998: 261). The domain-relevant-skills component of creativity represents the ability to learn certain types of domain-specific knowledge (Amabile, 1996). Domain-relevantskills require familiaritywith the domain in question-memory of factual knowledge, technical proficiency, opinions about various questions in the domain, knowledge of paradigms, performance scripts for solving problems in the domain, and aesthetic criteria (Ruscio et al., 1998). Domain-relevant skills may be indicated by measures of an individual's depth and breadth of knowledge related to the problems to be solved by a team. Creativity-relevant processes "determine the flexibility with which cognitive pathways are explored, the attention given to particular aspects of the task, and the extent to which a particularpath-

1999; Sternberg & Lubart,

way is followed in pursuit of a solution" (Amabile, 1996: 95). Creativity-relevantprocesses are associated with a cognitive style favorable to taking new perspectives on problems, an application of heuristics for the exploration of new cognitive pathways, and a working style conducive to persistence (Amabile, 1983, 1996). Ruscio and coauthors (1998)

described possible behavioral indicators of creativity-relevant processes. These behaviors include goal setting and responses to challenge. In terms of responses to challenge, one may expect preparation behavior prior to group meetings and active participation in group problem-solving activities. Appropriate work orientation and cognitive style along with knowledge of heuristics for generating novel ideas will likely result in an individual asking relevant questions, offering ideas, and building on others' contributions. Antecedents of creativity components. Amativity represent the potential for behaviors and may be indicated by performance-relevant team member behavior. Similarly, the "five-factor model" traits (Costa & McCrae,1992) and "general cognitive ability" (Ree & Carretta,1998), also represent the potential for behavior. The five-factormodel traits-which are conscientiousness, openness to experience, agreeableness, extraversion, and emotional stability-and general cognitive ability can be thought of as causing task motivation, domain-relevant skills, and creativity-relevantproabile's (1983, 1996) components of individual cre-

This content downloaded from 130.237.165.40 on Fri, 31 Jan 2014 04:22:55 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

2002

Taggar

317

cesses. One of the benefits of this conceptualization is that it allows understanding the antecedents to creativity at the broadest level, using previously validated constructs. Although the five-factor model has been used as a way of viewing the abundant research on personality correlates of creativity, few researchers have examined the relationships between creativity and personality variables that are actually measured at the five-factor-model level (Feist, 1999: 288) or between the model's traits and the components of creativity. The five-factor model (1) allows for consistency among research efforts and a direct way of synthesizing results, (2) calls attention to general personality characteristics that are more strongly related to job performance than narrow specific dimensions, (3) can yield significant uncorrected validity coefficients of .30 or higher, and (4) provides increments in predictive validity over and above the predictive validity of cognitive ability tests (Hogan, 1991). The current indecisiveness about the cognitive ability-creativity relationship may exist because most researchershave focused on specific abilities. There is a growing acceptance of the empirical finding that cognitive ability is best conceptualized as a unitary construct. Ability tests largely measure general cognitive ability, which predicts job performance criteria with greater utility than specific
abilities (Ree & Carretta, 1998; Ree & Earles, 1996).

better at information processing (Schmidt, Hunter, & Perlman, 1981) and adapting to new situations through learning quickly and better applying old learning (Hunter, 1986). A likely standard individual difference antecedent of domain-relevant skills is innate cognitive ability (Conti et al., 1996; Feist,
1999).

Hypothesis 2. There is a positive association between general cognitive ability and domainrelevant skills. Creativity-relevant processes involve breaking perceptual sets, breaking cognitive sets, and trying new problem-solving strategies. A germane personality trait antecedent of creativity-relevant processes, as measured by specific behaviors within a team context, may be openness to experience. People who are open to experience are imaginative, open to varied perspectives, and tolerant of ambiguity (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Openness to experience is most likely to enhance "generative thinking," which consists of divergent thinking, including remote association and pattern switching (Guilford,1984), by encouraging group members to apply nontraditional thinking, fantasy, and imagination during problem solving. McCrae (1987) found that people who were open to experience were more likely to engage in divergent thinking, and King, Walker, and Broyles (1996) found they scored higher on verbal creativity. Feist (1999) speculated that open people may have an interest in seeking sensation and more varied experiences, and this experiential base may serve as the foundation of flexibility and fluency of thinking. Hypothesis 3. There is a positive association between openness to experience and creativityrelevant processes, as measured by group member behavior.
Group-Level Analyses

Conscientious people are intrinsically motivated and task-involved, innately resourceful, enterprising, thorough, industrious, organized, energetic, and willing to overcome obstacles, and they feel well prepared to deal with life (Costa & McCrae, 1992). They can motivate themselves to get a job done and to do it well and have a greaterdisregard for social approval and tangible rewards than those low in conscientiousness (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Accordingly, conscientiousness may be one antecedent of task motivation (as measured by performance-relevant team member behavior). Figure 1 shows the multilevel model of team performance on tasks requiring creativity, which is outlined in the following hypotheses: Hypothesis 1. There is a positive association between conscientiousness and the specific behavioral measures of task motivation. One cannot be truly creative unless one knows a good deal about a particular area and has the skills necessary to produce in that area. Individuals higher on general cognitive ability generally perform better on measures of the knowledge, skills, and techniques required for a job (Ree & Earles, 1996). People high in general cognitive ability are

Both group and individual outcomes may be affected by the intragroupprocess behaviors of group members. These behaviors, which I refer to as "team creativity-relevant processes," may include (1) inspirational motivation: inspiring group members to elevate their goals (Bass & Avolio, 1994;
Brophy, 1998); (2) organization and coordination:

providing feedback, organizing, and coordinating ized consideration: eliciting and appreciating different ideas, needs, and viewpoints (Bass &Avolio, Solution originality and quality should rise when group members are encouraged to view problems
1994; Brophy, 1998). contributions (Brophy, 1998); and (3) individual-

This content downloaded from 130.237.165.40 on Fri, 31 Jan 2014 04:22:55 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

318

Academy of Management Journal

April

differently, redefine problems, extend information searches, and produce high-quality ideas during preparation for problem solving. Group creative performanceis likely to be improved with effective task allocation, task variety, coordination of diverse efforts, and careful planning (Brophy, 1998). Evaluation or feedback that is informative or constructive can be conducive to creativity (Collins & Amabile, 1999). By encouraging consideration and recognition of each group member's viewpoint and ideas, individualized consideration should lead to an expanded source of knowledge and information for group members to use in preparation for problem solving and in response validation (cf. Brass, 1995). Further, involving others may improve social facilitation and increase the production pressure coming from other group members (Hackman
& Morris, 1975).

