Collaborative Creativity—Group Creativity and Team Innovation

Abstract

It is apparent that a broad range of factors can increase innovation in teams. It appears that with the right people, the right supporting, motivational and task contexts, and effective social and cognitive processes, teams can be highly innovative. This outcome is probably not surprising and to some extent states the obvious. Such excellence may not be inevitable in teams, since this configuration adds a level of complexity. Team members have to coordinate effectively, efficiently and adequately share and combine their relevant knowledge, select the best ideas, and effectively implement them. It may take considerable training and experience for teams to excel at team creativity. There is a need for studies that provide objective measures of processes and outcomes in real world settings with appropriate comparison groups. Laboratory studies of creativity in short-term groups suggest that groups will often under perform and will exceed non-interactive baselines only under conditions that are optimal for group idea exchange. However, the fact that laboratory studies have been able to find synergy with ad-hoc groups in short-term settings suggests that teams which involve members suited for teamwork, who have worked together for some time and have the diverse perspectives needed for a problem, should also be able to achieve synergistic outcomes under the right conditions.

Full text

327
CHAPTER
Handbook of Organizational Creativity.
DOI: © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.201210.1016/B978-0-12-374714-3.00014-8
Collaborative
Creativity—Group Creativity
and Team Innovation
Paul B. Paulus1
, Mary Dzindolet2, and
Nicholas W. Kohn1
1University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, TX; 2Cameron University,
Lawton, OK
GROUP CREATIVITY VERSUS TEAM INNOVATION
Today in the US and many other countries, governments, scientific agencies, university
programs, and organizations are anxious to promote the development of innovation and
creativity, since it is presumed that this will be an important basis for economic develop-
ment and for solving environmental and social problems. Given the complexity of today’s
societal, scientific, and technical problems, it is presumed that teams with diverse expertise
are required to solve them. Yet what is the scientific evidence related to creativity and inno-
vation in teams? Fortunately, there has been an explosion of studies on team innovation or
creativity (Hülsheger, Anderson, & Salgado, 2009) and a related set of studies on group crea-
tivity (Nijstad & Stroebe, 2006; Paulus, 2000; Paulus & Nijstad, 2003). Unfortunately, most
of the research on team innovation involves self-reports, with few studies obtaining objec-
tive data on actual innovative outcomes (Antoni & Hertel, 2009; Hülsheger et al., 2009).
The research on group creativity is mostly based on objective performance data, but often
involves the use of college students in laboratory settings. So although there now is a wealth
of data on team/group innovation and creativity, there remains much uncertainty in regard
to our understanding of the actual innovative process in teams in organizations. However,
there is considerable consistency in findings from these two different approaches. We feel
that an integration of the research on team innovation and group creativity will greatly
enhance our theoretical understanding of the collaborative creative process, and provide a
14

C. GROUP LEVEL INFLUENCES
14. COLLABORATIVE CREATIVITY—GROUP CREATIVITY AND TEAM INNOVATION 328
reasonable basis for practice in organizations (Paulus & Van der Zee, 2004). Before provid-
ing an empirical and theoretical summary of the literature in these two areas, we need to
clarify some of the commonly used terminology.
WHAT ARE TEAMS, GROUPS, CREATIVITY, AND INNOVATION?
Groups are typically defined as collections of individuals focused on a specific goal or
task (Forsyth, 2006). In this chapter we will be concerned only with groups that are per-
forming a specific creative task, but there is also extensive literature on group task perform-
ance that is relevant to understanding the performance of such groups (e.g., Nijstad, 2009).
Most research on group task performance and group creativity has examined small groups
of three or four in controlled laboratory settings. This allows for the random assignment of
participants to given experimental conditions, and careful observation and assessment of
performance. In this way the investigators can be fairly confident about the causes and proc-
esses that underlie group creativity. There is always a concern about the relevance of find-
ings from such research to real-world work environments, but there are several analyses
that suggest that findings from laboratory studies in a number of domains have consider-
able applicability (Anderson, Lindsay, & Bushman, 1999; Mullen, Driskell, & Salas, 1998).
Teams are groups that typically have a long-term relationship, are embedded in an organ-
ization, and work together on some common project or goal. These teams can vary consid-
erably in size, composition, or structure. Members of these teams are typically assigned to
the teams by a superior, so there is no assurance that different teams will be comparable
in their characteristics (as would be the case with random assignment). So it may be dif-
ficult to determine whether it is the process or it is the team composition that is responsi-
ble for differences in performance among teams. For the sake of empirical and theoretical
clarity we will maintain the distinction in this chapter between groups and teams based on
whether they are short-term task groups or longer term teams. However, in both cases crea-
tive groups and teams involve similar collaborative processes.
Collaborative processes are those that involve some degree of interaction and coordination
with another person or other group or team members. Collaboration does not require a spe-
cific group or team, since any two people that coordinate their task activities are collabora-
tors. There are a number of famous collaborative pairs (John-Steiner, 2000) who have achieved
eminence in the creative domain. Collaboration is also popular in educational environments
as students work together on various projects (Kanev, Kimura, & Orr, 2009). We will highlight
the collaborative processes that are involved in both group creativity and team innovation.
Creativity is the generation or production of novel products or ideas. It is often differen-
tiated from innovation which involves the actual implementation of an idea. Creativity is
seen as an exploration process in which one considers alternatives, whereas innovation is
more of an exploitation process in which one tries to effectively implement an idea. Most of
the research on group creativity has focused on exploration of alternatives. Early research
and treatments of innovation (West, 2002) focused on the implementation issue, but overall
the research on team innovation has examined both exploration and exploitation (Hülsheger
et al., 2009). Often there is not a clear differentiation between creativity and implementation,
so it is not surprising that many of the factors that have been found to be important in group

C. GROUP LEVEL INFLUENCES
TEAMWORK 329
creativity have also been highlighted in the work on team innovation (Paulus, 2007; Paulus,
Nakui, & Putman, 2006a). We will often use the term creativity to cover both creativity and
innovation. This usage will simplify our treatment and is also consistent with our integrative
perspective. In a later section we will discuss potential important differences between the two
literatures and the research on the different phases of the creative process.
TEAMWORK
There is an extensive literature on teamwork that is relevant to the issues discussed in
this chapter (Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006; Salas, Goodwin, & Burke, 2009). However, these and
other similar reviews pay little attention to the topic of innovation. We will use the general
team literature as a context for our review, but we will focus primarily on literature deal-
ing directly with team innovation. It is presumed any factor that would enhance teamwork
in general would be advantageous to team innovation. So, in addition to the suggestions
made in this chapter, practitioners of innovative teams should be knowledgeable about the
broader team literature (e.g., Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006). However, there are a number of fac-
tors that are relatively unique for creative teams (Pirola-Merlo & Mann, 2004; Taggar, 2001),
or are especially important for these teams, such as the role of conflict and diversity. So in
our review we will focus primarily on teams doing creative or innovative tasks, but will at
times note the relevance of the broader team literature.
There is also an extensive literature on creativity in general that has important impli-
cations for creative teams (Mayer, 1999; Sternberg, 2006; Sternberg, Grigorenko, & Singer,
2004). Teams are made up of individuals and team creativity reflects to a large extent the
creativity of the individual members (Pirola-Merlo & Mann, 2004; Taggar, 2001). Any
approach, process, or characteristic that enhances individual creativity should also have
positive effects on team creativity.
Models of Team and Group Effectiveness
Reviews of the team literature suggest a general model for team effectiveness (Kozlowski
& Ilgen, 2006; Salas et al., 2009a). To be effective, teams need to have effective cognitive proc-
esses, be cohesive, have a sense of efficacy, coordinate their activities, have effective task struc-
ture, have goals and feedback, be trained, and have appropriate leadership (Salas, Rosen,
Burke, & Goodwin, 2009; Tasa, Taggar, & Seijts, 2007). The models of teamwork have been
primarily focused on understanding the input–process–output (IPO) connections (Hackman,
1987; Ilgen, Hollenbeck, Johnson, & Jundt, 2005). More recent theoretical efforts have focused
more on adaptive processes in teams, which highlight the complex interrelationships among
multiple factors over time and how the outcomes of these processes in turn feed back into
the various input factors (Burke, Stagl, Salas, Pierce, & Kendall, 2006b; Ilgen et al., 2005). The
research on team creativity will also need to move in that direction (Bledow, Frese, Anderson,
Erez, & Farr, 2009). However, the bulk of the research in the teamwork and team innovation
literatures fits neatly into the IPO framework (Hülsheger et al., 2009).
The model presented by Paulus and Dzindolet (2008) to integrate the group creativ-
ity literature is also representative of the major findings in the team creativity literature.

