group creativity and team innovation bernard nijstad university of amsterdam
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Group Creativity and Team Innovation Bernard Nijstad University of Amsterdam](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649c825503460f9493a0a5/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Group Creativity and Team Innovation
Bernard Nijstad
University of Amsterdam
![Page 2: Group Creativity and Team Innovation Bernard Nijstad University of Amsterdam](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649c825503460f9493a0a5/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
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)
![Page 3: Group Creativity and Team Innovation Bernard Nijstad University of Amsterdam](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649c825503460f9493a0a5/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
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
![Page 4: Group Creativity and Team Innovation Bernard Nijstad University of Amsterdam](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649c825503460f9493a0a5/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
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
![Page 5: Group Creativity and Team Innovation Bernard Nijstad University of Amsterdam](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649c825503460f9493a0a5/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Pablo Picasso
![Page 6: Group Creativity and Team Innovation Bernard Nijstad University of Amsterdam](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649c825503460f9493a0a5/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Emily Dickenson
![Page 7: Group Creativity and Team Innovation Bernard Nijstad University of Amsterdam](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649c825503460f9493a0a5/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Thomas Edison
![Page 8: Group Creativity and Team Innovation Bernard Nijstad University of Amsterdam](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649c825503460f9493a0a5/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
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)
![Page 9: Group Creativity and Team Innovation Bernard Nijstad University of Amsterdam](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649c825503460f9493a0a5/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
![Page 10: Group Creativity and Team Innovation Bernard Nijstad University of Amsterdam](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649c825503460f9493a0a5/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
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
![Page 11: Group Creativity and Team Innovation Bernard Nijstad University of Amsterdam](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649c825503460f9493a0a5/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
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)
![Page 12: Group Creativity and Team Innovation Bernard Nijstad University of Amsterdam](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649c825503460f9493a0a5/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
![Page 13: Group Creativity and Team Innovation Bernard Nijstad University of Amsterdam](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649c825503460f9493a0a5/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
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)
![Page 14: Group Creativity and Team Innovation Bernard Nijstad University of Amsterdam](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649c825503460f9493a0a5/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
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:1. Newness to the unit of adoption (relative
rather than absolute)2. Implementation is crucial (e.g., West, 2002)
![Page 15: Group Creativity and Team Innovation Bernard Nijstad University of Amsterdam](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649c825503460f9493a0a5/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Innovation implementation
![Page 16: Group Creativity and Team Innovation Bernard Nijstad University of Amsterdam](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649c825503460f9493a0a5/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
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
![Page 17: Group Creativity and Team Innovation Bernard Nijstad University of Amsterdam](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649c825503460f9493a0a5/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Some history
• In psychology interest started in the 1950s: Guilford, 1950; Mednick, 1962; Torrance, 1969; Stein, 1975)
• Initial focus on divergent thinking
![Page 18: Group Creativity and Team Innovation Bernard Nijstad University of Amsterdam](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649c825503460f9493a0a5/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
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’”
![Page 19: Group Creativity and Team Innovation Bernard Nijstad University of Amsterdam](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649c825503460f9493a0a5/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
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)
![Page 20: Group Creativity and Team Innovation Bernard Nijstad University of Amsterdam](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649c825503460f9493a0a5/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
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
![Page 21: Group Creativity and Team Innovation Bernard Nijstad University of Amsterdam](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649c825503460f9493a0a5/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
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)
![Page 22: Group Creativity and Team Innovation Bernard Nijstad University of Amsterdam](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649c825503460f9493a0a5/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Evaluation apprehension
![Page 23: Group Creativity and Team Innovation Bernard Nijstad University of Amsterdam](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649c825503460f9493a0a5/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
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)
![Page 24: Group Creativity and Team Innovation Bernard Nijstad University of Amsterdam](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649c825503460f9493a0a5/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
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)
![Page 25: Group Creativity and Team Innovation Bernard Nijstad University of Amsterdam](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649c825503460f9493a0a5/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
The creativity perspective
1. 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
2. The reality of groups and teams• Refocus: what determines (high quality)
group creative output?• Comparing groups with other groups
![Page 26: Group Creativity and Team Innovation Bernard Nijstad University of Amsterdam](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649c825503460f9493a0a5/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
A few recent examples
Effect of Direction Reference
Membership change + Choi & Thompson, 2005; Nemeth et al., 2007
Positive moods + Grawitch et al., 2003
need for closure (time pressure, dispositional)
- Chirumbolo et al., 2005
Previous competitive interaction
+ (originality)
Beersma & De Dreu, 2005
Individualism + (originality)
Goncalo & Staw, 2006
![Page 27: Group Creativity and Team Innovation Bernard Nijstad University of Amsterdam](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649c825503460f9493a0a5/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
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.”