prowess may be important for the organizationand coordination of team member activity in contexts that require high amounts of social interaction. Barry and Stewart (1997) found that extraverts stimulate discussion and have high performance expectations. This observation suggests that extraverts may contribute to individualized consideration and inspirational motivation behavior. Hypothesis 5. There is a positive association between an individual's extraversion and his or her intragroup process behavior (team creativity-relevant processes at the individual level). Conscientious people tend to be self-motivated and task-oriented (Costa & McCrae, 1992), characteristics that result in attention to required behaviors and goal accomplishment (LePine,Hollenbeck, Ilgen, &Hedlund, 1997). Conscientiousness may be important for several components of intragroup process behavior, including inspiring group members, encouragingparticipation, and keeping a team focused on a task (Aronoff &Wilson, 1985; Barrick
& Mount, 1993; Costa & McCrae, 1992). Neuman

Groups should perform best when they contain creative group members and effective team creativity-relevant processes. That is, these processes may act as a moderator(Figure 1). Furthermore,the presence of highly creative individuals may not ameliorate the negative effects of a scarcity of inspirational motivation, organization, coordination, and individualized consideration. I expected to find that the strength of the relationship between aggregatedindividual creativity and group creativity improves with effective team creativity-relevant processes. Hypothesis 4. Group creativity on open-ended tasks will be an interactive function of aggregated individual creativity and the specific behaviors within a team that measure team creativity-relevant processes, in such a way that the relationship between aggregatedindividual creativity and group creative output will be stronger when group members collectively exhibit higher amounts of behavior relevant to team creativity-relevantprocesses. Individual-Level Antecedents of Team CreativityRelevant Processes Justas standardindividual differences may cause task motivation, domain-relevant skills, and creativity-relevant processes, they may also predispose an individual to display effective intragroup process behavior (team creativity-relevant processes at the individual level). Therefore, the last purpose of this study was to test whether standard individual differences predict team creativity-relevant processes at the individual level. Extraverts are sociable, enthusiastic, energetic, and optimistic. Their social confidence and social

and Wright (1999) found that conscientious people were likely to display organization and coordination behaviors. Hypothesis 6. There is a positive association between an individual's conscientiousness and his or her intragroup process behavior. Agreeable group members tend to be trusted, straightforward,altruistic, compliant, and modest are likely to cooperate with other team members. The facets of altruism, trust, and tender-mindedness should enhance the interpersonal skills required to elicit and appreciate others' contributions. These facets should convey to others in a team a genuine concern for their well-being and a willingness to work with them rather than against them. In addition, the facets of compliance and straightforwardness should indicate to others a willingness to relate in a sincere and open manner and, consequently, facilitate information-seeking and conflict resolution behaviors. Hypothesis 7. There is a positive association between an individual's agreeableness and his or her intragroupprocess behavior. Team creativity-relevantprocesses may also represent a "cross-level" process wherein aggregated team creativity-relevant processes are social influences affecting individual-level creativity. Amabile (1996) hypothesized that social influences affect individual creativity primarily,but not exclusively,
(Costa & McCrae, 1992). Agreeable group members

This content downloaded from 130.237.165.40 on Fri, 31 Jan 2014 04:22:55 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

2002

Taggar

319

through task motivation. In support of this assertion, Collins and Amabile (1999), in their review of the literature,proposed that behaviors that support a sense of competence, without undermining a person's sense of self-determination, and attune that individual to outcome requirements, enhance the motivational component of creativity. Likewise, team creativity-relevant processes that encourage and inspire other group members to link their selfconcepts to the collective interests of a group and its mission may increase others' intrinsic motivation to work collectively (Shamir, House, &Arthur, 1993). Finally, Collins and Amabile (1999) noted that external motivators help creative production to the extent that they generate continued attention to the task at hand. Consequently, to complete the individual-level model, I added a link between the group-level variable team creativity-relevant processes (additively defined) and the task motivation of individual group members (Figure 1). Hypothesis 8. Team creativity-relevant processes, as measured by specific behaviorswithin a team context (aggregated), representa contextual variable that will be positively associated with greaterindividual task motivation.
METHODS Participants, Procedures, and Tasks

Participants were 480 undergraduate business students in a Canadian university's organizational behavior/human resources management course; 58 percent of the participants were women, and participants' average age was 21 (s.d. = 3.55). Each

participant was randomly assigned to one of nine sections. Within each section, participants selfselected themselves as members of groups of five or six. In all, there were 94 groups rangingin size from
five (n = 84) to six (n = 10) individuals. Of a

participant's overall course grade, 20 percent was allocated to his or her groups' output over a 13week period. There were no missing data. Participantsremained in the same groups to complete 13 exercises, a different one each week. All groups did the same exercises. Group creativity research has generally involved single-part tasks that require individuals to "ideate names or uses or consequences of a thing, or ideate ways to achieve in contrived laboratorysettings. Tasks in this study differed from those in previous studies in three ways: interactive groups completed a variety of multipart, open-ended tasks, over a 13-week period, under constraints that required the active management of time and other resources.
a goal" (Brophy, 1998: 213), in short-lived groups

As is the case in many organizational settings,tasks were complex and varied; they involved problem identificationof the sort typical in managementcase studies; decision making,in activities such as generating options, products, or services or picking evaluation criteriaand applying the criteria;seeking additional information, by, for instance, conducting library research or seeking subject matter experts; critical thinking, as in critical evaluation of newspaper articles;building consensus on how best to handle problems;generatingaction plans; implementing plans; evaluating outcomes and changing decisionmakingand process heuristics in futuresessions; and generatingreports.Minimumguidance was provided on how to complete tasks;the basic taskwas unstructuredand often requiredsome improvisation.Groups were required to complete their tasks within 50minute sessions. The Appendix provides examples of two criteriontasks. The tasks used in most previous creative problem solving research (for instance, research on brainstorming groups) minimize-indeed, may eliminate-the need for the intervening team creativity-relevant processes,such as challengingothers' assumptions; however, the more realistic tasks used in this study called for these behaviors. An external judge scored the weekly reports and provided weekly feedback on group creativity. The external judge's ratings constituted the group creativity measure. This evaluator (who had recently graduatedwith a bachelor of commerce undergraduate degree and was hired by the university as an instructional assistant) was independent of the research group and blind to study hypotheses. Each week, groups received feedback on the previous week's report. For each group, feedback consisted of a number grade and a written evaluation about one page long. The written evaluation and the marking scheme were based equally upon the appropriatenessof the solution, idea, or product; originality; elaboration (amount of detail); and, when appropriate, fluency (total number of relevant responses). Since this judge did all of the performance scoring and was present in the group problem-solving sessions, a second judge was asked to score a random sample of 40 reports to assess if the criteria were robust across judges. The second judge was a graduate student in psychology who did not observe group sessions and scored reports after week 13 of the study. Analyzing the ratings of the two judges resulted in a interrater reliability In week 11 of the study, the critical incident technique (CIT;Flanagan,1954) was used to gather specific examples of (in)effective behaviors displayed by group members. CIT is a useful initial step in developing performanceassessment tools (Latham&
coefficient of .85 (p < .001).