C. GROUP LEVEL INFLUENCES
14. COLLABORATIVE CREATIVITY—GROUP CREATIVITY AND TEAM INNOVATION 330
This model of collaborative creativity highlights how group member characteristics, group
structure, group climate, and external demands influence the cognitive, social and motiva-
tional processes that underlie collaborative creativity (Figure 14.1). Most of the various fac-
tors listed for each of these categories have some degree of support in both the groups and
teams literatures. In this chapter we will highlight the basic processes and those factors that
influence these processes that have had the most extensive empirical support.
Social Processes
Team creativity is much more than the sum of the creative output of its individual group
members. For one thing, group members influence their peers’ potential to be creative by
affecting cognitive and motivational processes. Hearing an idea shared by a peer has the
potential to cognitively stimulate one to be creative; hearing a group member complain
has the potential to lower one’s motivation to work hard on the task. Thus, each individual
group member’s creativity affects and is affected by the other group members.
Once a group member has enough cognitive stimulation and motivation to generate an
idea, he or she must determine whether or not to share that idea with the group. Several
group, task, and situational variables will affect the likelihood that the group member will
share the idea. For example, the individual’s confidence in his or her creative ability and
level of evaluation apprehension, the group’s level of cohesiveness, psychological safety,
and consequences associated with sharing an idea are likely to influence whether or not the
group member chooses to share the generated idea. Both intrinsic and extrinsic motivational
factors will also play a role in the decision to share the idea with the other group members.
In addition, the most recently shared ideas by other group members will not only cogni-
tively stimulate the group member to generate ideas in the same category (Kohn & Smith,
in press), but they will also socially stimulate a group member to generate more ideas to
approximately match the level of performance of the other group members. This social com-
parison process affects and is affected by group, task, and situational variables (Paulus &
Dzindolet, 2008). For example, individuals will be more likely to match to group members
who they perceive to be similar to them, and the social comparison process is likely to play
a larger role in smaller than larger groups. The exchange of information in groups may cog-
nitively stimulate group members to generate more ideas, especially if varied viewpoints
are discussed. However, the presentation of such different information may lead to conflict,
which could hurt group performance if not managed properly.
Cognitive Processes
Much teamwork involves complex knowledge work and considerable mental coordina-
tion (Salas, et al., 2009a). It appears to be important that teams have some shared under-
standing or mental model of their various roles and expertise (Edwards, Day, Arthur, & Bell,
2006). This may include the degree to which a team has a strong transactive memory system
(Ancona & Bresman, 2006; Lewis, 2003)—that is team members know who knows what in
the group so that team members’ skills can be utilized effectively.
A major component of the creative process is the exchange of information or ideas.
Increasingly, teams are involved in knowledge work, and the exchange of information and

C. GROUP LEVEL INFLUENCES
TEAMWORK 331
Creativity and Innovation
Group/Team, Task, and Situational Variables
Group Structure
Diversity
Overlap in KSA
Communication Modality
Cohesiveness
Size
Longevity
Leadership Style
Group Member Variables
Personality
Task Relevant KSA
Intrinsic Motivation
Perceived Task Challenge
Attitude toward Diversity
Mood (Cognitive Flexibility)
Creative Self-Efficacy
Group Climate
Psychological Safety
Commitment to Task
Conflict
Norms of Participation
Trust
Risk-Taking Norms
Norms for Innovation
External Demands
Creative Mentors and Models
Rewards and Penalties
Freedom/Autonomy/Self-Management
Support for Creativity (including Resources)
Organizational Structure
Organizational Specified Goals
Reference Group Performance
Intergroup & Intragroup Competition
Performance Feedback
Task Structure
Cognitive Processes
Generate Solutions by:
*Searching LTM to Generate Ideas
*Attending to Others’ Ideas
*Combining/Elaborating on Previously Generated Ideas and
Others’ Ideas
Team Related Processes
Social Processes
Share Generated Ideas
Exchaneg Information/Collaborative Problem-Solving
Discuss Varied Viewpoints/Minority Dissent
Engage in Social Comparison
Manage Conflict
Reflexivity
Motivational Processes
Use Internal Motivators (e.g., Intrinsic
Motivation) and External Motivators (e.g.,
Goals, Rewards, Competition) to Set and
Maintain High Levels of Motivation
Reduce Group Motivational Losses
FIGURE 14.1 A model of collaborative creativity. Reproduced with permission from Paulus and Dzindolet (2008).

C. GROUP LEVEL INFLUENCES
14. COLLABORATIVE CREATIVITY—GROUP CREATIVITY AND TEAM INNOVATION
332
ideas is key to their innovative potential. However, little research on work team innovation has
focused on these processes. Most of the relevant research and theoretical modeling has come
from researchers on creativity in laboratory groups. These settings provide for the degree of
control required for a careful assessment of the various mental processes related to collaborative
creativity. We will briefly review this research and its relevance to team innovation.
There is an interesting contrast in focus between the laboratory research on collaborative crea-
tivity and that with work teams. The research on work teams is mostly concerned with assessing
the variables that influence team creativity. It is assumed teams have much creative potential, so
the focus is aimed at determining the factors that enhance it. The group literature is a bit more
skeptical. Much of the group literature has highlighted the inefficiency and ineffectiveness of
group performance (Kerr & Tindale, 2004; Paulus, 1989). Many of these studies use non-group
comparisons to see to what extent groups can make better decisions or outperform sets of indi-
viduals. These sets of individuals are often termed nominal groups in that the performance of the
interactive groups is compared to some aggregate measure of the performance of the same size
group of individuals. So for creativity groups, an interactive group of four may be compared to
a nominal group of four. This kind of comparison has often yielded rather negative effects, with
interactive groups of brainstormers typically generating fewer good ideas and fewer total ideas
than nominal groups (Diehl & Stroebe, 1987; Mullen, Johnson, & Salas, 1991). A major focus of
research on group creativity has been on the basis for this production loss in groups and how to
overcome it (Paulus & Brown, 2003), often using the brainstorming paradigm.
A series of studies by Stroebe and his colleagues (Diehl & Stroebe, 1991; Nijstad &
Stroebe, 2006) have suggested that a critical factor is production blocking, or the inability of
group members to express their ideas as they occur in their minds. That is, group members
have to wait their turn to express their ideas. This limits their opportunities to contribute
and interrupts their flow of ideas. Participants may forget ideas as they wait, or decide they
are not longer relevant. Furthermore, there may be a tendency of group brainstormers to
converge to similar topics or categories of ideas, limiting the range of ideas that are gener-
ated (Kohn & Smith, in press; Larey & Paulus, 1999; Ziegler, Diehl, & Zijlstra, 2000). Group
members may also feel somewhat apprehensive in sharing their most radical or unique
ideas, since others might react negatively to them. Groups that are low in social apprehen-
sion tend to be more creative (Camacho & Paulus, 1995; Diehl & Stroebe, 1987). As group
size increases there may also be an increased tendency for individuals to feel less account-
able for their performance and hence to loaf (Karau & Williams, 1993).
For an interactive group to demonstrate synergy, or better performance than nominal
groups, it would have to overcome these negative forces (Larson, 2010). That turns out to be
quite difficult for face-to-face groups because of the built-in production blocking problem.
However, interactive exchanges of ideas can lead to an enhanced number of ideas relative
to nominal control groups if one uses techniques which eliminate blocking (e.g., writing,
computers), minimize evaluation apprehension, and have some degree of accountability
(Dennis & Williams, 2003; Dugosh, Paulus, Roland, & Yang, 2000). These stimulating effects
of exposure to the ideas of others may be evident even in subsequent solitary ideation ses-
sions (Dugosh et al., 2000; Paulus & Yang, 2000) and can be enhanced if the size of the elec-
tronic brainstorming group increases (DeRosa, Smith, & Hantula, 2007).
The research demonstrating the positive effects of exchange of ideas in brainstorm-
ing supports a cognitive or semantic association perspective of the brainstorming process

