individual creativity and group ability to utilize individual creative resources

7/27/2019 Individual Creativity and Group Ability to Utilize Individual Creative Resources

1/16

c Academy of Management Journal2002, Vol. 45, No. 2, 315-330.

INDIVIDUALCREATIVITYAND GROUPABILITY TO UTI'II.ZEINDIVIDUALCREATIVERESOURCES:A MULTILEVELMODELSIMON TAGGARYork University

The performance of 94 groups on 13 different open-ended tasks was studied. At theindividual-team-memberlevel, domain knowledge and performance-relevantbehav-ioral measures of the three componentsof Amabile's (1983, 1996) theory of individualcreativity related in predicted ways to individual differences. Supportwas found fornew cross-level processes, labeled teamcreativity-relevant processes. At the grouplevel, these processes moderated the relationship between aggregatedindividual cre-ativity and group creativity.

Companies try numerous strategies to foster cre-ativity, including restructuring work, selecting peo-ple on the basis of their attributes, and behavioraltraining; however, these strategies are often unsuc-cessful (Barron & Harrington, 1981; Farr, 1990;Hocevar & Bachelor, 1989). Some organizationsform autonomous work teams that are tasked withidentifying and solving ill-defined or poorly struc-tured problems that require creative thought (Can-non-Bowers, Oser, & Flanagan, 1992; Goodman,Ravlin, &Argote, 1986). Given the increasing use ofteams to foster creativity (Mohrman, Cohen, &Mohr-man, 1995; Tesluk, Farr, & Klein, 1997), it is sur-prising that little is known about the social behav-ior that determines a group's ability to utilizeindividual creative resources effectively.The primary purpose of this study was to allowme to look simultaneously at individual and groupcreativity, their determinants, and their interrela-tionships. The conceptual framework that formsthe backbone of this study is afforded by Amabile's(1983, 1996) componential theory of individualcreativity, which allows for the impact of socialinfluences on individual creativity. According tothe theory, a product or response is creative whenobservers independently agree that it is novel andappropriate, useful, correct, or valuable to the taskat hand, and when that task is open-ended andappropriately carried out via discovery rather thanvia a predetermined step-by-step procedure.To date, creativity studies have generally focusedat only one level of analysis at a time (Sternberg &Lubart, 1999; Woodman, Sawyer, & Griffin, 1993).

The authorthanksJohnUsher, JayneTaggar,and thisjournal'seditor and three anonymousreviewers for theirinsightful criticisms, encouragement,andhelpful sugges-tions, which greatlyimproved this article.

Neuman and Wright (1999) argued for the impor-tance of examining relationships at both the indi-vidual and group levels. Below, the rationale for amultilevel model of group creativity on open-ended tasks that require creativity is developed(Figure 1), beginning with the individual level ofanalysis. Next, we develop a group-level model toassert the importance of a group's ability to utilizeindividual resources effectively.

Factors Influencing Individual-LevelCreative OutputsAmabile's (1983, 1996) componential theory ofindividual creativity predicts that task motivation,domain-relevant skills, and creativity-relevant pro-cesses are important components for individual

creativity and that there are individual differencesin levels of the three components. Mounting empir-ical evidence demonstrates that individuals aremore creative when they possess higher levels ofthese components (Conti, Coon, & Amabile, 1996;Ruscio, Whitney, & Amabile, 1998). In addition,according to the theory, the work environmentshould affect individual creativity, especiallythrough the motivational component. The theoryalso suggests that group creativity depends on boththe levels of the individual components in mem-bers of a group and the group's work environment.Components of individual creativity. Accordingto the componential theory of individual creativity,task motivation is both a state and a relatively sta-ble trait (Amabile, Hill, Hennessey, & Tighe, 1994)demonstrated by a general and pervasive orienta-tion toward one's work (Amabile, 1996: 116). In-trinsic motivation and, recent evidence suggests, afew very narrow forms of synergistic extrinsic mo-tivators that encourage high levels of task involve-

315

This content downloaded from 130.237.165.40 on Fri, 31 Jan 2014 04:22:55 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


2/16

Academy of Management JournalFIGURE 1Multilevel Latent Variable Model of Team Performance on Tasks Requiring Creativitya

Individual Individual Individual-Level Group-Level Group-LevelDifferences Behaviors Creativity Process Creativity(Aggregated)Agreeableness H7Extraversion - TCRP TCRPH5 H6Conscientiousness ^4- 04)H1) .37**

(.04) TM.65*** (.03) H4General H2: .60*** (.04) .38** (.04 Individual GroupCRP 55** (.04)

H3:.72*** (.04)Openness toExperience

a The path from team creativity-relevant processes to creativity-relevant processes was added with a coefficient of .36* (.04). Reportedpath coefficients are standardized.**p < .01

***p< .001

ment, are important elements of task motivation(Collins & Amabile, 1999; Sternberg & Lubart,1999). Task motivation can be indicated by behav-iors related to the amount and persistence of effort.Amabile and colleagues (1994), in their study ofartists, found that intrinsically motivated peopleshowed greater commitment and devoted moretime to task completion. Ruscio and coauthors(1998) found that behavior related to involvementin the task was associated with intrinsic motiva-tion. Motivated individuals showed deep levels ofinvolvement in problems by focusing on solvingthem, minimizing distractions,and being absorbedin work (Ruscio et al., 1998: 261).The domain-relevant-skills component of cre-ativity represents the ability to learn certain typesof domain-specific knowledge (Amabile, 1996). Do-main-relevant skills require familiaritywith the do-main in question-memory of factual knowledge,technical proficiency, opinions about various ques-tions in the domain, knowledge of paradigms, per-formance scripts for solving problems in the do-main, and aesthetic criteria (Ruscio et al., 1998).Domain-relevant skills may be indicated by mea-sures of an individual's depth and breadth ofknowledge related to the problems to be solved bya team.

Creativity-relevant processes determine theflexibility with which cognitive pathways are ex-plored, the attention given to particular aspects ofthe task, and the extent to which a particular path-

way is followed in pursuit of a solution (Amabile,1996: 95). Creativity-relevantprocesses are associ-ated with a cognitive style favorable to takingnewperspectives on problems,an application of heuris-tics for the exploration of new cognitive pathways,and a working style conducive to persistence (Am-abile, 1983, 1996). Ruscio and coauthors (1998)described possible behavioral indicators of crea-tivity-relevant processes. These behaviors includegoal setting and responses to challenge. In terms ofresponses to challenge, one may expect preparationbehaviorpriorto groupmeetings and active partic-ipation in group problem-solvingactivities. Appro-priate work orientation and cognitive style alongwith knowledge of heuristics for generatingnovelideas will likely result in an individual asking rel-evant questions, offering ideas, and building onothers' contributions.Antecedents of creativity components. Am-abile's (1983, 1996) components of individual cre-ativity represent the potential for behaviorsand may be indicated by performance-relevantteam member behavior. Similarly, the five-factormodel traits (Costa&McCrae,1992) and generalcognitive ability (Ree &Carretta,1998), also rep-resent the potential for behavior. The five-factor-model traits-which are conscientiousness, open-ness to experience, agreeableness, extraversion,and emotional stability-and general cognitiveability can be thoughtof as causing taskmotivation,domain-relevantskills, and creativity-relevantpro-

316 April



3/16

Taggarcesses. One of the benefits of this conceptualizationis that it allows understanding the antecedents tocreativity at the broadest level, using previouslyvalidated constructs.