This content downloaded from 130.237.165.40 on Fri, 31 Jan 2014 04:22:55 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

320

Academy of Management Journal

April

Wexley, 1994). Each critical incident card asked group members to think about their group experience over the weeks that their group had worked together and recall one example each of effective and ineffective group member behavior that they had personally observed. Each group member completed at least one card each for effective and ineffective behavior, and no group member contributed more than four incidents. The generation of behavioral observation scales from the participants' critical incident cards involved the steps outlined in detail by Latham and Wexley (1994). An abbreviated overview follows. Two doctoral students (sorters) who were familiar with critical incident analysis sorted the 1,356 critical incident cards into meaningful clusters. Clusters were given descriptive dimension labels by the judges. Next, two other doctoral students (the judges) received the same critical incidents in random order and worked together to reclassify the incidents according to the descriptive dimension labels established by the sorters. The ratio of correctly classified incidents to the total number of incidents for each cluster was greater than .80 and was thus deemed adequate. The behavioral observation scale were developed so that the major dimensions, the most frequently occurring incidents, and the incidents judged by group members as the most important were represented. The individual team member creativity measures were added to the behavioral observation scale. All items were in random order. Peer assessments using these scales occurred in week 13 (the last week) of the study. Measures Individual difference variables. Measures of individual differences were obtained in week 12 of the study. Five-factor-model traits were measured by the revised NEO Personality Inventory (Costa & McCrae, 1992). The inventory has sound psychometric properties (Costa & McCrae, 1992; Hogan, 1991) and is valid and reliable when administered to college students (Costa &McCrae, 1992). Cronbach's alphas, calculated from the six facets composing each fivefactor-model trait, ranged from .84 to .72 in my sample. General cognitive ability was measured by the Wonderlic Personnel Test. The test has sound reliability (test-retest reliabilities range from .82 to .94; Wonderlic & Associates, 1992) and validity (Hawkins, Faraone, Pepple, & Seidman, 1990; McCormick, Mecham, & Jeanneret, 1989). Specific behaviors within the team context. The behavioral observation scale contained 14 dimensions composed of 46 behavioral items, of which 16 described ineffective group member behaviors. The

scale was given to each participant to fill out on each fellow group member. No self-ratings were made. Table 1 shows the dimensions and sample items. Each dimension contained at least two behavioral items. The behavioral markers are not necessarily exhaustive; rather, they represent critical incidents occurring most frequently and rated by team members as most important for the tasks in this study. Behavioral observation scale dimensions were associated with the components of creativity with reference to the work of the theorists and researchers reviewed earlier and with a content validity test. To support the content validity of the categorical assignments, I wrote each dimension of the scale on a card along with its component items and distributed the cards to ten faculty peers and 19 graduate students who were asked to classify the randomly ordered scales into one of four categoriestask motivation, creativity-relevant processes, team creativity-relevant processes, and "other." Each judge was provided with a detailed definition of each category. The judges correctly classified the dimensions to the proper a priori categories more than 80 percent of the time. This classification procedure is similar to that used by Mackenzie, Podsakoff, and Fetter (1991). Participants completed three midterm exams (each marked out of 12) and a final exam (marked out of 30) that were designed to assess knowledge of the course content. These exam marks were added to form a measure of each participant's domain-relevant skills. In order to claim that a group's team creativityrelevant processes created the environment for each individual in the group, I eliminated self-ratings when aggregating scores on the performance criteria used to measure team creativity-relevant processes. Performance criteria. Individual group member creativity was an average of peer assessments (that is, for most groups it was the average of four peer ratings of an individual) obtained in week 13 of the study. This procedure was consistent with Amabile's (1996). Each group member was informed that creative participation should be both novel and useful. Individual group member creativity was assessed by a global measure that asked how creative a particular group member had been relative to other group members over the 13-week duration of the study. In addition, they were given Evan's (1991) definition of individual creativity: (1) discovers new relationships, (2) looks at subjects from new perspectives, and (3) forms new combinations from old concepts. Responses were made on a Likert scale, ranging from "almost never" (1) to "almost always" (5). For all four items, Cronbach's alpha was adequate at .76, and the average interrater agreement statistics (rWG; James, Demaree, &

This content downloaded from 130.237.165.40 on Fri, 31 Jan 2014 04:22:55 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

2002

Taggar

321

TABLE 1 Behavioral Observation Scale Measures of the Components of Creativitya

Creativity Component Task motivation Dimension Team commitment Focus on the task at hand Sample Items Misses team meetings (R)/Comesto team meetings late (R) Draws team members into off-topic discussions (R)/Remindsother team members of the team's goal Brings the required material to the team meetings Builds on the group's by offering solutions/Summarizes and organizes the group's ideas Does not participatein setting goals (R)/ Participatesin developing strategies to achieve team goals Offersideas/asks relevant questions/ Accepts team roles and tasks as required Volunteers to do things that no one else wants to do Assigns tasks and roles to team members/Sets time deadlines for achieving tasks Dominates the discussion (R)/Carefully listens to what others are saying (e.g., maintains eye contact, nods, etc.) Clarifiesand explains issues when someone does not understand/Asks other team members what they think Criticizes others' contributions (suggestions, ideas, and behaviour) without offering alternatives (R)/Says positive things to team members regardingtheir performance Leaves a conflict unresolved by moving on to another topic (R) Provides an alternative solution that is agreeableto other team members when a conflict occurs Resorts to personal attacks when a problem arises (R)

Creativity-relevant processes

Preparation Synthesis of the team's ideas Goal setting/strategyto achieve team goals Participation