C. GROUP LEVEL INFLUENCES
TEAM CHARACTERISTICS 333
(Brown & Paulus, 2002; Nijstad & Stroebe, 2006). These two models outline the nature of
the process of searching one’s memory for relevant ideas. This involves the search of vari-
ous categories of knowledge relevant to the problem. Once one begins to tap one category,
one may stay with it for a while until one feels one has exhausted its potential. At that point
there will be a search for a new category to tap. The advantage of group brainstorming is
that it can stimulate people to consider categories they might otherwise not have consid-
ered, and specific ideas shared can stimulate other related ideas or can be combined with
one’s own ideas to generate more novel or useful ideas. There have been a broad range of
studies that have supported this cognitive perspective of group creativity (see Nijstad &
Stroebe, 2006; Paulus & Brown, 2003 for reviews). For example, it is particularly impor-
tant for brainstorming ideas to be exchanged in an efficient manner, with as little distract-
ing material as possible (Paulus, Nakui, Putman, & Brown, 2006b; Putman & Paulus, 2009).
Brainstorming rules that emphasize avoiding irrelevant discussions and staying on task
lead to a much higher level of idea generation (Paulus et al., 2006b; Putman & Paulus, 2009).
Presenting brainstormers with ideas while they are brainstorming individually stimulates
additional ideas (Dugosh & Paulus, 2005; Dugosh et al., 2000; Nijstad, Stroebe, & Lodewijkx,
2002; Rietzschel, Nijstad, & Stroebe, 2007). Other studies have found that decomposing the
task into subtasks or providing brief breaks enhances ideation. Apparently, having individ-
uals focus on one category at a time may enhance the effectiveness of the search within spe-
cific categories (Coskun, Paulus, Brown, & Sherwood, 2000), while brief breaks may allow
for rehearsal of ideas stimulated in a prior session or reduce continued focus on categories
that are no longer a productive source of ideas (Paulus et al., 2006b).
Many studies on group brainstorming have attempted to find ways to enhance the syner-
gistic effect of idea exchange. However, most of them have found that a given factor which
enhances group brainstorming also enhances individual brainstorming to a similar degree.
This has been the case for manipulations of goals, breaks, subtasks, additional rules, and train-
ing (Coskun et al., 2000; Paulus & Dzindolet, 1993; Paulus et al., 2006b; Putman & Paulus,
2009). This pattern of results suggests that this may be the case as well for manipulations used
to enhance team creativity. Such factors as psychological safety, trust, support, and leadership
are likely to have positive benefits for individual workers in an organization as well as those
working in the team. Many of the studies on team innovation have only examined effects on
individuals. We do not know of any study on work teams that has compared the differen-
tial effect of a key variable on individual and team creativity. Furthermore, no studies of team
innovation have examined in detail the cognitive processes involved in the team creative proc-
ess in comparison to individuals. So the group creativity literature provides an important the-
oretical and empirical reference point for understanding the collaborative creativity process
(Mannix, Neale, & Goncalo, 2009; Thompson & Choi, 2006).
TEAM CHARACTERISTICS
Team Size
Teams come in many sizes and “shapes”. Two dimensions are salient from both theoreti-
cal and practical points of view. Teams can vary in size and in the diversity of their group

C. GROUP LEVEL INFLUENCES
14. COLLABORATIVE CREATIVITY—GROUP CREATIVITY AND TEAM INNOVATION
334
members. From a naïve perspective one might suggest that the larger and more diverse the
team the better. Certainly, as one increases the size of the team, one has the benefit of more
hands to do the job, and the possibility that among the team members there will be an
increase in varied expertise. A review of the innovation literature suggests that large teams are
related to a greater degree of innovation (Hülsheger et al., 2009). This is of course not surpris-
ing. The more members in the team, the greater is the potential for diverse perspectives on the
problem (Reagans & Zuckerman, 2001). Research on electronic brainstorming in which ideas
are shared using computer systems also provides support for the benefits of larger group size
(DeRosa et al., 2007). Large groups generate more ideas than comparable groups of individual
brainstormers. Science is increasingly being carried out in teams, and the size of the teams
keeps increasing (Wuchty, Jones, & Uzzi, 2007). It has even been found that these larger sci-
ence teams are more likely to be cited than smaller teams or individual scholars. This could
be interpreted as support for the collaborative genius of groups (Farrell, 2001; Sawyer, 2007).
However, there are some drawbacks to large teams. Individuals may tend to feel less account-
able for their individual performance and therefore may be prone to social loafing (Karau &
Williams, 1993). In line with this concern, Hülsheger et al.’s (2009) review found that the ben-
efits of team size were found for team level measures but not individual ones. Large groups,
in which intense interaction is required, may suffer from the competition for time to provide
their individual input. This kind of competition or production blocking has been shown to
be an important factor in brainstorming groups (Diehl & Stroebe, 1991; Nijstad, Stroebe, &
Lodewijkx, 2003), with the larger the group size, the poorer the performance (Mullen et al.,
1991) relative to similar size control groups of noninteracting individuals (nominal groups).
Similarly, large teams with a high pressure to innovate experience poorer team processes
(commitment to team objectives, level of participation, support for innovation, emphasis on
quality) than smaller teams (Curral, Forrester, Dawson, & West, 2001).
So what are the practical implications of this mixed set of results? Obviously, for a com-
plex task that requires multiple areas of expertise or skill, one has to involve team members
with a range of skills, knowledge, and abilities (SKAs). However, it may be important to not
increase the size of the group more than necessary. Moreover, interaction sessions among
the team members should involve as few members as possible to allow for a more effective
and complete sharing of information and ideas between specific sets of group members. The
optimum size for such interactions may actually be pairs of individuals. Pairs of brainstorm-
ers exhibit little if any production deficit (Mullen et al., 1991). Analyses of collaborative crea-
tive groups suggest that much of their creative activity occurs in pairs (Farrell, 2001). Such
sub-group interactions can then be integrated into the overall team project during larger
meetings with other team members. Of course, team members do not spend all of their time
interacting with other team members. Much of their time may be spent in solitary activi-
ties, with only periodic meetings to exchange ideas, discoveries, and information. Research
on group brainstorming suggests that oscillations between such solitary and interactive ses-
sions may be an effective procedure (Baruah & Paulus, 2008).
Diversity
One of the most straightforward ideas in regard to team innovation is that innovation
is most likely in teams that are diverse in experience and expertise. One of the reasons we