Although the five-factormodel has been used asa way of viewing the abundantresearch on person-ality correlates of creativity, few researchershaveexamined the relationships between creativity andpersonality variables that are actually measured atthe five-factor-model level (Feist, 1999: 288) or be-tween the model's traits and the components ofcreativity. The five-factor model (1) allows forcon-sistency amongresearch efforts and a direct way ofsynthesizing results, (2) calls attention to generalpersonality characteristics that are more stronglyrelated to job performance than narrow specificdimensions, (3) can yield significant uncorrectedvalidity coefficients of .30 or higher, and (4) pro-vides increments in predictive validity over andabove the predictive validity of cognitive abilitytests (Hogan,1991).The current indecisiveness about the cognitiveability-creativity relationship may exist becausemost researchershave focused on specific abilities.There is a growing acceptance of the empiricalfinding that cognitive ability is best conceptualizedas a unitaryconstruct.Ability tests largelymeasuregeneral cognitive ability, which predicts jobperfor-mance criteria with greater utility than specificabilities (Ree & Carretta, 1998; Ree &Earles, 1996).Conscientious people are intrinsically motivatedand task-involved, innately resourceful, enterpris-ing, thorough, industrious, organized, energetic,and willing to overcome obstacles, and they feelwell prepared to deal with life (Costa & McCrae,1992). They can motivate themselves to get a jobdone and to do it well and have a greater disregardforsocial approvaland tangiblerewards than thoselow in conscientiousness (Costa&McCrae,1992).Accordingly, conscientiousness may be one ante-cedent of task motivation (as measured by perfor-mance-relevantteam memberbehavior).Figure 1 shows the multilevel model of teamperformanceon tasks requiringcreativity,which isoutlined in the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1. There is a positive associationbetween conscientiousness and the specific be-havioral measures of task motivation.One cannot be truly creative unless one knows agood deal about a particulararea and has the skillsnecessary to produce in that area. Individualshigher on general cognitive ability generally per-form better on measures of the knowledge, skills,and techniques required for a job (Ree & Earles,1996). People high in general cognitive ability are

better at informationprocessing (Schmidt, Hunter,& Perlman, 1981) and adapting to new situationsthrough learning quickly and better applying oldlearning (Hunter,1986). A likely standardindivid-ual differenceantecedent of domain-relevantskillsis innate cognitive ability (Contiet al., 1996; Feist,1999).Hypothesis 2. There is a positive associationbetweengeneral cognitive ability and domain-relevant skills.Creativity-relevant processes involve breakingperceptual sets, breakingcognitive sets, and tryingnew problem-solvingstrategies.A germane person-ality trait antecedent of creativity-relevant pro-cesses, as measuredby specific behaviors within ateam context, may be openness to experience. Peo-ple who are open to experience are imaginative,open to varied perspectives, and tolerant of ambi-guity (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Openness to ex-perience is most likely to enhance generativethinking, which consists of divergent thinking,including remoteassociation and patternswitching(Guilford,1984), by encouraginggroupmemberstoapply nontraditional thinking, fantasy, and imagi-nation during problem solving. McCrae (1987)found that people who were open to experiencewere more likely to engage in divergent thinking,and King, Walker, and Broyles (1996) found theyscored higher on verbal creativity. Feist (1999)speculated that open people may have an interest

in seeking sensation and more varied experiences,and this experientialbase may serve as the founda-tion of flexibility and fluency of thinking.Hypothesis 3. There is a positive associationbetweenopenness to experience and creativity-relevant processes, as measured by groupmember behavior.

Group-Level AnalysesBoth group and individual outcomes may be af-fected by the intragroupprocess behaviors of groupmembers. These behaviors, which I refer to asteam creativity-relevantprocesses, may include(1) inspirational motivation: inspiring group mem-bers to elevate their goals (Bass & Avolio, 1994;Brophy, 1998); (2) organization and coordination:providing feedback, organizing, and coordinatingcontributions (Brophy, 1998); and (3) individual-ized consideration: eliciting and appreciating dif-ferentideas, needs, and viewpoints (Bass&Avolio,1994; Brophy, 1998).Solution originalityand quality should rise whengroup members are encouraged to view problems

2002 317



4/16

Academy of Management Journal

differently, redefine problems, extend informationsearches, and produce high-quality ideas duringpreparation for problem solving. Group creativeperformance s likely to be improvedwith effectivetaskallocation, taskvariety,coordinationof diverseefforts, and careful planning (Brophy,1998). Eval-uation or feedbackthat is informative or construc-tive can be conducive to creativity (Collins &Am-abile, 1999). By encouraging consideration andrecognition of each groupmember'sviewpoint andideas, individualized consideration should lead toan expanded source of knowledge and informationfor group members to use in preparationfor prob-lem solving and in response validation (cf. Brass,1995). Further,involving others may improve so-cial facilitation and increase the production pres-sure coming from other group members (Hackman& Morris, 1975).Groups should performbest when they containcreative group members and effective team crea-tivity-relevant processes. That is, these processesmay act as a moderator(Figure1). Furthermore, hepresence of highly creative individuals may notameliorate the negative effects of a scarcity of in-spirational motivation, organization,coordination,and individualized consideration. I expected tofind that the strength of the relationship betweenaggregated ndividual creativity and group creativ-ity improves with effective team creativity-relevantprocesses.

Hypothesis 4. Group creativity on open-endedtasks will be an interactive function of aggre-gated individual creativityand the specific be-haviors within a team that measure team cre-ativity-relevant processes, in such a way thattherelationship betweenaggregated ndividualcreativity and group creative output will bestrongerwhen group members collectively ex-hibit higher amounts of behavior relevant toteam creativity-relevantprocesses.

Individual-Level Antecedents of Team Creativity-Relevant ProcessesJustas standard ndividual differencesmay causetask motivation, domain-relevant skills, and cre-ativity-relevant processes, they may also predis-pose an individual to display effective intragroupprocess behavior (team creativity-relevant pro-cesses at the individual level). Therefore, the lastpurpose of this study was to test whether standardindividual differences predict team creativity-rele-vant processes at the individual level.Extravertsare sociable, enthusiastic, energetic,and optimistic. Their social confidence and social

prowess may be importantfor the organizationandcoordination of team member activity in contextsthat require high amounts of social interaction.Barry and Stewart (1997) found that extravertsstimulate discussion and have high performanceexpectations. This observationsuggests that extra-verts may contribute to individualized consider-ation and inspirational motivation behavior.Hypothesis 5. There is a positive associationbetween an individual's extraversion and hisor her intragroup process behavior (team cre-ativity-relevant processes at the individuallevel).Conscientious people tend to be self-motivatedand task-oriented (Costa&McCrae,1992), charac-teristics that result in attention to requiredbehav-iors and goal accomplishment (LePine,Hollenbeck,Ilgen, &Hedlund, 1997). Conscientiousness may be