Team creativity-relevantprocesses

Team citizenship Performancemanagement Effective communication Involving others

Providing feedback

Reaction to conflict Addresses conflict

Averts conflict
a Items

comprise the behavioral observation scale administered to participants. "R"denotes reverse-scoring.Domain-relevantskills were measured by tests of domain knowledge. Wolf, 1991) were .72, .73, .71, and .76, respectively. The mean evaluation on all four items was 12.81 (s.d. = 1.96), and the range was 7.84 to 14.06. The group-level model concerns the link between aggregated individual creativity and group individual creativity was obcreativity. Aggregate tained by summing the creativity ratings of each member in the group. Group creativity was the average score on 13 written reports; that is, the external judge's ratings constituted the group creativity measure. There was one report for each exercise. Average scores ranged from 9.65 to 19.69, out of a total possible score of 20 (s.d. = 1.42;

coefficient of variation = .09). For the 13 group creativity scores, the interrater agreement and in= .81; ICC traclass correlation were sufficient (rWG = & Shrout 13] .90; [3, Fleiss, 1979). Data Analysis The behavioral observation scale factor structure was developed using the rational method; I assumed that the judges grouped the incidents with underlying processes in mind. Next, each group member rated each of his or her peers using the behavioral observation scale. Using these ratings, I

This content downloaded from 130.237.165.40 on Fri, 31 Jan 2014 04:22:55 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

322

Academy of Management Journal

April

conducted a LISREL 8 maximum-likelihood confirmatory factor analysis (CFA; Joreskog & S6rbom, 1993) to determine whether the item groupings developed by the judges adequately fitted the data. At the individual level, Hypotheses 1-3 and 8 were tested by a two-stage maximum-likelihood LISREL analysis (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). In stage 1, the measurement model was fitted to the data. Next, a measurement model specifying perfect correlation among all latent variables was assessed as a means to evaluate overall discriminability. Alternative nested models, which combined theoretically independent constructs, were then contrasted with the original model. Model structure linkages were examined in stage 2 of the analysis. The dependent variable was the average rating of individual creativity as assessed by peers. Some variables that have been found to affect creativity were controlled for prior to analyses; these were age, gender, and group size. The control variables were modeled into the causal structure by freeing paths to individual creativity and to team creativity-relevant processes. Controlling for these was expected to mitigate some pregroup differences that were created by failing to randomly assign participants to groups. I tested Hypotheses 6 to 7 (stating that extraversion, conscientiousness, and agreeableness are positively associated with intragroup process behavior) using simultaneous regression analysis, after first controlling for group size. At the group level, to test Hypothesis 4, I performed a four-step hierarchical regression. Control variables (age, gender, and group size) were entered in step 1. The groups' creativity scores were entered in step 2, and collective team creativity-relevant processes, as measured by the behavioral observation scales, were entered in step 3. The aggregated interaction of individual creativity and team creativity-relevant processes was entered in step 4. Statistical significance at each step was assessed by the change in the F-statistic associated with the incremental increase in variance in group creativity accounted for by the variable entered at that step. The dependent variable here was average group creativity on the 13 open-ended tasks, as assessed by the independent judge. RESULTS Individual-Level Analysis

fit index [GFI] = .98, and normed S6rbom, 1993).1 worse fit to the
p < .001).

.97, comparative fit index [CFI] = fit index [NFI] = .96; Joreskog & A single-factor solution yielded a data (ACFI = .05; AX2 = 197.07,

Measurement model (stage 1). Fit indexes can be misleading when the number of common factors is small relative to the number of observed variables (Schmit & Ryan, 1993). Therefore, unitweighted composites of the scales measuring the behavioral observation scale dimensions were formed. Items of the NEO Personality Inventory "R" scale were combined into six facet-level scales (indicator variables) for each five-factor-model trait (see Neuman & Wright, 1999). Cognitive ability and domain-relevant skills were specified as being measured by a single indicator; therefore, their error variances were fixed at one minus the reliability multiplied by the item variance (Prussia, Kinicki, & Bracker, 1993). The alpha for cognitive ability was set at .82 (Wonderlic & Associates, 1992), and for domain-relevant skills, it was set at .84. In each case, the path from the latent factor to the manifest variable was set equal to cr2i- a. Forty-four indicator variables were used to estimate the measurement model: six each for conscientiousness, extraversion, openness to experience, and agreeableness; two for task motivation; one for domain-relevant skills; four for creativity-relevant processes; eight for team creativity-relevant processes; four for creativity; and one for cognitive ability. Therefore, an eight-factor model was tested with the indicator variables constrained to their variable groupings.2 All measurement model factor loadings were greater than .60 (p < .05, mean = .73, s.d. = .10), indicating adequate convergent validity (J6reskog & S6rbom, 1993). A measurement concern may stem from assessing group member behavior and creativity on the same instrument. Since creativity and behavior were determined by averaging the ratings of several assessors, the impact of common method variance was expected to be minimal. I used Harman's single-factor procedure (Harris & Mossholder, 1996) to address the common method variance concern. The logic underlying this approach is that if

behaviors. CFA was Performance-relevant used to assess the fit of the 14 behavioral observation scale dimensions to observed behaviors. This analysis revealed adequate fit (root-mean-square error of approximation [RMSEA] = .06, goodness-of-

1 Factor loadings and a scree plot of eigenvalues from an oblique exploratoryfactoranalysis supported the confirmatoryresults. This analysis is available from the author upon request. 2 Means, standard deviations, and correlations among indicator variables are available from the author upon request, as are indicator variable loadings on latent factors.

This content downloaded from 130.237.165.40 on Fri, 31 Jan 2014 04:22:55 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