C. GROUP LEVEL INFLUENCES
TEAM CHARACTERISTICS 335
have people work in teams is because of the increasing complexity of many work and inno-
vation tasks. This is particularly true in the scientific and technical fields (Wuchty et al.,
2007) as well as in organizations (Salas, Goodwin, & Burke, 2009). Since many tasks can
only be done by a diverse set of experts, at a practical level the benefit of team diversity
is obvious. However, systematic research on the effects of diversity on team performance
is rather mixed (Mannix & Neale, 2005; van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007). Some stud-
ies find positive effects of diversity, others negative effects, and some find no effect at all.
One study on creators of comic books found that individuals were better able to integrate
diverse knowledge than teams, and that diversity was related to increased variance in crea-
tive performance (Taylor & Greve, 2006). Reviews have tried to determine the factors that
influence these patterns of results. One reasonable suggestion is that the effects of diversity
may depend on the type of diversity. Diversity that is associated with personal character-
istics such as age, gender, race/ethnicity, and personality may inhibit team performance,
because these may inhibit social interaction, limit communication, and reduce social cohe-
sion (Mannix & Neale, 2005; Williams & O’Reilly, 1998). Each of these is a potentially
important factor in team performance, especially on complex tasks like those involved in
creativity. Furthermore, in many cases it is not clear exactly how such demographic diver-
sity would be helpful to achieving the team goal. Those types of characteristics may not be
related to differential expertise needed for a team task. Benefits of team diversity should be
most likely observed when the team diversity matches the task demands. Moreover, when
diversity consists primarily of differences in task-relevant expertise or experience, the social
inhibitions that are often observed with demographic diversity should be minimized, since
task-relevant differences should be less likely to instigate intragroup biases and feelings.
However, even in that domain, there can be problematic intragroup issues among people
in different fields. Of course, demographic and expertise variations may not be independ-
ent; in a group comprising nurses and engineers, it is likely that most of the nurses will be
female and the engineers will be male. This situation has been termed “strong faultlines”,
and can be contrasted with the case in which this is not true (cross-classification) (Lau &
Murnighan, 1998, 2005; Li & Hambrick, 2005). There exists evidence on the beneficial effects
of cross-categorization, or weak faultlines (Lau & Murnighan, 2005; Li & Hambrick, 2005).
Research suggests people anticipate that feelings will be more positive in cross-classified
groups and that performance (including creativity) will be enhanced (van Oudenhoven-
van der Zee, Paulus, Vos, & Parthasarathy, 2009). Pearsall, Ellis, and Evans (2008) found that
activation of gender faultlines in teams reduced the number and the overall creativity of
the ideas generated. Similarly, Kratzer, Leenders, and van Engelen (2004) found that sub-
group formation in teams inhibited their creativity. So predicting innovation in work teams
becomes a rather complex issue.
Consistent with our line of reasoning, the review by Hülsheger et al. (2009) found that
background diversity was negatively related to innovation, but job-relevant diversity had
a slight, positive relationship with innovation. The positive effects they obtained in contrast
to the overall null effects of prior reviews may be due to the fact that their review focused
only on innovation or creativity. Task diversity may be most helpful on such team tasks.
However, the fact that the relationship was fairly modest suggests that the strength of this
relationship may depend on a variety of factors. It appears that a positive attitude toward
diversity (Bouncken, Ratzman, & Winkler, 2009; Homan, van Knippenberg, Van Kleef, &

C. GROUP LEVEL INFLUENCES
14. COLLABORATIVE CREATIVITY—GROUP CREATIVITY AND TEAM INNOVATION
336
De Dreu, 2007; Nakui, Paulus, & van der Zee, in press) and a high need for cognition
(Kearney, Gebert, & Voelpel, 2009) may increase the extent to which there is careful process-
ing or elaboration of the shared ideas or information. This may then be the basis for
enhanced creativity in groups with knowledge diversity (van Knippenberg & Schippers,
2007). Furthermore, the positive effects of diversity may depend on the extent to which
there is communication among the team members and with their contacts outside the team
(Cummings, 2004; Cummings, Espinosa, & Pickering, 2009; Keller, 2001).
The potential benefit of diversity on innovation has been one rationale for the increased
use of multidisciplinary teams in both science and industry (Fiore, 2008). Multidisciplinary
teams are those in which the team members have the complementary expertise needed
for the completion of a project. Such teams have an obvious benefit for the completion of
various complex tasks. Although multidisciplinarity would seem to give teams an impor-
tant edge, the benefits of the varied expertise may only be tapped effectively if the team
has effective group processes, such as shared vision, high frequency of interaction, high
levels of team reflexivity, and safety (Fay, Borrill, Amir, Haward, & West, 2006). However,
the development of radically new insights or perspectives may require interdisciplinary
teams in which there is integration of knowledge and expertise (Cronin & Weingart, 2007).
This involves efforts by the team members to understand each others’ domains, and to
effectively build on this shared knowledge to develop new perspectives, approaches, or
techniques. Although there are case studies of effective interdisciplinary teams (Derry,
Gernsbacher, & Schunn, 2005; Dunbar, 1995), there have not been any systematic studies
of the effectiveness of such teams in comparison to multidisciplinary ones. However, there
has been some systematic research on the importance of “connectedness” among the team
members. It appears to be important for team members to be in fairly close physical prox-
imity to facilitate the frequent personal interactions necessary to develop enhanced shared
understanding (Cummings & Kiesler, 2005). It is important for team members to commu-
nicate frequently and to develop strong interpersonal bonds (Cross & Cummings, 2004;
Drach-Zahavy & Somech, 2001). However, too much communication can be associated with
lower creativity, possibly because overly frequent communications may distract from the
individual creative activities or indicate lack of efficacy (Kratzer et al., 2004).
One important factor in determining the effects of diversity may be the length of time
over which team members have worked together. Initially, group members may be more
concerned with establishing commonalities and gaining acceptance. To accomplish this they
would tend to focus on ways they are similar to one another and on their shared values (van
der Zee & Paulus, 2008). The common information bias found in decision-making groups in
which groups focus on information they have in common rather than unique information is
consistent with this point of view (Stasser & Titus, 2006). Once group members have devel-
oped some sense of social cohesion, it may be easier for them to emphasize their unique
expertise and perspectives. This is supported by at least one study with business students,
in which diversity was related to negative creative outcomes early in the semester but with
positive outcomes later in the semester (Watson, Kumar, & Michaelsen, 1993).
One of the problems with diversity, especially background or demographic diversity, is
that individuals are naturally socially inhibited in diverse settings. They may not feel free
to say what comes to mind; they may feel they have to go through some diversity censor-
ing process. People tend to have different conversations in homogenous and mixed gender