important for several components of intragroupprocess behavior, including inspiring group mem-bers,encouraging participation,andkeeping a teamfocused on a task (Aronoff&Wilson, 1985; Barrick& Mount, 1993; Costa & McCrae, 1992). Neumanand Wright(1999) found that conscientious peoplewere likely to display organization and coordina-tion behaviors.Hypothesis 6. There is a positive associationbetween an individual's conscientiousness andhis or her intragroupprocess behavior.Agreeable group members tend to be trusted,straightforward,altruistic, compliant, and modest(Costa &McCrae, 1992). Agreeable group membersare likely to cooperate with other team members.The facets of altruism, trust, and tender-minded-ness should enhance the interpersonal skills re-quired to elicit and appreciate others' contribu-tions. These facets should convey to others in ateam a genuine concern for their well-being and awillingness to work with them rather than againstthem. In addition, the facets of compliance andstraightforwardness should indicate to others awillingness to relate in a sincere and open mannerand, consequently, facilitate information-seekingand conflict resolution behaviors.Hypothesis 7. There is a positive associationbetween an individual's agreeableness and hisor her intragroupprocess behavior.Team creativity-relevantprocesses may also rep-resent a cross-level process wherein aggregatedteam creativity-relevant processes are social influ-ences affectingindividual-level creativity.Amabile(1996) hypothesized that social influences affectindividual creativityprimarily,but not exclusively,

318 April



5/16

Taggar

through task motivation. In support of this asser-tion, Collins and Amabile (1999), in their review ofthe literature,proposed thatbehaviorsthat supporta sense of competence, without undermininga per-son's sense of self-determination, and attune thatindividual to outcome requirements, enhance themotivational component of creativity. Likewise,team creativity-relevant processes that encourageand inspire othergroup membersto link their self-concepts to the collective interests of a group andits mission may increase others' intrinsic motiva-tion to work collectively (Shamir,House, &Arthur,1993). Finally, Collins and Amabile (1999) notedthatexternal motivatorshelp creativeproductiontothe extent that they generatecontinued attentiontothe task at hand. Consequently, to complete theindividual-level model, I added a link between thegroup-level variable team creativity-relevant pro-cesses (additively defined) and the task motivationof individual group members (Figure1).

Hypothesis 8. Team creativity-relevant pro-cesses, as measuredby specificbehaviorswithina team context (aggregated), epresenta contex-tual variable that will be positively associatedwithgreater ndividual task motivation.METHODS

Participants, Procedures, and TasksParticipants were 480 undergraduate business

students in a Canadianuniversity's organizationalbehavior/human resources managementcourse; 58percent of the participants were women, and par-ticipants' average age was 21 (s.d. = 3.55). Eachparticipant was randomly assigned to one of ninesections. Within each section, participants self-selected themselves as membersof groupsof five orsix. In all, there were 94 groups ranging n size fromfive (n = 84) to six (n = 10) individuals. Of aparticipant's overall course grade, 20 percent wasallocated to his or her groups' output over a 13-week period. There were no missing data.Participantsremainedin the samegroupsto com-plete 13 exercises, a different one each week. Allgroups did the same exercises. Group creativityresearch has generally involved single-part tasksthatrequireindividuals to ideate names or uses orconsequences of a thing, or ideate ways to achievea goal (Brophy, 1998: 213), in short-lived groupsin contrived laboratorysettings. Tasks in this studydiffered from those in previous studies in threeways: interactive groups completed a variety ofmultipart, open-ended tasks, over a 13-week pe-riod, under constraints that required the activemanagementof time and other resources.

As is the case in many organizational ettings, askswere complex and varied; they involved problemidentificationof the sorttypical in managementcasestudies;decision making, n activities such as gener-ating options, products,or services or pickingevalu-ation criteriaand applyingthe criteria; eekingaddi-tional information, by, for instance, conductinglibraryresearch or seeking subject matter experts;criticalthinking,as in critical evaluationof newspa-per articles;buildingconsensus on how best to han-dle problems;generatingactionplans; implementingplans; evaluatingoutcomes and changing decision-makingandprocessheuristics in futuresessions;andgenerating eports.Minimumguidancewas providedon how to completetasks; he basic task was unstruc-turedand oftenrequired omeimprovisation.Groupswere required to complete their tasks within 50-minute sessions. TheAppendixprovides examplesoftwo criteriontasks.The tasksused in most previouscreative problem solving research(for instance, re-searchon brainstorming roups)minimize-indeed,may eliminate-the need for the intervening teamcreativity-relevant rocesses,such aschallengingoth-ers' assumptions;however, the more realistic tasksused in this study called forthese behaviors.An external judge scored the weekly reportsandprovided weekly feedbackon groupcreativity. Theexternal judge's ratings constituted the group cre-ativity measure. This evaluator (who had recentlygraduatedwith a bachelor of commerceundergrad-uate degree and was hired by the university as aninstructional assistant) was independent of the re-search group and blind to study hypotheses. Eachweek, groups received feedback on the previousweek's report. For each group, feedback consistedof a number grade and a written evaluation aboutone page long. The written evaluation and themarkingscheme were based equally upon the ap-propriatenessof the solution, idea, orproduct; orig-inality; elaboration (amount of detail); and, whenappropriate,fluency (total number of relevant re-sponses). Since this judge did all of the perfor-mance scoring and was present in the group prob-lem-solving sessions, a second judge was asked toscore a randomsample of 40 reportsto assess if thecriteria were robust across judges. The secondjudge was a graduate student in psychology whodid not observe group sessions and scored reportsafterweek 13 of the study. Analyzing the ratingsofthe two judges resulted in a interraterreliabilitycoefficient of .85 (p < .001).In week 11 of the study, the critical incident tech-nique (CIT;Flanagan,1954) was used to gather spe-cific examples of (in)effectivebehaviors displayedby group members. CIT is a useful initial step indeveloping performanceassessment tools (Latham&

319002



6/16


Wexley, 1994). Each critical incident card askedgroup members to think about their group experienceover the weeks that their group had worked togetherand recall one example each of effective and ineffec-tive group member behavior that they had personallyobserved. Each group member completed at least onecard each for effective and ineffective behavior, andno group member contributed more than four inci-dents.The generation of behavioral observation scalesfrom the participants' critical incident cards involvedthe steps outlined in detail by Latham and Wexley(1994). An abbreviated overview follows. Two doc-toral students (sorters)who were familiar with criticalincident analysis sorted the 1,356 critical incidentcards into meaningful clusters. Clusters were givendescriptive dimension labels by the judges. Next, twoother doctoral students (the judges) received the samecritical incidents in random order and worked to-gether to reclassify the incidents according to thedescriptive dimension labels established by the sort-ers. The ratio of correctly classified incidents to thetotal number of incidents for each cluster was greaterthan .80 and was thus deemed adequate. The behav-ioral observation scale were developed so that themajor dimensions, the most frequently occurring in-cidents, and the incidents judged by group membersas the most important were represented. The individ-ual team member creativity measures were added tothe behavioral observation scale. All items were inrandom order. Peer assessments using these scalesoccurred in week 13 (the last week) of the study.Measures