2002

Taggar

323

method variance is largely responsible for covariation-here, the covariation of the behavioral observation scale and creativity measures-a factor analysis should yield a single factor. LISREL8 was used to conduct confirmatory factor analyses. A 15factor model (14 behaviors and individual creativity) was tested first. Fit indexes suggested that the 15-factor model fitted reasonably well (RMSE = .07, GFI = .95, CFI = .96, and NFI = .94). In comparison, a 1-factor model did not fit the data well (RMSE = .11, GFI = .52, CFI = .54, and NFI = .56); the 15-factor model fitted the data significantly better than did the 1-factor model (ACFI = .42; AX2 = 203.85, p < .001). Taken together, these results suggest that common method variance does not pose a serious threat to interpreting the present findings. Zero-order correlations, descriptive statistics, and reliability coefficients for latent constructs are in Table 2. Although conscientiousness correlated significantly with individual creativity (r = .19, p < .001), it achieved a stronger correlation with task motivation (r = .35, p < .001). Similarly, although general cognitive ability correlated significantly with individual creativity (r = .26, p < .001), it achieved a stronger correlation with domainrelevant skills (r = .57, p < .001). Openness to experience had a correlation of .17 (p < .001) with individual creativity; however, the correlation with creativity-relevant processes was .34 (p < .001). Creativity-relevant processes within the team context had the strongest correlation with individual creativity (r = .62, p < .001). Hence, standard individual differences appear to relate to specific behaviors more strongly than to the overall rated creativity of an individual. Table 3 reveals that the proposed measurement model adequately reproduced the correlation matrix (RMSEA = .05, GFI = .94, CFI = .92, and NFI = .92). In contrast, the single-factor model used to assess overall discriminability (model 2) poorly accounted for the sample data (RMSEA = .18, GFI = .63, CFI = .60, NFI = .61, and ACFI = .32). These results supported the multidimensionality of the proposed model being tested. Sequential chisquare difference tests showed that constraining equality between pairs of highly correlated constructs resulted in worse fit. Moreover, decreases in CFI indicated a material reduction in model fit for each of the constrained models. Therefore, the eight-factor measurement model was retained. Structural model (stage 2). Behavioral observation scale ratings and assessments of creativity were based on averaging peer assessments; therefore, it was necessary to determine whether peers agreed in their ratings. Agreement was estimated by

the average interrater agreement statistic and intraclass correlations. These estimates suggested adequate agreement between peers (behavioral: lowest = .74 [range = .73-.85], lowest ICC [2, average rWG
1] = .31; creativity:

.70-.78], lowest ICC [2, 1] = .21). Consequently, I averaged peer judgments for each participant. In the test of the proposed structural model, the theoretical model fitted the data without conditional codes or other signs of specification problems. However, fit indexes for the hypothesized model reported in Table 3 were not within acceptable ranges; the model did not accurately explain the sample data (RMSEA = .07, GFI = .86, CFI = .75, and NFI = .73). Performing a post hoc model modification to see if a better-fitting model existed (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996), I added a path predicting creativity-relevant processes from team creativity-relevant processes on the basis of the Legrange multiplier test. This addition resulted in an improved fit (RMSEA = .05, GFI = .94, CFI = .94, NFI = .93, ACFI = .21, and Ax2 = 481.95, p < .001). Because a post hoc model modification had been performed, a correlation was calculated between the hypothesized model parameter estimates and parameter estimates from the modified model; its value (r = .96, p < .001) indicated that parameter estimates were hardly changed despite modification of the hypothesized model. I used the modified model (model 7) to test Hypotheses 1 to 3 and 8. Figure 1 reveals that all hypothesized structural model paths were significant at conventional levels (p < .05) and, therefore, all hypotheses were supported. Control variables had insignificant links with individual creativity and team creativity-relevant processes; the standardized coefficients for paths from age, gender, and group size to aggregated individual creativity were .10, .16, and .09, respectively, and from age, gender, and group size to team creativity-relevant processes they were .07, .04, and .06, respectively. Antecedents of team creativity-relevant processes. Simultaneous regression analysis supported Hypotheses 6, 7, and 8-an individual's extraversion, conscientiousness, and agreeableness are positively associated with intragroup process behavior (team creativity-relevant processes at the individual level). In the regression equation, about 31 percent (p < .001) of the variation in intragroup process behavior was explained. Beta weights = .33, p < .001) showed that conscientiousness (X3 contributed mostly to explaining team creativityrelevant processes at the individual level, followed by extraversion (f = .22, p < .001) and agreeableness (3 = .20, p < .001).

average

rWG= .75 [range =

This content downloaded from 130.237.165.40 on Fri, 31 Jan 2014 04:22:55 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

TABLE 2 Zero-Order Correlations among Latent Factors of the Individual-Level Modela

Variable 1. Neuroticism 2. Extraversion 3. Openness to experience 4. Agreeableness 5. Conscientiousness 6. General cognitive ability 7. Task motivationb 8. Domain-relevant skillsb 9. Creativity-relevant processesb 10. Individual team creativity-relevant processes 11. Individual creativity 12. Group team creativity-relevant processes Mean 79.10 109.40 110.60 124.30 123.10 21.75 8.17 46.13 16.11 30.33 12.81 29.87 s.d. 21.20 18.40 17.30 15.80 17.60 7.60 0.70 5.66 1.90 2.70 1.96 1.85 1 (.84) -.06 -.09 -.15** -.22*** -.18*** -.02 -.02 -.09 -.09 -.10* -.05 2 3 4 5 6 7

(.79) .02 .08 -.15** .04 -.06 .01 .14** .27*** .13** .04

(.72) .06 .16*** .12* .02 .15** .34*** .10 .17*** .01

(.79) -.10 -.17*** .11* .06 .07 .26*** .08 .07

(.82) -.03 .35*** .23*** .27*** .26*** .19*** .11*

(.89) .07 .57*** .42*** .17*** .26*** .03

(.71) .12* .32*** .31*** .41*** .37***

an = 480, for all variables except group-level team creativity-relevant processes, where n = 94. Alpha coefficients of reliabilities are display b Behavioral observation scale measure. * p < .05

**p < .01 ***p < .001 Two-tailed tests.

This content downloaded from 130.237.165.40 on Fri, 31 Jan 2014 04:22:55 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

2002

Taggar

325

TABLE3 Fit Indexes for the Measurement and Structural Modelsa

Test
Measurement model 1. Proposed model 2. Single-factor model 3. Equating task motivation and domain-relevant skills 4. Equating team creativity-relevant processes and creativity-relevant processes 5. Equating team creativity-relevant processes and domain-relevant skills Structural model 6. Hypothesized model 7. Modified model

2 (dfl
2,189.07 (594) 7,694.49 (599) 2,437.06 (599)

RMSEA

GFI

CFI

NFI

A2 b

df

ACFI

.05 .18 .09

.94 .63 .87

.92 .60 .86

.92 .61 5,505.42*** .85 247.99** 5 .06 34 .32

2,402.82 (599)

.09

.86

.85

.85

213.75** 2,373.13 (599) .09 .87 .86 .85

.07

184.06** 2,719.29 (754) 2,227.34 (753) .07 .05 .86 .94 .75 .94 .73 .93 481.95***

.06

.21

a RMSEA = root-mean-square error of approximation; GFI = goodness-of-fit index; CFI = comparative fit index; NFI = normed fit index. n = 480. b The top four statistics show the difference between the indicated model and the proposed model (model 1); the fifth (last in the column) AX2 shows the difference between the hypothesized model and the modified model.
** p < .01

**p

< .001

Group-Level Analysis
Zero-order correlations and descriptive statistics examined at the group level are in Table 4. As indicated in Table 4, aggregated individual creativity is significantly correlated with both group creativity and team creativity-relevant processes. Hypothesis 4 suggests that group creativity is an interactive function of aggregated individual creativity and the amount of team creativity-relevant processes. After controlling for age, gender, and group size (none of which contributed significantly to explaining variance in group creativity), I found significant main effects for aggregated individual

creativity (AR2 = .28, p < .001) and team creativityrelevant processes (AR2 = .07, p < .01) through hierarchical regression analysis. There was also a statistically significant interaction between aggregated individual creativity and team creativityrelevant processes (AR2 = .05, p < .01). It is evident that groups with creative members and high levels of creativity-relevant behaviors yielded high group creativity. A low incidence of team creativity-relevant processes neutralized the effect of a group high in creativity.3 Similarly, a group low in creativity neutralized the effects of high levels of team creativity-relevant processes.