C. GROUP LEVEL INFLUENCES
FACTORS INFLUENCING TEAM CREATIVITY 337
settings. What may be appropriate or tolerated in one social context may receive negative
reactions in other contexts. Obviously anything that inhibits the flow of thoughts or ideas
may inhibit the creative process. Research on brainstorming has found that concern about
performance evaluation can inhibit performance and individuals who have high levels of
social interaction anxiety are particularly prone to such negative effects (Camacho & Paulus,
1995; Diehl & Stroebe, 1987). In the field of team innovation, there is similar evidence that
feelings of psychological safety are important for creativity (Ancona & Bresman, 2006;
Caldwell & O’Reilly, 2003; West, 1990).
FACTORS INFLUENCING TEAM CREATIVITY
Psychological or Participative Safety
Creativity implies freedom—freedom to think in new ways. But whenever someone
comes up with something different, there is a chance someone else will not like it. We see
this all the time as people, organizations, and governments try to gain acceptance for new
ideas or initiatives. Many people are comfortable with the way things are and change may
be seen as a threat. Alternatively, if the way things have been done has worked fairly well,
it may seem risky to try something new no matter how promising it sounds. This type of
resistance to innovations or change has been long documented in the organizational field
and, of course, is at odds with the presumed interest of our society and many corporations
in promoting innovation (Kilbourne & Woodman, 1999). How do we resolve this dilemma?
One key factor seems to be psychological safety. That is, members of an organization or a
team must feel that the organization or team is receptive to and supportive of the expres-
sion of new ideas. Unless there is this sense of psychological safety, individuals will not risk
the potential ridicule or negative reactions that may accompany new ideas, especially radi-
cal ones. A number of research programs have provided strong evidence for the role of this
factor in facilitating innovation (Edmonson & Roloff, 2009; West, 1990).
It is therefore important for organizational leaders to make it clear that they encour-
age creativity and the related risks (Kark & Carmeli, 2009). This is often highlighted as the
importance of leader support for creativity (Carmeli & Schaubroeck, 2007; Hackman, 2002).
A number of studies have shown that such supportive leadership is a critical factor in team
innovation (Zaccaro, Heinen, & Shuffler, 2009). However, the support of one’s fellow team
members and that of one’s family also appear to be important (Carmeli & Schaubroeck, 2007;
Madjar, 2005, 2008; Madjar, Oldham, & Pratt, 2002). Although the relative importance of all
these sources of support for creativity is yet to be determined, we presume that this will
depend in part on the motivations of the people involved. Those whose identity is strongly
related to their work should be more influenced by support derived from the work environ-
ment. Those who more strongly value family relationships may be more susceptible to family
feelings about their creative activities. However, those who have a strong intrinsic motivation
for a particular creative activity may not be as susceptible to these external support factors.
For example, low creative individuals were more positively affected by the degree of support
from home than others (Madjar et al., 2002). Madjar et al. (2002) also found that the impact
of support on creativity was mediated by mood state. Thus the facilitative effects of support,

C. GROUP LEVEL INFLUENCES
14. COLLABORATIVE CREATIVITY—GROUP CREATIVITY AND TEAM INNOVATION
338
psychological safety, and trust on innovation may be attributable in part to the positive mood
states associated with them. Kark and Carmeli (2009) have found that the positive impact of
psychological safety on innovation can be related to the increased positive feelings of vitality
(positive emotions related to a high level of activation or arousal). Research indicates that pos-
itive feelings associated with high activation levels are in fact related to increased flexibility or
divergent thinking (Baas, De Dreu, & Nijstad, 2008).
Further support for the importance of psychological safety comes from research on group
creativity. Osborn (1963) emphasized deferment of judgment as one the important prin-
ciples of group creativity and made this part of the rules of group brainstorming (don’t
judge or criticize ideas as they are presented). It does appear that lowering apprehension
about sharing ideas can increase the generation of ideas (Diehl & Stroebe, 1987). However,
research on electronic brainstorming has found little evidence that anonymity is an impor-
tant factor in this process (DeRosa et al., 2007). One of the original justifications for elec-
tronic brainstorming was that it would allow participants to share ideas anonymously in
the group (Nunamaker, Applegate, & Konsynski, 1987). This would eliminate the status dif-
ferences that might impede a free exchange of ideas. Yet data on the effects of anonymity in
electronic brainstorming are mixed. Possibly, being anonymous makes it possible for some
individuals to feel less accountable for participating in the group process, and so they may
be more prone to loaf (Karau & Williams, 1993). Any benefits of anonymity in increasing
psychological safety may be counteracted by this social loafing effect.
This same problem may exist in organizations. Although psychological safety may reduce
inhibitions for creative ideation, the feelings of safety may make one less concerned about
consequences in general. That is, a highly safe and supportive environment may ironically
reduce overall extrinsic motivation. This is suggested by the finding that participative safety
(a combined measure of involvement in group process and a non-threatening, supportive
team environment) has only a weak relationship with innovation (Hülsheger et al., 2009).
Hülsheger et al. (2009) suggested that in trying to maintain a positive group atmosphere,
group members may avoid conflict (and thus sharing ideas that might produce such con-
flict). The lethargy of many organizations has sometimes been attributed to such a tendency to
maintain good relations at the expense of honest and open interactions (e.g., groupthink, Janis,
1982). So what is the solution? Certainly, it is important for organizations to encourage innova-
tion and to make sure that team members feel free to express their ideas. However, they may
also need to exert some degree of accountability or pressure on group members to be produc-
tive and come up with useful and feasible ideas in a reasonable period of time.
Leadership
Leaders are important in providing both the task and the relational context for the work
environment of teams (Burke, Stagl, Klein, Goodwin, Salas, & Halpin, 2006a). On the basis
of our review thus far, one would predict that the most effective leaders for creativity are
those that provide a supportive environment, some degree of task structure, minimize
social conflicts and effectively manage cognitive conflicts. Thus, it is important to under-
stand how particular leadership behaviors or styles affect team creativity. Unfortunately,
most studies of leader behavior have examined individual but not collaborative creativity
(Ancona, Bressman, & Caldwell, 2009). Consistent with our prior suggestions, both task and

C. GROUP LEVEL INFLUENCES
FACTORS INFLUENCING TEAM CREATIVITY 339
person-related leadership styles appear to enhance creativity (Hülsheger et al., 2009; Hunter,
Bedell-Avers, & Mumford, 2007; Zaccaro et al., 2009). Task leadership may involve initiat-
ing structure, setting clear deadlines, and close performance monitoring (Reiter-Palmon &
Illies, 2004). Relational leadership may be highly participative and socially supportive. Such
leaders may enhance creativity by enhancing positive moods and feelings of vitality in team
members and increasing a sense of psychological safety (Atwater & Carmeli, 2009; Carmeli,
Ben-Hador, Waldman, & Rupp, 2009; Kark & Carmeli, 2009), particularly if the leader is
attentive. Both types of leaders may enhance the feelings of efficacy of the workers by pro-
viding encouragement and positive feedback (Carmeli & Schaubroeck, 2007) and increase
their level of motivation for the task.
One type of leader that should be most encouraging for innovation is a transformational
one, who inspires through a shared vision and high expectations, encourages followers to take
new approaches, and provides individual consideration and support (Bass & Avolio, 1994;
Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993). Eisenbeiss, van Knippenberg, and Boerner (2008) found that
this was indeed the case, but only when the organization had a strong climate for excellence.
Shin and Zhou (2007) found transformational leadership was beneficial for innovation when
there was diversity in the educational specialization in the research and development teams.
Since the most effective teams are self-managing (setting their own goals and even com-
pensation, Kuipers & Stoker, 2009) and have a horizontal team structure, leadership may
play different roles in such teams (Zaccaro et al., 2009). Zaccaro et al. (2009) differentiates
leader-centric versus team-centric leadership. The leader-centric style involves more tra-
ditional hierarchical leadership, and the team-centric style involves more participatory or
shared leadership. Presumably, most organizations that have self-managing teams have a
relationally-oriented culture that emphasizes shared leadership in the team. However,
Zaccaro et al. (2009) noted that in most cases, both types of leadership are needed. For
example, the leader external to the team needs to set the task boundaries and may be
responsible for the team composition. The focus of the team leader or the shared leader-
ship will be the effective functioning of the team through direction setting, managing team
operations, and developing leadership capacity. From this perspective a key factor differ-
entiating the innovative success for teams should be the type of leadership within the team
(Ancona et al., 2009). Moreover, since the organizational culture and support system is likely
to be one consistent with the team structure (highly supportive, psychologically safe), it
may be most important for the team leader or shared team leadership to have a strong task
orientation. This would insure a proper balance of both a supportive environment and some
degree of structure and pressure to make progress on the team goals. Moreover, there also
may need to be a balance in the extent to which leadership behavior is exerted. Since crea-
tive activities involve intrinsic motivation it is important for the team members to have a
degree of autonomy in their activities. Leaders should intervene only at times when task or
social support is required. This may vary depending on the different phases of the explora-
tion and exploitation process (Wageman, Fisher, & Hackman, 2009).
Conflict
If you think creative ideas may be threatening to a group or an organization, try con-
flict! Most people find conflict quite aversive, and therefore it is not surprising that teams