![Page 28: Group Creativity and Team Innovation Bernard Nijstad University of Amsterdam](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649c825503460f9493a0a5/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
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)
![Page 29: Group Creativity and Team Innovation Bernard Nijstad University of Amsterdam](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649c825503460f9493a0a5/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
A few examples
Effect of Direction Reference
Task autonomy, intrinsic motivation
+ West, 2003; Amabile et al., 1996; Kim & Leigh, 1985
Team climate (safety, support)
+ West & Anderson, 1996; Anderson & West, 1998
Team diversity and leadership
+ Shin & Zhou, 2007; Somech, 2006
Team diversity and interdependence
+ Van der Vegt & Janssen, 2003
![Page 30: Group Creativity and Team Innovation Bernard Nijstad University of Amsterdam](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649c825503460f9493a0a5/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
In sum…
“Somehow it fills my head with ideas — only I don’t exactly know what they are!”
![Page 31: Group Creativity and Team Innovation Bernard Nijstad University of Amsterdam](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649c825503460f9493a0a5/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
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
![Page 32: Group Creativity and Team Innovation Bernard Nijstad University of Amsterdam](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649c825503460f9493a0a5/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Motivated information processing in groups (MIP-G)
De Dreu, Nijstad, & Van Knippenberg, 2008
1. Groups performing cognitive tasks can be conceptualized as information processors (Hinsz, Tindale, & Vollrath, 1997)
• Individual level processing (encoding, retrieval, etc)• Group level communication
2. Group members provide the resources (KSA)
3. Trough information processing the member contributions are turned into a group product
![Page 33: Group Creativity and Team Innovation Bernard Nijstad University of Amsterdam](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649c825503460f9493a0a5/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Motivation and information processing
1. Information processing can be shallow and deep (cf. dual process models): epistemic motivation
2. Information processing can be directed at individual or collective goals (cf. mixed motive tasks, e.g., negotiations): social motivation
![Page 34: Group Creativity and Team Innovation Bernard Nijstad University of Amsterdam](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649c825503460f9493a0a5/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
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 (+)
![Page 35: Group Creativity and Team Innovation Bernard Nijstad University of Amsterdam](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649c825503460f9493a0a5/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
For example: High need for structure
![Page 36: Group Creativity and Team Innovation Bernard Nijstad University of Amsterdam](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649c825503460f9493a0a5/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
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 (+)
![Page 37: Group Creativity and Team Innovation Bernard Nijstad University of Amsterdam](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649c825503460f9493a0a5/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
Social motivation (TEAM)
![Page 38: Group Creativity and Team Innovation Bernard Nijstad University of Amsterdam](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649c825503460f9493a0a5/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
The different combinations
Low EM, Pro-self:
Lack of task interest, social loafing
Low EM, Pro-social:
Focus on harmony, groupthink
High EM, Pro-self:
Strategic behavior, lying and deception
High EM, Pro-social:
Deliberative integration of information, high creativity and innovation
![Page 39: Group Creativity and Team Innovation Bernard Nijstad University of Amsterdam](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649c825503460f9493a0a5/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
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
![Page 40: Group Creativity and Team Innovation Bernard Nijstad University of Amsterdam](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649c825503460f9493a0a5/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
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
![Page 41: Group Creativity and Team Innovation Bernard Nijstad University of Amsterdam](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649c825503460f9493a0a5/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
Study 1 & 2:Group creativity
• Brainstorming task: improve teaching
• Creativity: original and useful
• Three dependent variables:– Fluency (# ideas)– Originality– Feasibility
![Page 42: Group Creativity and Team Innovation Bernard Nijstad University of Amsterdam](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649c825503460f9493a0a5/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
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)
![Page 43: Group Creativity and Team Innovation Bernard Nijstad University of Amsterdam](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649c825503460f9493a0a5/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
Results (Study 1): Fluency
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
Flu
ency
Low EM High EM
Epistemic Motivation
Pro-self
Pro-social
![Page 44: Group Creativity and Team Innovation Bernard Nijstad University of Amsterdam](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649c825503460f9493a0a5/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
Results (Study 1): Originality
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
2.2
2.4
Ori
gin
alit
y
Low EM High EM
Epistemic Motivation
Pro-self
Pro-social
![Page 45: Group Creativity and Team Innovation Bernard Nijstad University of Amsterdam](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649c825503460f9493a0a5/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
Results (Study 1): Feasibility
2
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3
3.2
3.4
3.6
Fea
sib
ilit
y
Low EM High EM
Epistemic Motivation
Pro-self
Pro-social
![Page 46: Group Creativity and Team Innovation Bernard Nijstad University of Amsterdam](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649c825503460f9493a0a5/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
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
![Page 47: Group Creativity and Team Innovation Bernard Nijstad University of Amsterdam](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649c825503460f9493a0a5/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
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)
![Page 48: Group Creativity and Team Innovation Bernard Nijstad University of Amsterdam](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649c825503460f9493a0a5/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
Results (Study 2): Fluency
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Low Agree High Agree
Agreeableness (SM)
Flu
ency Low EM
High EM
![Page 49: Group Creativity and Team Innovation Bernard Nijstad University of Amsterdam](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649c825503460f9493a0a5/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
Results (Study 2): Originality
11,21,41,61,8
22,22,42,62,8
3
Low Agree High Agree
Agreeableness (SM)
Ori
gin
alit
y
Low EM
High EM
![Page 50: Group Creativity and Team Innovation Bernard Nijstad University of Amsterdam](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649c825503460f9493a0a5/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
Results (Study 2): Feasibility
2,6
2,7
2,8
2,9
3
3,1
3,2
3,3
3,4
3,5
Low Agree High Agree
Agreeableness (SM)
Fea
sib
ilit
y
Low EM
High EM
![Page 51: Group Creativity and Team Innovation Bernard Nijstad University of Amsterdam](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649c825503460f9493a0a5/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
Conclusions Study 2
• The combination of high EM and pro-social motivation led to:– Higher fluency– High originality– Relatively high feasibility (correlation
originality-feasibility r = -.70)
• More good ideas! (Both original and feasible)
![Page 52: Group Creativity and Team Innovation Bernard Nijstad University of Amsterdam](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649c825503460f9493a0a5/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
Study 3: Top management team innovation
• N = 36 top management teams, team size: 3-17, Average company size: 1750 employees
• Questionnaire team members (N = 196)– Minority dissent (EM): 4 items, α = .68 (e.g.,
“individuals disagree with the rest of the team”)– Participative safety (SM): 8 items, α = .84 (e.g., “We
have a ‘we are in it together’ mentality”)• Interview with CEO: list innovations and judge
them on radicalness and effectiveness – Number– Radicalness and effectiveness– Number of high quality innovations
![Page 53: Group Creativity and Team Innovation Bernard Nijstad University of Amsterdam](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649c825503460f9493a0a5/html5/thumbnails/53.jpg)
Results (Study 3)
• On number of innovations: – only a main effect of minority dissent (MD): ß = .61, p < .01
• On average radicalness– A minority dissent X participative safety (PS) interaction: ß = .40,
p < .05• Low PS: ß = -.35 (ns)• High PS: ß = .19 (ns)
• On average effectiveness– No effects
• On number of influential innovations:– A minority dissent X participative safety (PS) interaction: ß = .46,
p < .05 (next slide)
![Page 54: Group Creativity and Team Innovation Bernard Nijstad University of Amsterdam](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649c825503460f9493a0a5/html5/thumbnails/54.jpg)
The interaction
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
MD low MD high
Nu
mb
er
PS low
PS high
![Page 55: Group Creativity and Team Innovation Bernard Nijstad University of Amsterdam](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649c825503460f9493a0a5/html5/thumbnails/55.jpg)
Conclusion Study 3
• Minority dissent as a proxy for EM leads to more innovations (main effect)
• These are only turned into high quality innovations with high levels of participative safety (as a a proxy for SM)
![Page 56: Group Creativity and Team Innovation Bernard Nijstad University of Amsterdam](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649c825503460f9493a0a5/html5/thumbnails/56.jpg)
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
![Page 57: Group Creativity and Team Innovation Bernard Nijstad University of Amsterdam](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649c825503460f9493a0a5/html5/thumbnails/57.jpg)
Discussion
• MIP-G model can potentially integrate many findings
• For example:– Heterogeneity may associate with EM (Van
Knippenberg et al., 2004)– Task reflexivity and EM (e.g., De Dreu, 2002)– Task interdependence and SM (Van der Vegt &
Janssen, 2003)– Transformational leadership and SM (Shin & Zhou,
2007)• We need direct evidence, and some issues
remain
![Page 58: Group Creativity and Team Innovation Bernard Nijstad University of Amsterdam](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649c825503460f9493a0a5/html5/thumbnails/58.jpg)
Standing out and fitting in
• Willingness to stand out and SM– Previous competitive, not pro-social
interaction (Beersma & De Dreu, 2005)– Individualism, not collectivism (Goncalo &
Staw, 2006)
• Besides SM, one also needs high EM (otherwise focus on harmony)
• Standing out can be perceived to be in the interest of the group
![Page 59: Group Creativity and Team Innovation Bernard Nijstad University of Amsterdam](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649c825503460f9493a0a5/html5/thumbnails/59.jpg)
Cultural differences
• Study in Korea, with different results– Time pressure X incentive schemes– High epistemic motivation + pro-social
motivation increased feasibility (not originality)
• Reason– What is important for the group? What are
collective goals?– Relations vs. task; originality vs. tradition
![Page 60: Group Creativity and Team Innovation Bernard Nijstad University of Amsterdam](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022062421/56649c825503460f9493a0a5/html5/thumbnails/60.jpg)
Conclusion
• The combination of high epistemic motivation and high pro-social motivation leads groups to systematic and deep information processing to reach group goals
• High levels of creativity and innovation follow if this is perceived to be in the interest of the group