TABLE4 Zero-Order Correlations and Descriptive Statistics for Additively Aggregated Predictor and Criterion Measures at the Group Levela
Variable
1. Group creativity 2. Aggregated individual creativity 3. Team creativity-relevant processes

DISCUSSION
This study examined a multilevel model of group creativity on open-ended tasks that required creativity. Specific behavioral measures of the components of creativity were found to relate in predicted

Mean
14.74 2.72 29.87

s.d.
1.42 0.28 1.93

1
.56*** .41***

.63***

an = 94. *** p < .001, two-tailed tests

3 The findings reportedin this work arebased on all 13 tasks; however, a task-by-task analysis reveals that the findings presented here do generalize over the last 10 of the 13 tasks. That is, team creativity-relevantprocesses did not play a significant moderating role in the first three tasks.

This content downloaded from 130.237.165.40 on Fri, 31 Jan 2014 04:22:55 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

326

Academy of Management Journal

April

ways to standard individual differences. A contribution of this study is to show that although it is necessary for a group to contain members who are creative, team creativity-relevant processes that emerge as part of group interaction are also important. Indeed, without this latter type of behavior, the benefits of putting together a group of highly creative individuals are neutralized. In effective groups, members engage in creativity-supporting behavior, establishing the right sort of social environment for each other. These behaviors are indicated by eight behavioral observation scale measures, which yield new insights into exactly how group members can support each other's creativity. Very little prior research has attempted to so extensively specify behaviors in intact groups working on open-ended tasks. Individual Differences Through incorporating standard individual differences into Amabile's (1983, 1996) componential model, I hoped that this study would aid in pulling together relevant personality research and somewhat validate the use of personality as a predictor of behavior associated with group creativity. This study goes beyond previous studies in that it utilized the unifying five-factor model, which reduces terminological confusion and makes personality testing useful in organizational contexts (Hogan, 1991). By no means do I claim that use of this model is the most appropriate level at which to measure individual differences; rather, it seems an appropriate starting point. Effort should be made to show that newly developed measures of individual attributes improve upon the predictiveness of the now commonly accepted five-factor-model taxonomy, and also that of general cognitive ability, in a variety of situations. By incorporating personality and general cognitive ability into the model, I hoped to show that their associated behaviors are the most appropriate criterion for validation. One may obtain a consistently modest relationship between standard individual differences and individual creativity while at the same time obtaining strong relationships between individual differences and their relevant behaviors. For instance, it is more appropriate to validate general cognitive ability against domainrelevant skills than against overall creativity ratings because global ratings are impacted by an individual's task motivation or by the social environment. Feist's (1999) review of personality research in the creativity literature indicates that facets of to experience fantasy(especially openness oriented imagination) and conscientiousness (espe-

cially drive, ambition, perseverance, and need for achievement) have previously been related to creative outcomes in scientific domains. The findings of the present study correspond with those reto experience ported by Feist (1999)-openness and conscientiousness proved to be predictive of individual creative behavior on the tasks employed in this study. However, it should be recognized that the behavioral observation scale measures of task motivation tap a narrow aspect of Amabile's (1983, 1996) task motivation conceptualization, and this limiting condition should be considered when one interprets the findings presented here. In future studies, researchers should consider the added benefits of using the Work Preference Inventory (Amabile et al., 1994), which was specifically designed to assess trait-intrinsic and -extrinsic motivation. Neuroticism was the only five-factor-model trait that was not a variable in the model developed here. Feist (1999) reviewed conflicting research that has suggested high neuroticism (especially the facets of anxiety and hostility) is both positively and negatively related to creativity. Neuroticism did not correlate strongly with individual creativity or with domain-relevant skills, task motivation, creativity-relevant processes, and team creativityrelevant processes in the present findings. Nevertheless, neuroticism may relate more strongly to creativity in domains different from the one studied here. Feist (1999) proposed that neuroticism is related to creativity in artistic endeavours where an "introspective journey" is involved. However, creativity that is more "externally focused" (for instance, creativity in the science domain) has less of a connection to neuroticism. Lastly, this study does not support either the views that creativity and intelligence are essentially the same or the view that creativity and intelligence are unrelated. Creativity appears to be the confluence of intelligence, personality, domain knowledge, and social influences.

Specific Behaviors within the Team Context for Individual Creativity This study begins to address important, unanswered questions about the specific behaviors within a team context that are necessary for creative performance and effective group outcomes. The behavioral observation scale reports indicated various performance-relevant behavioral aspects of creativity. Knowledge of creative behavior can contribute to the design of interventions that improve creativity (for instance, by outlining the possible

This content downloaded from 130.237.165.40 on Fri, 31 Jan 2014 04:22:55 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

2002

Taggar

327

role of training in creativity-supporting behaviors for group members). Team commitment and focus on the task at hand index one aspect of task motivation and therefore gauge readiness for creative activity. Ruscio and colleagues (1998) found "involvement"was related to task motivation. They also noted the need for research directed toward replicating their findings in other task domains and uncovering additional behavioral manifestations of intrinsic motivation. This study's findings with respect to task motivation correspond with those of Ruscio et al. and provide evidence of additional behavioral manifestations of this component of creativity. Creativity-relevant processes primarily determine response novelty. Creativity-relevant processes involve goal setting, preparation, participation in group problem solving, and synthesis of ideas. These behaviors correspond to the goal setting and response-to-challenge types of behaviors suggested by Ruscio and colleagues (1998) as measures of creativity-relevantprocesses. They also fit well with Amabile's (1996) descriptions of workstyle factors associated with creativity-relevant processes.