C. GROUP LEVEL INFLUENCES
14. COLLABORATIVE CREATIVITY—GROUP CREATIVITY AND TEAM INNOVATION
340
in general avoid it (Tjosvold & Sun, 2002). Most of us are not well trained to handle con-
flict; we may be concerned about conflict escalating out of control and the related hurt feel-
ings and anger that may ensue (De Dreu, 2008). Thus avoidance seems to be the dominant
response to conflict, and much human resource training is designed to eliminate poten-
tial conflict (e.g., harassment and racism) from the workplace by emphasizing appropri-
ate workplace protocols. Harmony in the workplace and among team members is indeed
a desirable goal, and most research indicates that social conflicts in groups and teams have
mostly negative consequences (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003). However, many have argued
that it is important to exchange conflicting perspectives in order to stimulate innovation.
Tjosvold (1991) has long championed constructive controversy as a means of stimulating
innovation in organizations, and Nemeth has provided compelling evidence that expo-
sure to conflicting perspectives can in fact increase one’s creative or divergent thinking (cf.,
Nemeth & Nemeth-Brown, 2003). There is some evidence that a moderate degree of conflict
in technological teams may be beneficial to innovation at the conceptualization stage but not
at the implementation stage (Kratzer, Leenders, & Van Engelen, 2006). Chen (2006) found a
positive effect of conflict on technology teams but not service teams.
Systematic reviews of informational or task conflict in co-located groups and teams (e.g.,
differences of opinions) have generally not found much support for the innovative impact
of conflict (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003; Hülsheger et al., 2009). However, it is also clear that
few significant innovations have occurred without some conflict. Most assessments of cre-
ative geniuses have found that a critical characteristic is persistence in the face of failure
and negative reactions from others (Baer, 1993; Henderson, 2004; Simonton, 1999). Most of
the major scientific innovations such as those by Einstein, Freud, and Darwin have been
associated with many conflicts with peers during the development of their ideas (Gardner,
1993). Progress in any area requires that people get honest feedback on their ideas. So how
do we balance the need for useful feedback with the potential negative reactions that may
accompany such feedback? The key may be that the team must have both a strong sense
of psychological safety and of social and task cohesion. That is, group members must
have strong commitment to excellence in accomplishing their tasks, strong bonds of trust
and respect for one another, and a culture in which openness and honesty about the group
task and goals are encouraged. The exchange of honest perspectives should be done in
such a way that group members see the feedback as designed to enhance the group and to
build on contributions of other team members, rather than as a personal rejection or rejec-
tion of the group’s goals. This kind of culture is apparently emphasized in IDEO (Sutton
& Hargadon, 1996). This perspective is consistent with the finding that minority dissent in
teams enhances innovation only when the teams have a high level of reflexivity or participa-
tion (De Dreu, 2002; De Dreu & West, 2001). Such groups have a high degree to which team
members are open to each other’s ideas and are motivated to adapt the group’s goals and
interaction processes to achieve a high level of functioning (see De Dreu, 2008).
Cohesion
In contrast to the conflict perspective, one of the long-held presumptions in the field
is that group cohesion will enhance task performance. Cohesion is typically conceived
as reflecting the extent to which group members have a strong social bond or sense of

C. GROUP LEVEL INFLUENCES
FACTORS INFLUENCING TEAM CREATIVITY 341
attraction (Forsyth, 2006). However, it has also been seen as a multi-dimension construct
that also includes task commitment and group pride (Beal, Cohen, Burke, & McLendon,
2003; Mullen & Copper, 1994). The review of the literature by Mullen and Copper (1994)
suggests that the task commitment component may be most important in predicting group
task performance. Teams that have strong interpersonal bonds, a strong shared commitment
to the task, and pride in their group would be expected to be more motivated than teams
without such features. Given the importance of motivation in creativity, team cohesion
should be a strong predictor of innovation. The review by Hülsheger et al. (2009) found that
indeed this is the case. Since cohesion should take some time to develop, it is not surprising
that this factor has not been found to be influential in laboratory studies of group creativity.
Even though cohesion is related to team innovation, one should not expect cohesive
groups to be naturally creative. To the extent that divergent thinking processes can produce
conflict, they may be avoided to maintain cohesion. Cohesion was one of the key factors
in groupthink (premature consensus seeking) according to Janis (1982). However, system-
atic studies of groupthink have not supported this assumption (Paulus, 1998). It is likely
that cohesion can have either positive or negative effects. If group cohesion involves a
strong task commitment to innovation, one would expect that cohesion would be related to
increased creativity. If group cohesion involves a strong commitment to maintain positive
relations and feelings of superiority relative to other groups (as in the some of the classic
cases of groupthink), group cohesion may be related to low innovation.
Trust
There is a significant literature on teams that has emphasized the importance of trust
in innovation (Carmeli & Spreitzer, 2009). Trust is typically defined as the extent to which
team members have confidence that their fellow group members will act in accordance
with accepted standards of conduct and fairness. That is, team members expect their fellow
group members to be honest, supportive, and to reciprocate positive exchanges and to avoid
negative exchanges. Such trust inevitably takes some time to develop, so it is a meaningful
construct only in longer term teams. Individuals may feel psychologically safe when there is
a high level of trust, but a group can have psychological safety without a high level of trust
(Carmeli & Spreitzer, 2009). Teams with a high level of trust are also likely to have a feel-
ing of cohesion, but groups can be cohesive without having a high level of trust. So groups
that have high trust should benefit from a sense of psychological safety, cohesion, as well as
trust. Members of a team with these characteristics should feel highly motivated to do their
fair share as a team member, be highly committed to the goals of the group, and feel free to
share their ideas without fear of rejection. One would predict that such a team would have
the potential to be quite innovative (Clegg, Unsworth, Epitropaki, & Parker, 2002).
Task Focus
Creativity involves performance on some type of task. Work teams typically are attempt-
ing to develop new procedures or products. Creativity requires that these products have
some degree of novelty and eventually some applicability. Team creativity involves both
individual and collaborative activities. Many tasks can be subdivided and individual group

