“We've Got Creative Differences”: The Effects of Task Conflict and Participative Safety on Team Creative Performance

Fairchild, Joshua; Hunter, Samuel T.

doi:10.1002/jocb.41

Cited by 34 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 68 publications

(142 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…When engaged in team formation processes, employees seemed to show a greater aptitude to collaboration. As well, they reported stronger personal and empathetic feelings, which encouraged team performance through increased self-experienced safety and security (Fairchild and Hunter, 2014). Such a collaborative climate and team commitment was found to be stronger when they dealt with interdependent and inter-professional tasks.…”

Section: Discussion: the Case For Bottom-up Team Buildingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing two approaches to team building: a performance measurement evaluation

Ciasullo

Cosimato

Gaeta

et al. 2017

TPM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose – This paper reports a study that compares two different team-building approaches. The first one\ud is the traditional top-down management approach. The second one is a hybrid bottom-up approach based on\ud the consensus model. The aim of this paper is to determine which of the two approaches is the most effective\ud across a number of performance measurements.\ud Design/methodology/approach – A case study is presented using data collected and analysed from a\ud small family-owned vehicle maintenance firm. A mixed methods approach to data collection is utilized,\ud including participant observation, focus groups, survey questionnaires and organizational performance\ud reports. A convenience sample of eight routine maintenance jobs was selected for team performance\ud comparison purposes. The measures used for comparing the two team approaches were lead time, customer\ud satisfaction ratings and employees’ satisfaction ratings.\ud Findings – The teams assembled using the consensus approach performed better than those selected using\ud the traditional top-down approach across all three performance measures, i.e. the jobs were completed faster\ud and both customers and employees were more satisfied.\ud Research limitations/implications – This is an exploratory case study limited to one small familyowned\ud business and, as such, findings may not be generalizable.\ud Practical implications – As an alternative to manager selected work teams, managers should involve\ud and empower employees to select their own teams. This has the potential to offer benefits for both customers\ud and employees of faster delivery times and increase satisfaction, as well as increase productivity for the firm.\ud Originality/value – This is the first field study to compare the performance of a hybrid, bottom-up approach\ud to team building with the performance of a more traditionalmanagement, top-down approach to teambuilding. It\ud paves the way for a wider study to be conducted in the future to test the findings’ generalizability

show abstract

Section: Discussion: the Case For Bottom-up Team Buildingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing two approaches to team building: a performance measurement evaluation

Ciasullo

Cosimato

Gaeta

et al. 2017

TPM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This process does not require dedicated reflection, but happens along the course of improvisation. Several studies provide evidence for a curvilinear dependency between conflict and creativity, others suggest moderating effects of, e.g., collaborative atmosphere [18,19,33,42]. We follow up on their findings and postulate the importance of dissonance resolution in creative teams.…”

Section: Theorizing On Harmonymentioning

confidence: 70%

Call for Action: Designing for Harmony in Creative Teams

Dolata

Schwabe

2014

Advancing the Impact of Design Science: Moving From Theory to Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Competitive markets force diverse organizations to intensively manage innovation. Many of them set up multifunctional teams responsible for generating novel and original ideas. Such teams often face higher risk of conflicts and tensions, being an inherent part of creative processes. Impact of this phenomena on creative performance of teams, even though extensively addressed in research, remains unclarified. We approach this issue while providing a novel interpretation framework inspired by the concept of harmony in jazz improvisation. We apply it to observations made with project teams in an organizational setting, and use it to inform design of a supporting collaborative solution. We postulate the need for further work on team harmony and creativity. Abstract. Competitive markets force diverse organizations to intensively manage innovation. Many of them set up multifunctional teams responsible for generating novel and original ideas. Such teams often face higher risk of conflicts and tensions, being an inherent part of creative processes. Impact of this phenomena on creative performance of teams, even though extensively addressed in research, remains unclarified. We approach this issue while providing a novel interpretation framework inspired by the concept of harmony in jazz improvisation. We apply it to observations made with project teams in an organizational setting, and use it to inform design of a supporting collaborative solution. We postulate the need for further work on team harmony and creativity.

show abstract

“…Real-life products or works have been commonly used in the articles as the proxy of creative performance. Fairchild and Hunter (2014) asked college students in engineering to be engaged in group design projects that aimed to address real-world issues. Hong et al (2016) directly used students’ history homework that was completed based on the lesson “Transition of material life and customs of change.”…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Critical Review of Assessments of Creativity in Education

Long

Kerr

Emler

et al. 2022

Review of Research in Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This chapter provides a systematic, synthesizing, and critical review of the literature related to assessments of creativity in education from historical, theoretical, empirical, and practical standpoints. We examined the assessments used in the articles focusing on education that are published from January 2010 to May 2021 in eight creativity, psychological, and educational journals. We found that the assessments of creativity in education are split between psychological and education research and have increased international participation. Additionally, these assessments are more general than specific and focus more on cognitive than noncognitive aspects. Like previous reviews of assessments of creativity in general, this review showed that creativity in education is still mainly assessed by divergent thinking or creativity tests, self-report questionnaires, and product-based subjective techniques. We analyzed the benefits and drawbacks of each approach and highlighted many innovations in the assessment. We further discussed how the major assessment approaches address race, ethnicity, class, and gender issues in education. We concluded the review with recommendations for how to better assess creativity in education and how assessments of creativity in education contribute to our understanding of the creative educational experience and democratizing education.

show abstract

“We've Got Creative Differences”: The Effects of Task Conflict and Participative Safety on Team Creative Performance

Cited by 34 publications

References 68 publications

Comparing two approaches to team building: a performance measurement evaluation

Comparing two approaches to team building: a performance measurement evaluation

Call for Action: Designing for Harmony in Creative Teams

A Critical Review of Assessments of Creativity in Education

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About