Future Research and Limitations

A Group's Ability to Utilize Individual Resources Effectively

Groups are a unique social setting in which, it is believed, the interaction among group members may be a major contributor to the quality of group creativity. A group's process skills are necessary to leverage individual creative resources. Group creativity is enhanced through effective communication, possibly because it reduces the chances of process losses resulting from errors in task performance strategies. Performance management, providing feedback, and effective conflict management possibly improve coordination, resulting in improved group creativity. Poor integration of group members' efforts can result in motivational losses, as previously suggested by Hackman and Morris (1975). The findings regarding team creativityrelevant processes (particularly "involving others" behavior) support Woodman and colleagues' (1993) proposition that individual creative performance will be increased by group behavior that facilitates the open sharing of information. It follows that when groups are inadequately trained in team process behavior, or are too large, team creativityrelevant processes can stifle creativity. Further,it is important to note that these processes, usually thought of as important for group leaders, can also be important for all members of a group.

Future research. Modification indexes suggested a link between team creativity-relevant processes and creativity-relevant processes. By encouraging consideration and recognition of all group members' viewpoints and ideas, individualized consideration may foster a social climate that results in expanded sources of knowledge and encourages thinking along new lines. These behaviors should facilitate (but not guarantee) group members offering solutions that build on their group's ideas, thereby increasing the creativity-relevant processes of the individual engaged in individualized consideration behavior. Although further research is required, these preliminary findings support the addition of team creativity-relevant processes to the componential model. In this preliminary study, simple linear relationships between resources for creativity were modeled. However, Sternberg and Lubart (1999: 11) noted that creativity may be more than the simple sum of a person's attained level of functioning on each component. Partial compensation may occur, in which a strength on one component counteracts a weakness on another component, and interactions may also occur between components. Furthermore, individual resource requirements may differ with the type of task performed (Forgas, 1995). Study of these relationships is a potentially fruitful avenue for future research. Limitations. This study attempted to approximate genuine work environments while benefiting from a large sample with equivalent group work experiences and resource constraints. The groups appeared similar to "real"work groups in task interdependence; this real-life quality was supported by the emergence of several behavioral observation scale dimensions: performance management, participation in team problem solving, synthesis of the team's ideas, and involvement of others. Although there is some support for using students as research participants (Greenberg, 1987), future studies of functioning intact autonomous work groups within firms are needed to establish generalizability. A potential limitation is the issue of priming: items presented earlier in the BOS may influence responses to subsequent items. Assessment of creativity was based on one item that directly mentioned creativity (question 19 on the performance assessment tool) and three items (questions 35, 39, and 40 on the performance assessment tool) that did not contain the term "creativity." The item directly mentioning creativity is likely to be of most

This content downloaded from 130.237.165.40 on Fri, 31 Jan 2014 04:22:55 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

328

Academy of ManagementJournal

April

concern when considering priming (Kervin, 1992). In this study, the items that followed the global measure of creativity contained very specific referents. Kervin (1992: 330) suggested that the impact of priming is not substantial when subsequent questions are specific. Nevertheless, future studies that use a similar assessment tool should counterbalance items within the tool; they might, for instance, adjust the positioning of the item mentioning creativity so its impact on subsequent item responses can be determined. Another limitation pertains to potentially influential factors not included in our analysis. Subjects were not randomly assigned to groups, so there was a concern that their choices about group membership were based on the attributes of others (on, for instance, how much they liked other group members). In addition to statistically controlling for age, gender, and group size in this study, I conducted an additional group-level analysis that revealed no evidence of restriction of range or significant skewness or kurtosis on any of the variables in this study; for instance, there was no evidence that extraverts chose other extraverts as group members. Nevertheless, future studies need to address the possibility of a selection bias based on variables not measured here. Lastly, Ruscio and colleagues (1998) noted limitations with respect to posttask measurement of behavior, including forgetting and knowledge of outcomes. These concerns should be mitigated in future studies by assessing behavior as it occurs; Ruscio and his coauthors (1998) offer a procedure for doing this. This is the first study to specify particular behaviors that strongly predict observable creativity. Conti and coauthors (1996) expanded on the importance and relevance of this information. The evidence presented in this article is the first step to designing behavioral interventions like behaviorally based structured interviews and training in team creativity-relevant processes. The importance of team creativity-relevant processes underscores the need to ensure groups maintain a facilitating social setting.
REFERENCES Amabile, T. M. 1983. The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization. Journal of Per-

nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66: 950967. Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. 1988. Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103: 411-423. Aronoff, J., & Wilson, J. P. 1985. Personality in the social process. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. 1993. Autonomy as a moderator of the relationship between the Big Five personality dimensions and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78: 111-118. Barron, F., & Harrington, D. M. 1981. Creativity, intelligence, and personality. In M. R. Rosenzweig & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Annual review of psychology: 439476. Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews. Barry, B., & Stewart, G. L. 1997. Composition, process, and performance in self-managed groups: The role of personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82: 62-78. Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. 1994. Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Brass, D. J. 1995. Creativity: It's all in your social network. In C. M. Ford & D. A. Gioia (Eds.), Creative action in organizations: Ivory tower visions and real world voices: 94-99. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Brophy, D. R. 1998. Understanding, measuring, and enhancing collective creative problem-solving efforts. Creativity Research Journal, 11: 199-229. Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Oser, R., & Flanagan, D. C. 1992. Work teams in industry: A selected review and proposed framework. In R. W. Swezey & E. Salas (Eds.), Teams: Their training and performance: 355-377. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Collins, M. A., & Amabile, T. M. 1999. Motivation and creativity. In R. J. Sternber (Ed.), Handbook of creativity: 297-312. New York: Cambridge University Press. Conti, R., Coon, H., & Amabile, T. M. 1996. Evidence to support the componential model of creativity: Secondary analysis of three studies. Creativity Research Journal, 9: 385-389. Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. 1992. NEO PI-R professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Farr, J. L. 1990. Facilitating individual role innovation. In M. A. West & J. L. Farr (Eds.), Innovation and creativity at work: Psychological and organizational strategies: 207-230. Chichester, England: Wiley. Feist, G. J. 1999. Influence of personality on artistic and scientific creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity: 272-296. New York: Cambridge University Press.

sonality and Social Psychology, 45: 357-376.