C. GROUP LEVEL INFLUENCES
14. COLLABORATIVE CREATIVITY—GROUP CREATIVITY AND TEAM INNOVATION
342
members may be assigned responsibility for different components of the task (disjunctive
task, Steiner, 1972). Other tasks may simply involve the sum of the ideas or products of
the group members, as in a brainstorming session (additive task). However, in both cases,
these collaborative activities require some degree of coordination. In the case of complemen-
tary tasks, group members have to coordinate the way in which their contributions will be
meshed. Not everyone may be going at the same pace, and group members may have to
shift their focus from their own task to helping other group members (Hargadon & Bechky,
2006). In the case of additive tasks, coordination may be less complicated if individuals can
do their tasks in isolation and then simply add the contributions at some later time (as with
nominal groups). However, in many cases where group members work simultaneously
together on the same task (as in a brainstorming task or completing a puzzle), individu-
als have to coordinate their contributions due to production blocking. They have to attend
to each other’s contributions and build on them when they have an opportunity. So even
though the additive case is less complicated than the disjunctive or complementary case,
innovative processes in any group require that the team members have a strong task focus.
What are the task skills needed in collaborative creative groups? One critical need is
effective communication and information exchange (Ancona & Caldwell, 1992; Hülsheger
et al., 2009). Innovation in groups and teams is related to the extent to which they effec-
tively share ideas and information (Paulus, 2000). This requires careful attention to the
shared information/ideas as well as an effective building on those ideas. Research indi-
cates that attentional factors are in fact quite important (Paulus & Brown, 2007), but thus
far little research has actively investigated the process of building on one another’s ideas.
To effectively coordinate with others requires some social skills, such as knowing when to
contribute and when to listen. Research indicates that such social skills may be important in
teamwork and innovation (Salas et al., 2009b).
Another important factor is task structure. Because collaboration is a complicated proc-
ess, any procedure which simplifies the coordination and intellectual components should
enhance innovation. The use of computer-mediated interactions can reduce some of the
interference effects experienced in groups. Electronic brainstorming groups do not show
the production losses that are found with large face-to-face groups, because the software
allows individuals to contribute ideas at will and examine the shared ideas when they are
interested or have run out of their own ideas (Dennis & Williams, 2003). In face-to-face
groups or teams, it may be useful to structure the interaction to minimize the cognitive load.
Decomposing the task so group members focus on only one subtopic or task at a time seems
to enhance the number of ideas generated (Dennis, Aronson, Heninger, & Walker, 1999).
Alternating between group and individual sessions may also be optimal (Baruah & Paulus,
2009). It may be useful to think through the issues before joining a group session since the
group session may provide little time for private reflection. Alternatively, some period of
reflection after group interaction will facilitate one’s ability to build on the ideas of others as
well as harvesting additional ideas stimulated by the prior interaction (Dugosh et al., 2000;
Paulus & Yang, 2000).
The team literature has not focused on the details of the exchange process. It has high-
lighted instead the team approaches that are most helpful for innovation. West has empha-
sized the importance of task reflexivity, which is the extent to which the team is reflective
of its goals, processes, and strategies and is able to adjust these as needed. West and others

C. GROUP LEVEL INFLUENCES
PHASES OF TEAM CREATIVITY 343
have shown that this skill is important in facilitating team innovation (Tjosvold, Tang, &
West, 2004; West, 2003). A similar perspective that has been applied to teamwork in general
is the adaptive perspective of Burke et al. (2006b).
The above findings imply that innovative teams need extensive training in order to per-
form effectively. There is a considerable literature on the benefits of team training on per-
formance in general (Salas et al., 2008), but little if any on training for innovation. There is
one laboratory study which demonstrated that training sessions with brainstorming groups
can enhance the extent to which they are able to generate more creative ideas in groups
(Baruah & Paulus, 2008). However, we know of no systematic study demonstrating the rela-
tive importance of different factors in the training of team innovation.
PHASES OF TEAM CREATIVITY
Although we often talk about creativity as if it were a unitary activity, the creative proc-
ess in real world settings typically consists of a set of phases. The classic perspective is that
creativity involves problem selection, ideation, evaluation, and implementation (Parnes,
1975). Others have emphasized the phases of exploration (idea generation) and exploitation
(application of the ideas) (Bledow et al., 2009). Most laboratory studies of group creativity
have focused on the ideation phase, and studies with work teams are more likely to incor-
porate implementation or exploitation into their measures (Anderson, De Dreu, & Nijstad,
2004). Exploration and exploitation are typically seen as distinct processes. Exploration is a
divergent process that requires consideration of a wide range of perspectives and is seen as
a cornerstone of the creative process. The aim of this phase is often to come up with highly
novel innovations. Exploitation involves more of a convergent process of selection among
alternatives, modification of alternatives, and implementing preferred ones. This phase
involves more moderate novelty goals, as the main focus is on modifying or building on
ideas already suggested and may involve appraisal, forecasting, and refinement (Mumford,
Blair, & Marcy, 2006; Thompson, 2003). Typically these exploration and exploitation phases
are seen as ones that require different orientations and possibly different people (Staw,
2009; Thompson, 2003). Some team members or teams may be good at divergent thinking
(creators) while others may be better at adapting creative ideas (implementers) (Larey &
Paulus, 1999). In contrast, Bledow et al. (2009) propose a dialectical perspective in which
these exploration and exploitation processes do not occur in a static sequence. They sup-
port a perspective of ambidexterity (Benner & Tushman, 2003) in which these two processes
can occur in any combination of ways. The Bledow et al. (2009) perspective is consistent
with much of the reality in the workplace, in which there is a constant flow from one type
of process to another as the situation demands. However, few research studies have exam-
ined the multiple stages of the creative process. It is not clear how long teams should stay
in one phase before going to the other. Going too soon to an implementation phase may
be problematic since one may not have fully tapped the idea pool. However, it may also be
useful to try out ideas quickly to see if they will work and then go back to an ideation phase
if needed. This approach is championed by at least one top product development company
that emphasizes the need to develop rough prototypes for evaluation rather than worrying

C. GROUP LEVEL INFLUENCES
14. COLLABORATIVE CREATIVITY—GROUP CREATIVITY AND TEAM INNOVATION
344
about generating highly polished ideas (Sutton & Hargadon, 1996). These prototypes can
then be evaluated further and refined as needed.
Evaluation of individually generated ideas in a subsequent group discussion session was
part of the Nominal Group Technique (Hegedus & Rasmussen, 1986; Van de Ven & Delbecq,
1974), but in the brainstorming literature a number of studies have examined the selection
of ideas after brainstorming. These studies have found that neither individuals nor groups
are particularly good at selecting the best ideas (Putman & Paulus, 2009; Rietzschel, Nijstad,
& Stroebe, 2006). In comparison to the pool of available ideas, the ideas selected are not bet-
ter than the average of this pool. Instead there seems to be bias to select ideas that occurred
more frequently in the prior brainstorming session (Putman & Paulus, 2009). The best out-
comes for selection of good ideas came from a sequence in which ideas generated as indi-
viduals were evaluated as a group, possibly in part because the nominal groups generated a
bigger pool of good ideas (Putman & Paulus, 2009). Moreover, consistent with the Bledow et
al. (2009) perspective, Rietzschel et al. (2006) found that it did not make a difference whether
the idea generation and the selection phases were carefully separated or allowed to flow
from one to another. This research suggests that team members may not be particularly
good judges of the quality of the ideas generated by their own team. This may reflect a natu-
ral tendency to assess favorably ideas generated by oneself or one’s group. However, Faure
(2004) found that individuals were better judges of quality of their own ideas than the ideas
generated by others. When groups are asked to evaluate ideas generated by others, groups
can do a better job than individuals in selecting the best ideas (Larey & Paulus, 1999). The
actual implementation could also be passed on to a group that specializes in that domain
(possibly more technically oriented). However, those who actually came up with the ideas
may better understand the nuances involved in effectively implementing them, because
their collective experience as a team may allow them to tap more effectively their transac-
tive memory or knowledge (Gino, Todorova, Miron-Spektor, & Argote, 2009; Moreland,
Argote, & Krishnan, 1996).
GROUP STABILITY VERSUS TURNOVER
Since cohesiveness, psychological safety, and trust are important factors in team inno-
vation, it might be predicted that once teams achieve these states, some degree of stabil-
ity in team composition is desirable. Constant change in membership may make it hard
to maintain a high level of these factors since such changes are associated with increased
uncertainty, and the likelihood of conflicts in groups as they adjust to their new members
(Moreland & Levine, 1989). Moreover, when group members depart they may take with
them critical knowledge and skills, and the transactive memory system of the group will
need to be re-developed. However, turnover in groups can also be positive, as new mem-
bers can bring new perspectives and new enthusiasm to the group. The key factors in the
success of group transitions are likely the pace of the transitions and the centrality of the
team members being replaced. Loss of a high percentage of the group members in a short
period of time is likely to be detrimental, as there is sudden loss of key expertise, a reduc-
tion in the group transactive memory, and loss of cohesion. Loss of key group leaders or
those with unique expertise are also likely to negatively affect groups for a period of time