Individual difference variables. Measures of in-dividual differences were obtained in week 12 of thestudy. Five-factor-model traits were measured by therevised NEO Personality Inventory (Costa &McCrae,1992). The inventory has sound psychometric prop-erties (Costa & McCrae, 1992; Hogan, 1991) and isvalid and reliable when administered to college stu-dents (Costa &McCrae, 1992). Cronbach's alphas, cal-culated from the six facets composing each five-factor-model trait, ranged from .84 to .72 in mysample.General cognitive ability was measured by theWonderlic Personnel Test. The test has sound reli-ability (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. Thebehavioral observation scale contained 14 dimen-sions composed of 46 behavioral items, of which 16described ineffective group member behaviors. The

scale was given to each participant to fill out on eachfellow group member. No self-ratings were made. Ta-ble 1 shows the dimensions and sample items. Eachdimension contained at least two behavioral items.The behavioral markers are not necessarily exhaus-tive; rather, they represent critical incidents occur-ring most frequently and rated by team members asmost important for the tasks in this study.Behavioral observation scale dimensions wereassociated with the components of creativity withreference to the work of the theorists and research-ers reviewed earlier and with a content validitytest. To support the content validity of the categor-ical assignments, I wrote each dimension of thescale on a card along with its component items anddistributed the cards to ten faculty peers and 19graduate students who were asked to classify therandomly ordered scales into one of four categories-task motivation, creativity-relevant processes, teamcreativity-relevant processes, and other. Each judgewas provided with a detailed definition of each cat-egory. The judges correctly classified the dimensionsto the proper a priori categories more than 80 percentof the time. This classification procedure is similar tothat used by Mackenzie, Podsakoff, and Fetter (1991).

Participants completed three midterm exams(each marked out of 12) and a final exam (markedout of 30) that were designed to assess knowledgeof the course content. These exam marks wereadded to form a measure of each participant's do-main-relevant skills.In order to claim that a group's team creativity-relevant processes created the environment for eachindividual in the group, I eliminated self-ratingswhen aggregating scores on the performance criteriaused to measure team creativity-relevant processes.Performance criteria. Individual group membercreativity was an average of peer assessments (thatis, for most groups it was the average of four peerratings of an individual) obtained in week 13 of thestudy. This procedure was consistent with Am-abile's (1996). Each group member was informedthat creative participation should be both noveland useful. Individual group member creativitywas assessed by a global measure that asked howcreative a particular group member had been rela-tive to other group members over the 13-week du-ration of the study. In addition, they were givenEvan's (1991) definition of individual creativity: (1)discovers new relationships, (2) looks at subjectsfrom new perspectives, and (3) forms new combi-nations from old concepts. Responses were madeon a Likert scale, ranging from almost never (1) toalmost always (5). For all four items, Cronbach'salpha was adequate at .76, and the average interra-ter agreement statistics (rWG;ames, Demaree, &

320 April



7/16

TABLE 1Behavioral Observation Scale Measures of the Components of Creativitya

Creativity Component Dimension Sample ItemsTaskmotivation

Creativity-relevant rocesses

Teamcreativity-relevantprocesses

Team commitmentFocus on the task at hand

PreparationSynthesis of the team's ideas

Goalsetting/strategy o achieve team goals

Participation

TeamcitizenshipPerformancemanagement

Effectivecommunication

Involving others

Providingfeedback

Reaction to conflictAddresses conflict

Averts conflict

Misses team meetings (R)/Comes oteam meetings late (R)Draws team membersinto off-topicdiscussions (R)/Remindsotherteammembersof the team'sgoalBringsthe requiredmaterial to the teammeetingsBuilds on the group's by offeringsolutions/Summarizesand organizesthe group'sideasDoes not participate n setting goals (R)/Participates n developing strategiesto achieve team goalsOffers deas/asks relevant questions/Accepts team roles and tasks asrequiredVolunteersto do things that no one elsewants to doAssigns tasks and roles to teammembers/Sets time deadlines for

achieving tasksDominatesthe discussion (R)/Carefullylistens to what others are saying (e.g.,maintainseye contact,nods, etc.)Clarifies and explains issues whensomeone does not understand/Asksother team members what they thinkCriticizesothers'contributions

(suggestions,ideas, and behaviour)without offeringalternatives(R)/Sayspositive things to team membersregarding heir performanceLeaves a conflict unresolved by movingon to anothertopic (R)

Providesan alternative solution that isagreeable o other team memberswhen a conflict occurs

Resorts to personalattacks when aproblemarises (R)a Items comprise the behavioral observation scale administered to participants. R denotes reverse-scoring.Domain-relevantskillswere measuredby 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 be-tween aggregated individual creativity and groupcreativity. Aggregate individual creativity was ob-tained by summing the creativity ratings of eachmember in the group. Group creativity was theaverage score on 13 written reports; that is, theexternal judge's ratings constituted the group cre-ativity measure. There was one report for each ex-ercise. 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 groupcreativity scores, the interrater agreement and in-traclass correlation were sufficient (rWG .81; ICC[3, 13] = .90; Shrout & Fleiss, 1979).Data Analysis

The behavioral observation scale factor structurewas developed using the rational method; I as-sumed that the judges grouped the incidents withunderlying processes in mind. Next, each groupmember rated each of his or her peers using thebehavioral observation scale. Using these ratings, I

2002 Taggar 321



8/16

Academy of Management Journalconducted a LISREL 8 maximum-likelihood confir-matory factor analysis (CFA; Joreskog & S6rbom,1993) to determine whether the item groupings de-veloped by the judges adequately fitted the data.At the individual level, Hypotheses 1-3 and 8were tested by a two-stage maximum-likelihoodLISREL analysis (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). Instage 1, the measurement model was fitted to thedata. Next, a measurement model specifying per-fect correlation among all latent variables was as-sessed as a means to evaluate overall discriminabil-ity. Alternative nested models, which combinedtheoretically independent constructs, were thencontrasted with the original model. Model struc-ture linkages were examined in stage 2 of the anal-ysis. The dependent variable was the average ratingof individual creativity as assessed by peers.Some variables that have been found to affectcreativity were controlled for prior to analyses;these were age, gender, and group size. The controlvariables were modeled into the causal structure byfreeing paths to individual creativity and to teamcreativity-relevant processes. Controlling for thesewas expected to mitigate some pregroup differ-ences that were created by failing to randomly as-sign participants to groups.I tested Hypotheses 6 to 7 (stating that extraver-sion, conscientiousness, and agreeableness are pos-itively associated with intragroup process behav-ior) using simultaneous regression analysis, afterfirst controlling for group size.

At the group level, to test Hypothesis 4, I performeda 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, asmeasured by the behavioral observation scales, wereentered in step 3. The aggregated interaction of indi-vidual creativity and team creativity-relevant pro-cesses was entered in step 4. Statistical significance ateach step was assessed by the change in the F-statisticassociated with the incremental increase in variancein group creativity accounted for by the variable en-tered at that step. The dependent variable here wasaverage group creativity on the 13 open-ended tasks,as assessed by the independent judge.

RESULTSIndividual-Level Analysis

Performance-relevant behaviors. CFA wasused to assess the fit of the 14 behavioral observa-tion scale dimensions to observed behaviors. Thisanalysis revealed adequate fit (root-mean-square er-ror of approximation [RMSEA] = .06, goodness-of-

fit index [GFI] = .97, comparative fit index [CFI] =.98, and normed fit index [NFI] = .96; Joreskog &S6rbom, 1993).1 A single-factor solution yielded aworse fit to the data (ACFI = .05; AX2 = 197.07,p < .001).Measurement model (stage 1). Fit indexes canbe misleading when the number of common factorsis small relative to the number of observed vari-ables (Schmit & Ryan, 1993). Therefore, unit-weighted composites of the scales measuring thebehavioral observation scale dimensions wereformed. Items of the NEO Personality Inventory Rscale were combined into six facet-level scales (in-dicator variables) for each five-factor-model trait(see Neuman &Wright, 1999). Cognitive ability anddomain-relevant skills were specified as being mea-sured by a single indicator; therefore, their errorvariances were fixed at one minus the reliabilitymultiplied by the item variance (Prussia, Kinicki, &Bracker, 1993). The alpha for cognitive ability wasset at .82 (Wonderlic & Associates, 1992), and fordomain-relevant skills, it was set at .84. In eachcase, the path from the latent factor to the manifestvariable was set equal to cr2i a.Forty-four indicator variables were used to esti-mate the measurement model: six each for consci-entiousness, extraversion, openness to experience,and agreeableness; two for task motivation; one fordomain-relevant skills; four for creativity-relevantprocesses; eight for team creativity-relevant pro-cesses; four for creativity; and one for cognitiveability. Therefore, an eight-factor model was testedwith the indicator variables constrained to theirvariable groupings.2 All measurement model factorloadings were greater than .60 (p < .05, mean = .73,s.d. = .10), indicating adequate convergent validity(J6reskog & S6rbom, 1993).A measurement concern may stem from assess-ing group member behavior and creativity on thesame instrument. Since creativity and behaviorwere determined by averaging the ratings of severalassessors, the impact of common method variancewas expected to be minimal. I used Harman'ssingle-factor procedure (Harris & Mossholder,1996) to address the common method variance con-cern. The logic underlying this approach is that if

1Factorloadings and a scree plot of eigenvalues froman oblique exploratory actoranalysis supportedthe con-firmatoryresults. This analysis is available from the au-thor upon request.2 Means, standarddeviations, and correlationsamongindicator variables are available from the author uponrequest, as are indicator variable loadings on latentfactors.

322 April



9/16

Taggarmethod variance is largely responsible for covaria-tion-here, the covariation of the behavioral obser-vation scale and creativity measures-a factor anal-ysis should yield a single factor. LISREL 8 was usedto conduct confirmatory factor analyses. A 15-factor model (14 behaviors and individual creativ-ity) was tested first. Fit indexes suggested that the15-factor model fitted reasonably well (RMSE =.07, GFI = .95, CFI = .96, and NFI = .94). In com-parison, 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 bet-ter than did the 1-factor model (ACFI = .42; AX2=203.85, p < .001). Taken together, these resultssuggest that common method variance does notpose a serious threat to interpreting the presentfindings.Zero-order correlations, descriptive statistics,and reliability coefficients for latent constructs arein Table 2. Although conscientiousness correlatedsignificantly with individual creativity (r = .19,p < .001), it achieved a stronger correlation withtask motivation (r = .35, p < .001). Similarly, al-though general cognitive ability correlated signifi-cantly with individual creativity (r = .26, p < .001),it achieved a stronger correlation with domain-relevant skills (r = .57, p < .001). Openness toexperience had a correlation of .17 (p < .001) withindividual creativity; however, the correlation withcreativity-relevant processes was .34 (p < .001).Creativity-relevant processes within the team con-text had the strongest correlation with individualcreativity (r = .62, p < .001). Hence, standard in-dividual differences appear to relate to specific be-haviors more strongly than to the overall rated cre-ativity of an individual.Table 3 reveals that the proposed measurementmodel adequately reproduced the correlation ma-trix (RMSEA = .05, GFI = .94, CFI = .92, and NFI =.92). In contrast, the single-factor model used toassess overall discriminability (model 2) poorly ac-counted for the sample data (RMSEA = .18, GFI =.63, CFI = .60, NFI = .61, and ACFI = .32). Theseresults supported the multidimensionality of theproposed model being tested. Sequential chi-square difference tests showed that constrainingequality between pairs of highly correlated con-structs resulted in worse fit. Moreover, decreases inCFI indicated a material reduction in model fit foreach of the constrained models. Therefore, theeight-factor measurement model was retained.Structural model (stage 2). Behavioral observa-tion scale ratings and assessments of creativitywere based on averaging peer assessments; there-fore, it was necessary to determine whether peersagreed in their ratings. Agreement was estimated by

the average interrater agreement statistic and intra-class correlations. These estimates suggested ade-quate agreement between peers (behavioral: lowestaverage rWG .74 [range = .73-.85], lowest ICC [2,1] = .31; creativity: average rWG= .75 [range =.70-.78], lowest ICC [2, 1] = .21). Consequently, Iaveraged peer judgments for each participant.In the test of the proposed structural model, thetheoretical model fitted the data without condi-tional codes or other signs of specification prob-lems. However, fit indexes for the hypothesizedmodel reported in Table 3 were not within accept-able ranges; the model did not accurately explainthe sample data (RMSEA = .07, GFI = .86, CFI =.75, and NFI = .73). Performing a post hoc modelmodification to see if a better-fitting model existed(Tabachnick &Fidell, 1996), I added a path predict-ing creativity-relevant processes from team creativ-ity-relevant processes on the basis of the Legrangemultiplier test. This addition resulted in an im-proved fit (RMSEA = .05, GFI = .94, CFI = .94,NFI = .93, ACFI = .21, and Ax2 = 481.95, p < .001).Because a post hoc model modification had beenperformed, a correlation was calculated betweenthe hypothesized model parameter estimates andparameter estimates from the modified model; itsvalue (r = .96, p < .001) indicated that parameterestimates were hardly changed despite modifica-tion of the hypothesized model. I used the modifiedmodel (model 7) to test Hypotheses 1 to 3 and 8.Figure 1 reveals that all hypothesized structuralmodel paths were significant at conventional levels(p < .05) and, therefore, all hypotheses were sup-ported. Control variables had insignificant linkswith individual creativity and team creativity-rele-vant processes; the standardized coefficients forpaths from age, gender, and group size to aggre-gated individual creativity were .10, .16, and .09,respectively, and from age, gender, and group sizeto team creativity-relevant processes they were .07,.04, and .06, respectively.Antecedents of team creativity-relevant pro-cesses. Simultaneous regression analysis sup-ported Hypotheses 6, 7, and 8-an individual'sextraversion, conscientiousness, and agreeablenessare positively associated with intragroup processbehavior (team creativity-relevant processes at theindividual level). In the regression equation, about31 percent (p < .001) of the variation in intragroupprocess behavior was explained. Beta weightsshowed that conscientiousness (X3= .33, p < .001)contributed mostly to explaining team creativity-relevant processes at the individual level, followedby extraversion (f = .22, p < .001) and agreeable-ness (3 = .20, p < .001).