Amabile, T. M. 1996. Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Amabile, T. M., Hill, K. G., Hennessey, B. A., & Tighe, E. 1994. The Work Preference Inventory: Assessing intrinsic and extrinsic motivation orientations. Jour-

This content downloaded from 130.237.165.40 on Fri, 31 Jan 2014 04:22:55 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

2002

Taggar

329

Flanagan, J. C. 1954. The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin, 51: 327-358. Forgas, J. 1995. Mood and judgment: The affect infusion model (AIM). Psychological Bulletin, 117: 39-66. Goodman, P. S., Ravlin, E. C., & Argote, L. 1986. Current thinking about groups: Setting the stage for new ideas. In P. S. Goodman (Ed.), Designing effective work groups: 1-34. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Greenberg, J. 1987. The college sophomore as guinea pig: Setting the record straight. Academy of Management Review, 12: 157-159. Guilford, J. P. 1984. Varieties of divergent production. Journal of Creative Behavior, 18: 1-10. Hackman, J. R., & Morris, C. G. 1975. Group tasks, group interaction processes, and group performance effectiveness: A review and proposed integration. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, vol. 8: 47-99. New York: Academic Press. Harris, S. G., & Mossholder, K. W. 1996. The affective implications of perceived congruence with culture dimensions during organizational transformation. Journal of Management, 22: 527-547. Hawkins, K. A., Faraone, S. V., Pepple, J. R., & Seidman, L. J. 1990. WAIS-R validation of the Wonderlic Personnel Test as a brief intelligence measure in a psychiatric sample. Psychological Assessment, 2: 198201. Hocevar, D., & Bachelor, P. 1989. A taxonomy and critique of measurements used in the study of creativity. In J. A. Glover, R. R. Ronning, & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of creativity: 53-76. New York: Plenum Press. Hogan, R. T. 1991. Personality and personality measurement. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed.), vol. 2: 873-919. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Hunter, J. E. 1986. Cognitive ability, cognitive aptitudes, job knowledge and job performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 29: 340-362. James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. 1993. rwg: An assessment of within-group interrater agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78: 306-309. Joreskog, K. G., & S6rbom, D. 1993. LISREL 8: User's reference guide. Chicago: Scientific Software International. King, L. A., Walker, L., & Broyles, S. J. 1996. Creativity and the five-factor model. Journal of Research in Personality, 30: 189-203. Kervin, J. B. 1992. Methods in business research. New York: HarperCollins. Latham, G. P., & Wexley, K. N. 1994. Increasing productivity through performance appraisal. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

LePine, J. A., Hollenbeck, J. R., Ilgen, D. R., & Hedlund, J. 1997. Effects of individual differences on the performance of hierarchical decision-making teams: Much more than g. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82: 803-811. Mackenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Fetter, R. 1991. Organizational citizenship behavior and objective productivity as determinants of managerial evaluations of salespersons' performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50: 123150. McCormick, E. J., Mecham, R. C., & Jeanneret, P. R. 1989. Technical manual for-the position analysis questionnaire. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue Research Foundation. McCrae, R. R. 1987. Creativity, divergent thinking, and openness to experience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52: 1258-1265. Mohrman, S. A. M., Cohen, S. G., & Mohrman, A. M. 1995. Designing team based organizations. New York: Jossey-Bass. Neuman, G. A., & Wright, J. 1999. Team effectiveness: Beyond skills and cognitive ability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84: 376-389. Prussia, G. E., Kinicki, A. J., & Bracker, J. S. 1993. Psychological and behavioral consequences of job loss: A covariance structural analysis using Weiner's (1985) attribution model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78: 382-395. Ree, M. J., & Carretta, T. R. 1998. General cognitive ability and occupational performance. In C. L. Cooper &I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology, vol. 13: 159-184. New York: Wiley. Ree, M. J., & Earles, J. A. 1996. Predicting occupational criteria: Not much more than g. In I. Dennis & P. Tapsfield (Eds.), Human abilities: Their nature and measurement: 151-165. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Ruscio, J., Whitney, D. M., & Amabile, T. M. 1998. The fishbowl of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 11: 243-263. Schmidt, F. L., Hunter, J. E., & Pearlman, K. 1981. Task differences and the validity of aptitude tests in selection: A red herring. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66: 166-185. Schmit, M. J., & Ryan, A. M. 1993. The Big Five in personnel selection: Factor structure in applicant and nonapplicant populations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78: 966-974. Shamir, B., House, R., & Arthur, M. 1993. The motivational effects of chrismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization Science, 4: 1-17. Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. 1979. Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86: 420-428.

This content downloaded from 130.237.165.40 on Fri, 31 Jan 2014 04:22:55 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

330

Academy of ManagementJournal

April

Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. 1999. The concept of creativity: Prospects and paradigms. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity: 3-16. New York: Cambridge University Press. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. 1996. Using multivariate statistics (3rd ed.). New York: HarperCollins. Tesluk, P. E., Farr, J. L., & Klein, S. R. 1997. Influences of organizational culture and climate on individual cre-

ativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 31: 27-41.

Wonderlic, E. L., & Associates 1992. Wonderlic person-

Exercise 1 1. Use the concepts of stereotyping and halo to explain the contrast between the Golden Boys and the Audit Drones. 2. Are there any aspects to the organization of work at BH&A that could lead to perceptual problems in performance appraisal? 3. Suppose that you were appointed to a newly created position at BH&A, Manager of Diversity Assurance. What would you do to better manage diversity at the firm? Exercise 2 1. Which plan (discussed in lectures and the textbook) does the Levi payment scheme most closely resemble? 2. Is this plan likely to be effective? Why or why not? Please be specific and substantiate your arguments in reference to class lectures &/or textbook. 3. If you were the administrator of this payment scheme what might you do differently to maximize employee motivation toward the corporate objective? Be creative and give a full answer.

nel test and scholastic level exam. Libertyville, IL:

Wonderlic Personnel Test, Inc. Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin, R. W. 1993. Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Acad-

emy of Management, 18: 293-321.

APPENDIX Sample Tasks Completed by Groups

Each group completed an open-ended, multipart task consisting of developing answers to sets of questions. Each set comprised an exercise. Examples of question sets are given verbatim below. Participants first read written instructions and a brief introduction to the exercise (the case study), which provided background for the questions in the exercise. Prior to the exercise, students were given a lecture on the exercise topic and were requested to complete assigned readings.

AAA
Simon Taggar (staggar@morgan.ucs.mun.ca) is an assistant professor of human resources management at York University. He received his Ph.D. from McMaster University. His research interests include team composition, team creativity, team leadership, and collective efficacy.

M0

This content downloaded from 130.237.165.40 on Fri, 31 Jan 2014 04:22:55 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions