An examination of the relationship between conscientiousness and group performance on a creative task

The Genius Dilemma: Fortune 1000 CEO Personality and Firm Innovation

“…The results of the present research showed that, among the largest publicly traded US firms, conscientiousness of the CEO negatively predicted firm innovativeness when CEO tenure was greater than 3 years, but not when CEO tenure was less than 3 years, suggesting that relative low conscientiousness in the CEO might drive firm innovation. This finding is consistent with prior findings suggesting that conscientiousness is negatively associated with innovation and creativity (e.g., Feist, 1998;Robert & Cheung, 2010). Moreover, the present findings are unique in showing an association between conscientiousness and creativity not merely at the individual level but at the level of the organization.…”

“…A tendency to challenge the status quo is likely to be associated with low Agreeableness and low Conscientiousness because low scores on these traits reflect a degree of unconventionality and antisocial behavior (Bachtold, 1976;Driskell, Hogan, & Salas, 1987;George & Zhou, 2001;Getzels & Csikszentmihalyi, 1976;Rushton, 1990;Rushton, Murray, & Paunonen, 1983;Tett, 1998;Woody & Claridge, 1977). Conscientiousness, in particular, appears to reflect a tendency to rely on structure and rules (Robert & Cheung, 2010), which is likely to be antithetical to innovation (Simonton, 2003). Thus, given an assumption that for innovation to flourish, the CEO has to encourage and pursue a vision that is uncertain and unconventional, it is hypothesized that low Conscientiousness and low Agreeableness in CEO's would be associated with greater innovation in their organization.…”

PERSOC: A Unified Framework for Understanding the Dynamic Interplay of Personality and Social Relationships

“…To give some examples, PERSOC may be helpful for understanding (i) the influence of romantic relationship partners' dispositions on relationship quality via ongoing social interactions (Gottman, Coan, Carrere, & Swanson, 1998; Schöder‐Abé and Schütz, 2011), (ii) the social interaction processes that foster the development and maintenance of social anxiety disorders (e.g. Schultz & Heimberg, 2008), (iii) friendship development (Denissen et al ., 2011), (iv) zero‐acquaintance judgments (Back, Schmukle, & Egloff, in press), (v) reciprocity (Back, Penke, Schmukle, Sachse, Borkenau, & Asendorpf, 2011), meta‐accuracy (Back, Penke, Schmukle, & Asendorpf, 2010) and consequential outcomes (Asendorpf, Penke, & Back, in press) of mate choices, (vi) social support exchange processes (Vollmann et al ., 2011), the influence of dispositions and social interaction processes on (vii) family dynamics (Wrzus, Wagner, Baumert, Lang, & Neyer, 2011), (viii) employee selection (Barrick, Shaffer, & DeGrassi, 2009; Tay, Ang, & Van Dyne, 2006), or (ix) group effectiveness (Berry and Stewart, 1997; Robert & Cheung, 2010) or (x) for understanding the concrete social interaction processes that ultimately foster or dampen people's self‐esteem over the course of time (cf. Back, Krause, et al, 2009; Denissen et al ., 2008).…”

Group Creative Problem Solving: The Role of Creative Personality, Process and Creative Ability

“…Team personality studies have also analyzed group elements of the five factor model (Costa and McCrae, 1992), but only a limited number of studies are available (Reiter-Palmon, Wigert and De Vreede, 2011). One study revealed a negative link between team conscientiousness and group creativity (Robert and Cheung, 2010) while a second indicated that groups with some extraverted members outperformed groups with no extraverts (Barry and Stewart, 1997).…”

“…Much has been learned about the role of personality (Robert and Cheung, 2010) and individual processes (Bendickson et al, 2017) on individual creativity and yet team-level creativity remains under-researched (Amabile and Pratt, 2016;Kurtzberg and Amabile, 2001;West, 2002). One study shows that despite the calls for increased team research, little has occurred to address this issue (James and Drown, 2011).…”