2002 323



10/16

TABLE 2Zero-Order Correlations among Latent Factors of the Individual-Level ModelaVariable Mean s.d. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Neuroticism 79.10 21.20 (.84)2. Extraversion 109.40 18.40 -.06 (.79)3. Openness to experience 110.60 17.30 -.09 .02 (.72)4. Agreeableness 124.30 15.80 -.15** .08 .06 (.79)5. Conscientiousness 123.10 17.60 -.22*** -.15** .16*** -.10 (.82)6. General cognitive ability 21.75 7.60 -.18*** .04 .12* -.17*** -.03 (.89)7. Task motivationb 8.17 0.70 -.02 -.06 .02 .11* .35*** .07 (.71)8. Domain-relevant skillsb 46.13 5.66 -.02 .01 .15** .06 .23*** .57*** .12*9. Creativity-relevant processesb 16.11 1.90 -.09 .14** .34*** .07 .27*** .42*** .32***10. Individual team creativity-relevant processes 30.33 2.70 -.09 .27*** .10 .26*** .26*** .17*** .31***11. Individual creativity 12.81 1.96 -.10* .13** .17*** .08 .19*** .26*** .41***12. Group team creativity-relevant processes 29.87 1.85 -.05 .04 .01 .07 .11* .03 .37***

an = 480, for all variables except group-level team creativity-relevant processes, where n = 94. Alpha coefficients of reliabilities are displab Behavioral observation scale measure.* p < .05**p< .01

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



11/16

TABLE3Fit Indexes for the Measurement and Structural ModelsaTest 2 (dfl RMSEA GFI CFI NFI A2 b df ACFI

Measurement model1. Proposed model 2,189.07 (594) .05 .94 .92 .922. Single-factor model 7,694.49 (599) .18 .63 .60 .61 5,505.42*** 34 .323. Equating task motivation and 2,437.06 (599) .09 .87 .86 .85domain-relevant skills

247.99** 5 .064. Equating team creativity-relevant 2,402.82 (599) .09 .86 .85 .85processes and creativity-relevantprocesses 213.75** 5 .075. Equating team creativity-relevant 2,373.13 (599) .09 .87 .86 .85processes and domain-relevantskills

184.06** 5 .06Structural model6. Hypothesized model 2,719.29 (754) .07 .86 .75 .737. Modified model 2,227.34 (753) .05 .94 .94 .93 481.95*** 1 .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 thecolumn) AX2shows the difference between the hypothesized model and the modified model.** p < .01**p < .001

Group-LevelAnalysisZero-order correlations and descriptive statisticsexamined at the group level are in Table 4. As

indicated in Table 4, aggregated individual creativ-ity is significantly correlated with both group cre-ativity and team creativity-relevant processes.Hypothesis 4 suggests that group creativity is aninteractive function of aggregated individual cre-ativity and the amount of team creativity-relevantprocesses. After controlling for age, gender, andgroup size (none of which contributed significantlyto explaining variance in group creativity), I foundsignificant main effects for aggregated individualTABLE4

Zero-OrderCorrelations and DescriptiveStatistics for Additively AggregatedPredictorand CriterionMeasures at the Group LevelaVariable Mean s.d. 1 2 3

1. Group creativity 14.74 1.422. Aggregated individual 2.72 0.28 .56***creativity3. Team creativity-relevant 29.87 1.93 .41*** .63***processesan = 94.*** p < .001, two-tailed tests

creativity (AR2= .28, p < .001) and team creativity-relevant processes (AR2 = .07, p < .01) throughhierarchical regression analysis. There was also astatistically significant interaction between aggre-gated individual creativity and team creativity-relevant processes (AR2= .05, p < .01). It is evidentthat groups with creative members and high levelsof creativity-relevant behaviors yielded high groupcreativity. A low incidence of team creativity-rele-vant processes neutralized the effect of a grouphigh in creativity.3 Similarly, a group low in cre-ativity neutralized the effects of high levels of teamcreativity-relevant processes.

DISCUSSIONThis study examined a multilevel model of groupcreativity on open-ended tasks that required cre-ativity. Specific behavioral measures of the compo-nents of creativity were found to relate in predicted

3 Thefindingsreported n this workarebased on all 13tasks; however, a task-by-taskanalysis reveals that thefindings presented here do generalize over the last 10 ofthe 13 tasks. That is, team creativity-relevantprocessesdid not play a significant moderating role in the firstthree tasks.

2002 Taggar 325



12/16


ways to standard individual differences. A contri-bution of this study is to show that although it isnecessary for a group to contain members who arecreative, team creativity-relevant processes thatemerge as part of group interaction are also impor-tant. Indeed, without this latter type of behavior,the benefits of putting together a group of highlycreative individuals are neutralized. In effectivegroups, members engage in creativity-supportingbehavior, establishing the right sort of social envi-ronment for each other. These behaviors are indi-cated by eight behavioral observation scale mea-sures, which yield new insights into exactly howgroup members can support each other's creativity.Very little prior research has attempted to so exten-sively specify behaviors in intact groups workingon open-ended tasks.Individual Differences

Through incorporating standard individual dif-ferences into Amabile's (1983, 1996) componentialmodel, I hoped that this study would aid in pullingtogether relevant personality research and some-what validate the use of personality as a predictorof behavior associated with group creativity. Thisstudy goes beyond previous studies in that it uti-lized the unifying five-factor model, which reducesterminological confusion and makes personalitytesting useful in organizational contexts (Hogan,1991). By no means do I claim that use of thismodel is the most appropriate level at which tomeasure individual differences; rather, it seems anappropriate starting point. Effort should be made toshow that newly developed measures of individualattributes improve upon the predictiveness of thenow commonly accepted five-factor-model taxon-omy, and also that of general cognitive ability, in avariety of situations.By incorporating personality and general cogni-tive ability into the model, I hoped to show thattheir associated behaviors are the most appropriatecriterion for validation. One may obtain a consis-tently modest relationship between standard indi-vidual differences and individual creativity whileat the same time obtaining strong relationshipsbetween individual differences and their relevantbehaviors. For instance, it is more appropriate tovalidate general cognitive ability against domain-relevant skills than against overall creativity ratingsbecause global ratings are impacted by an individ-ual's task motivation or by the social environment.Feist's (1999) review of personality researchin the creativity literature indicates that facets ofopenness to experience (especially fantasy-oriented imagination) and conscientiousness (espe-

cially drive, ambition, perseverance, and need forachievement) have previously been related to cre-ative outcomes in scientific domains. The findingsof the present study correspond with those re-ported by Feist (1999)-openness to experienceand conscientiousness proved to be predictive ofindividual creative behavior on the tasks employedin this study. However, it should be recognized thatthe behavioral observation scale measures of taskmotivation tap a narrow aspect of Amabile's (1983,1996) task motivation conceptualization, and thislimiting condition should be considered when oneinterprets the findings presented here. In futurestudies, researchers should consider the addedbenefits of using the Work Preference Inventory(Amabile et al., 1994), which was specifically de-signed to assess trait-intrinsic and -extrinsic moti-vation.

Neuroticism was the only five-factor-model traitthat was not a variable in the model developedhere. Feist (1999) reviewed conflicting researchthat has suggested high neuroticism (especially thefacets of anxiety and hostility) is both positivelyand negatively related to creativity. Neuroticismdid not correlate strongly with individual creativityor with domain-relevant skills, task motivation,creativity-relevant processes, and team creativity-relevant processes in the present findings. Never-theless, neuroticism may relate more strongly tocreativity in domains different from the one stud-ied here. Feist (1999) proposed that neuroticism isrelated to creativity in artistic endeavours where anintrospective journey is involved. However, cre-ativity that is more externally focused (for in-stance, creativity in the science domain) has less ofa connection to neuroticism.

Lastly, this study does not support either theviews that creativity and intelligence are essen-tially the same or the view that creativity and in-telligence are unrelated. Creativity appears to bethe confluence of intelligence, personality, domainknowledge, and social influences.

Specific Behaviors within the Team Context forIndividual CreativityThis study begins to address important, unan-swered questions about the specific behaviorswithin a team context that are necessary for cre-ative performance and effective group outcomes.The behavioral observation scale reports indicatedvarious performance-relevant behavioral aspects ofcreativity. Knowledge of creative behavior can con-tribute to the design of interventions that improvecreativity (for instance, by outlining the possible

326 April



13/16

Taggarrole of training in creativity-supportingbehaviorsfor group members).Team commitment and focus on the task athandindex one aspect of task motivation and thereforegauge readiness for creative activity. Ruscio andcolleagues (1998) found involvement was relatedto task motivation. They also noted the need forresearch directed toward replicating their findingsin other task domains and uncovering additionalbehavioral manifestations of intrinsic motivation.This study's findings with respect to task motiva-tion correspond with those of Ruscio et al. andprovide evidence of additional behavioral manifes-tations of this component of creativity.Creativity-relevant processes primarily deter-mine response novelty. Creativity-relevant pro-cesses involve goal setting, preparation, participa-tion in group problem solving, and synthesis ofideas. These behaviors correspond to the goal set-ting and response-to-challenge types of behaviorssuggested by Ruscio and colleagues (1998) as mea-sures of creativity-relevantprocesses. They also fitwell with Amabile's (1996) descriptions of work-style factors associated with creativity-relevantprocesses.

A Group's Ability to Utilize IndividualResources EffectivelyGroupsare a unique social setting in which, it is

believed, the interaction among group membersmay be a majorcontributor to the quality of groupcreativity.A group's process skills arenecessary toleverage individual creative resources. Group cre-ativity is enhanced through effective communica-tion, possibly because it reduces the chances ofprocess losses resulting from errors in task perfor-mance strategies. Performance management, pro-viding feedback,and effective conflict managementpossibly improve coordination, resulting in im-proved group creativity. Poor integration of groupmembers' efforts can result in motivational losses,as previously suggested by Hackman and Morris(1975). The findings regarding team creativity-relevant processes (particularly involving othersbehavior)supportWoodman and colleagues' (1993)proposition that individual creative performancewill be increased by groupbehavior that facilitatesthe open sharing of information. It follows thatwhen groups are inadequately trained in team pro-cess behavior, or are too large, team creativity-relevantprocesses can stifle creativity.Further, t isimportant to note that these processes, usuallythought of as importantfor group leaders, can alsobe importantfor all members of a group.

Future Research and LimitationsFuture research. Modification indexes sug-gested a link between team creativity-relevantprocesses and creativity-relevant processes. Byencouraging consideration and recognition of allgroup members' viewpoints and ideas, individu-

alized consideration may foster a social climatethat results in expanded sources of knowledgeand encourages thinking along new lines. Thesebehaviors should facilitate (but not guarantee)group members offering solutions that buildon their group's ideas, thereby increasing thecreativity-relevant processes of the individualengaged in individualized consideration behav-ior. Although further research is required, thesepreliminary findings support the addition ofteam creativity-relevant processes to the compo-nential model.In this preliminary study, simple linear relation-ships between resources for creativity were mod-eled. However, Sternberg and Lubart (1999: 11)noted that creativity may be more than the simplesum of a person's attained level of functioning oneach component. Partialcompensation may occur,in which a strengthon one component counteractsa weakness on another component, and interac-tions may also occur between components. Fur-thermore, individual resource requirements maydiffer with the type of task performed (Forgas,1995). Study of these relationships is a potentiallyfruitful avenue for futureresearch.Limitations. This study attempted to approxi-mate genuine work environments while benefit-ing from a large sample with equivalent groupwork experiences and resource constraints. Thegroups appeared similar to real work groups intask interdependence; this real-life quality wassupported by the emergence of several behavioralobservation scale dimensions: performance man-agement, participation in team problem solving,synthesis of the team's ideas, and involvement ofothers. Although there is some support for usingstudents as research participants (Greenberg,1987), future studies of functioning intact auton-omous work groups within firms are needed toestablish generalizability.A potential limitation is the issue of priming:items presented earlier in the BOS may influenceresponses to subsequent items. Assessment of cre-ativity was based on one item that directly men-tioned creativity (question 19 on the performanceassessment tool) and three items (questions 35, 39,and 40 on the performance assessment tool) thatdid not contain the term creativity. The itemdirectlymentioning creativityis likely to be of most

2002 327



14/16

Academy of ManagementJournalconcern when considering priming (Kervin, 1992).In this study, the items that followed the globalmeasure of creativity contained very specific refer-ents. Kervin (1992: 330) suggested that the impactof priming is not substantial when subsequentquestions are specific. Nevertheless, future studiesthat use a similar assessment tool should counter-balance items within the tool; they might, for in-stance, adjust the positioning of the item mention-ing creativity so its impact on subsequent itemresponses can be determined.Another limitation pertains to potentially influ-ential factors not included in our analysis. Subjectswere not randomly assigned to groups, so there wasa concern that their choices about group member-ship were based on the attributes of others (on, forinstance, how much they liked other group mem-bers). In addition to statistically controlling for age,gender, and group size in this study, I conducted anadditional group-level analysis that revealed no ev-idence of restriction of range or significant skew-ness or kurtosis on any of the variables in thisstudy; for instance, there was no evidence that ex-traverts chose other extraverts as group members.Nevertheless, future studies need to address thepossibility of a selection bias based on variables notmeasured here.

Lastly, Ruscio and colleagues (1998) noted limi-tations with respect to posttask measurement ofbehavior, including forgetting and knowledge ofoutcomes. These concerns should be mitigated infuture studies by assessing behavior as it occurs;Ruscio and his coauthors (1998) offer a procedurefor doing this.This is the first study to specify particular behav-iors that strongly predict observable creativity.Conti and coauthors (1996) expanded on the impor-tance and relevance of this information. The evi-dence presented in this article is the first step todesigning behavioral interventions like behavior-ally based structured interviews and training inteam creativity-relevant processes. The importanceof team creativity-relevant processes underscoresthe need to ensure groups maintain a facilitatingsocial setting.

REFERENCESAmabile, T. M. 1983. The social psychology of creativity:A componential conceptualization. Journal of Per-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 in-trinsic and extrinsic motivation orientations. Jour-

nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66: 950-967.Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. 1988. Structural equa-tion modeling in practice: A review and recom-mended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin,103: 411-423.Aronoff, J., &Wilson, J.P. 1985. Personality in the socialprocess. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. 1993. Autonomy as amoderator of the relationship between the Big Five

personality dimensions and job performance. Jour-nal of Applied Psychology, 78: 111-118.Barron, F., & Harrington, D. M. 1981. Creativity, intelli-

gence, and personality. In M. R. Rosenzweig & L. W.Porter (Eds.), Annual review of psychology: 439-476. 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 organiza-tional effectiveness through transformational

leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Brass, D. J. 1995. Creativity: It's all in your social net-work. In C. M. Ford & D. A. Gioia (Eds.), Creativeaction in organizations: Ivory tower visions andreal world voices: 94-99. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Brophy, D. R. 1998. Understanding, measuring, and en-

hancing 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 pro-posed 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 andcreativity. In R. J. Sternber (Ed.), Handbook of cre-ativity: 297-312. New York: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Conti, R., Coon, H., & Amabile, T. M. 1996. Evidence tosupport the componential model of creativity: Sec-ondary analysis of three studies. Creativity Re-search Journal, 9: 385-389.

Costa, P. T., Jr., &McCrae, R. R. 1992. NEO PI-R profes-sional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assess-ment Resources.Farr,J.L. 1990. Facilitating individual role innovation. InM. A. West & J. L. Farr (Eds.), Innovation and cre-

ativity at work: Psychological and organizationalstrategies: 207-230. Chichester, England: Wiley.

Feist, G. J. 1999. Influence of personality on artistic andscientific creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Hand-book of creativity: 272-296. New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.

328 April



15/16

TaggarFlanagan, J. C. 1954. The critical incident technique.

Psychological Bulletin, 51: 327-358.Forgas, J. 1995. Mood and judgment: The affect infusionmodel (AIM). Psychological Bulletin, 117: 39-66.Goodman, P. S., Ravlin, E. C., &Argote, L. 1986. Current

thinking about groups: Setting the stage for newideas. In P. S. Goodman (Ed.), Designing effectivework groups: 1-34. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Greenberg, J. 1987. The college sophomore as guinea pig:

Setting the record straight. Academy of Manage-ment 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, groupinteraction processes, and group performance effec-tiveness: A review and proposed integration. In L.Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social

psychology, vol. 8: 47-99. New York: AcademicPress.Harris, S. G., & Mossholder, K. W. 1996. The affective

implications of perceived congruence with culturedimensions 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 Per-sonnel Test as a brief intelligence measure in a psy-chiatric sample. Psychological Assessment, 2: 198-201.Hocevar, D., & Bachelor, P. 1989. A taxonomy and cri-

tique of measurements used in the study of creativ-ity. 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 measure-ment. In M. D. Dunnette &L. M. Hough (Eds.), Hand-book of industrial and organizational psychology(2nd ed.), vol. 2: 873-919. Palo Alto, CA: ConsultingPsychologists Press.

Hunter, J. E. 1986. Cognitive ability, cognitive aptitudes,job knowledge and job performance. Journal ofVocational Behavior, 29: 340-362.

James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. 1993. rwg:Anassessment of within-group interrater agreement.Journal of Applied Psychology, 78: 306-309.Joreskog, K. G., & S6rbom, D. 1993. LISREL 8: User'sreference guide. Chicago: Scientific Software Inter-national.

King, L. A., Walker, L., & Broyles, S. J. 1996. Creativityand the five-factor model. Journal of Research inPersonality, 30: 189-203.

Kervin, J. B. 1992. Methods in business research. NewYork: HarperCollins.Latham, G. P., &Wexley, K. N. 1994. Increasing produc-tivity 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 perfor-mance of hierarchical decision-making teams: Muchmore than g. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82:803-811.Mackenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Fetter, R. 1991.

Organizational citizenship behavior and objectiveproductivity as determinants of managerial evalua-tions of salespersons' performance. OrganizationalBehavior and Human Decision Processes, 50: 123-150.

McCormick, E. J., Mecham, R. C., &Jeanneret, P. R. 1989.Technical manual for-the position analysis ques-tionnaire. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue ResearchFoundation.McCrae, R. R. 1987. Creativity, divergent thinking, and

openness to experience. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 52: 1258-1265.Mohrman, S. A. M., Cohen, S. G., & Mohrman, A. M.

1995. Designing team based organizations. NewYork: Jossey-Bass.Neuman, G. A., & Wright, J. 1999. Team effectiveness:

Beyond skills and cognitive ability. Journal of Ap-plied Psychology, 84: 376-389.

Prussia, G. E., Kinicki, A. J., & Bracker, J. S. 1993. Psy-chological and behavioral consequences of job loss:A covariance structural analysis using Weiner's(1985) attribution model. Journal of Applied Psy-chology, 78: 382-395.

Ree, M. J., &Carretta,T. R. 1998. General cognitive abilityand occupational performance. In C. L. Cooper &I. T.Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrialand organizational psychology, vol. 13: 159-184.New York: Wiley.

Ree, M. J., & Earles, J. A. 1996. Predicting occupationalcriteria: Not much more than g. In I. Dennis & P.Tapsfield (Eds.), Human abilities: Their nature andmeasurement: 151-165. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Ruscio, J., Whitney, D. M., & Amabile, T. M. 1998. Thefishbowl of creativity. Creativity Research Journal,11: 243-263.Schmidt, F. L., Hunter, J. E., & Pearlman, K. 1981. Taskdifferences and the validity of aptitude tests in se-

lection: A red herring. Journal of Applied Psychol-ogy, 66: 166-185.Schmit, M. J., & Ryan, A. M. 1993. The Big Five in

personnel selection: Factor structure in applicantand nonapplicant populations. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 78: 966-974.Shamir, B., House, R., &Arthur, M. 1993. The motivationaleffects of chrismatic leadership: A self-concept basedtheory. Organization Science, 4: 1-17.Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. 1979. Intraclass correlations:Uses in assessing rater reliability. PsychologicalBulletin, 86: 420-428.

2002 329



16/16

Academy of ManagementJournalSternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. 1999. The concept of

creativity: Prospects and paradigms. In R. J. Stern-berg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity: 3-16. New York:Cambridge University Press.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. 1996. Using multivar-iate statistics (3rd ed.). New York: HarperCollins.Tesluk, P. E., Farr, J. L., &Klein, S. R. 1997. Influences oforganizational culture and climate on individual cre-ativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 31: 27-41.Wonderlic, E. L., & Associates 1992. Wonderlic person-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.

APPENDIXSample Tasks Completedby Groups

Each group completed an open-ended, multipart taskconsisting of developing answers to sets of questions.Each set comprised an exercise. Examples of questionsets are given verbatim below. Participants first readwritten instructions and a brief introduction to the exer-cise (the case study), which provided background for thequestions in the exercise. Prior to the exercise, studentswere given a lecture on the exercise topic and wererequested to complete assigned readings.

Exercise 11. Use the concepts of stereotyping and halo to explain thecontrast between the Golden Boys and the Audit Drones.2. Are there any aspects to the organization of work atBH&A that could lead to perceptual problems in per-formance 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 thefirm?Exercise 21. 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 inreference to class lectures &/or textbook.3. If you were the administrator of this payment schemewhat might you do differently to maximize employeemotivation toward the corporate objective? Be creative

and give a full answer.AAA

Simon Taggar ([email protected]) is an assis-tant professor of human resources management at YorkUniversity. He received his Ph.D. from McMaster Univer-sity. His research interests include team composition,team creativity, team leadership, and collective efficacy.

M0

April30

individual creativity and group ability to utilize individual creative resources

Documents