C. GROUP LEVEL INFLUENCES
VIRTUAL TEAM CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 345
until these losses can be overcome. So it would be predicted that any assessment of team
stability or longevity on innovation would yield mixed results. In fact, Hülsheger et al.
(2009) found no overall effect of team longevity on innovation. However, studies of labora-
tory brainstorming groups have found that gradual turnover in such groups over time is
associated with increased creativity (Choi & Thompson, 2005; Nemeth & Ormiston, 2007).
So it is predicted that gradual turnover in teams can have a positive impact on innova-
tion, but teams may have an initial adjustment period in which their effectiveness may be
reduced. Consistent with this perspective, Gilson and Shalley (2004) found that engagement
in creativity was highest at moderate levels of team tenure. Future research should exam-
ine both the pace of the turnover process and obtain measures at different times after the
turnover.
VIRTUAL TEAM CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION
As tasks become more and more complex, it is often necessary to choose group mem-
bers with specific knowledge or skills who do not necessarily live or work near one another.
Using various technologies, these individuals form a virtual team (VT). Although the use of
VTs has exploded (Connaughton & Shuffler, 2007; Trzcielinski & Wypych-Zoltowska, 2008;
Walvoord, Redden, Elliott, & Coovert, 2008), research focused on VT creativity is relatively
scarce. However, with the increasing use of VTs, it is important to evaluate the applicability
of research examining collaborative creativity to these types of teams. Like other teams, VTs
are comprised of multiple individuals who have some degree of task interdependence and
shared goals from an organizational setting (Horvath & Tobin, 2001). Unlike other teams,
VT members are geographically dispersed and rely on technology to communicate (Gibson
& Gibbs, 2006). Although most people assume that team members’ geographic dispersion
and electronic dependence are positively correlated, the only study that specifically meas-
ured each variable using actual teams did not find this to be the case (Gibson & Gibbs, 2006,
Study 1). Some of the teams with members spread all over the globe (e.g., a team from the
automotive industry) met face-to-face once a month and rarely used e-mail; some co-located
teams relied extensively on e-mail.
One of the main advantages of VTs is that its members can be selected primarily on the
basis of SKAs without regard to geographic location (Nemiro, 2002). Therefore, almost by
definition, VTs should have members that are more likely to possess the appropriate SKAs
to successfully perform creative and innovative tasks. Not only do VT members need the
SKAs of their co-located counterparts, VT members must have SKA competencies regard-
ing the use of the technology. Technical competence is likely to vary with age. For example,
baby boomers may be less comfortable with some of the communication technologies fre-
quently used in VTs than Generation Y members (Brady & Bradley, 2008; Webster & Staples,
2006). Training in the technology used for communication should alleviate this impedi-
ment (Rosen, Furst, & Blackburn, 2006). In addition, Webster and Staples (2006) found that
training in “virtual teaming” skills can lead to positive effects. Several of the practitioner’s
guides to VTs include tips for training in certain skills and competencies to improve VT
performance (e.g., Baan & Maznevski, 2008; Duarte & Snyder, 2006; Fisher & Fisher, 2001;
Wesner, 2008). It also appears that VTs that are above average in creativity use different sets

C. GROUP LEVEL INFLUENCES
14. COLLABORATIVE CREATIVITY—GROUP CREATIVITY AND TEAM INNOVATION
346
of media than other teams (Leenders, Kratzer, &Van Engelen, 2007; Leenders, Van Engelen,
& Kratzer, 2003).
A major problem with the literature on VTs is that there is often a confound between the
virtual status of the team and other characteristics (e.g., homogeneity with respect to geo-
graphic region and the culture associated with the region). In laboratory studies it is common
to have face-to-face groups communicate orally and dispersed groups communicate through
various technologies (Webster & Staples, 2006). Therefore, the communication medium is
confounded with group type. It may be these confounds and not virtuality, per se, that are
the cause of performance differences found between VT and co-located teams (c.f., Chudoba,
Wynn, Lu, & Watson-Manheim, 2005). However, Nemiro (2002) concluded the processes in
these VTs were similar to that of other teams. For example, the VTs tend to follow stages in
the creative process: idea generation, development, finalization/closure, and evaluation.
However, VTs are distinct from co-located teams in terms of archive capability and the abil-
ity to widen the creative pool of members through electronic links. In addition, Nemiro
(2002) found the VTs adjusted their communication strategy with the stages of creativity. For
example, nearly every VT used face-to-face communication during the idea generation stage.
However, during the development stage, nearly every VT performed the work electronically.
Among the VTs that included an evaluation stage, the work was often done face-to-face.
Since VTs can interact in an efficient manner like electronic brainstorming groups, they
should not be as susceptible to group process losses due to production blocking. However,
since they are dispersed, there may be less accountability of the extent to which team mem-
bers are focusing on the key tasks unless some sort of monitoring system is in place (Aiello &
Kolb, 1995). Based on the group decision support system literature, one would expect that VTs
would work well for the exchange of ideas or information but not as well for more complex
processes such as decision-making or negotiation (Barkhi, Jacob, & Pirkul, 1999; DeRosa, et al.,
2007; Hollingshead, 1996). Consistent with this perspective, one of the common recommenda-
tions in the literature is that VTs should periodically use face-to-face meetings. The primary
suggestion is that such teams should begin with face-to-face sessions and then move to vir-
tuality, with intermittent face-to-face sessions (Duarte & Snyder, 2006; Fisher & Fisher, 2001).
Presumably the initial face-to-face sessions allow for a more rapid development of group
cohesion, trust, and transactive memory processes. However, one could also predict that if
VTs are fine for initial information exchange, then face-to-face meetings could occur later for
more complex group tasks such as decision-making. Unfortunately, no data are available to
determine which is best. However, Cummings and Kiesler (2007) found that research teams
that were located at the same university were more productive than those that consisted of
members working at different institutions. It appears that frequent interaction and connectiv-
ity is important for the complex processes involved in scientific research projects (Cummings
& Kiesler, 2005, 2008). Furthermore, much research on computer mediated groups working
on decision or problem solving tasks has found that these groups tend to be less productive,
slower, and less satisfied than face-to-face groups (e.g., Barkhi et al., 1999; Hollingshead, 1996;
Strauss & McGrath, 1994).
One of the identifying characteristics of VTs is that they are more likely to include mem-
bers who are diverse in nationality. Yet, virtuality may affect the salience of observable

C. GROUP LEVEL INFLUENCES
VIRTUAL TEAM CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION 347
differences among the team members since they are not interacting face-to-face. So VTs
could be associated with less negative interpersonal reactions and more effective utilization
of diverse group expertise (Staples & Zhao, 2006; Webster & Staples, 2006). However, even
when national diversity is not salient, it may still bring some challenges to VT perform-
ance. People of different nationalities or cultures often vary in their underlying assumptions
regarding human behavior and values (Hofstede, 1997). For example, VT members from
high power distance cultures may need the technology to indicate status differences within
the team more than other VT members. Also people from cultures in which messages cannot
be understood outside of the context (high context cultures) may require communications
that provide such contextual information (Duarte & Snyder, 2006), so they may require a
richer media for effective interaction and innovation.
Much of the VT literature suggests that conflict is more likely to occur in VT than co-
located groups, and that this conflict will impair performance. However, only a handful
of empirical studies have compared conflict and performance in VT and co-located teams.
Griffith, Mannix, and Neale (2003) surveyed members of 35 teams and found that VT mem-
bers had more process conflict when controlling for trust. However, they did not find VTs to
have more (or less) task or relationship conflict than co-located teams. Similarly, Mortensen
and Hinds (2001) found no significant differences in interpersonal or task conflict between
VT and co-located teams. Hinds and Mortensen (2005) found the relationship between vir-
tuality and conflict (both task and interpersonal) was mediated by shared identity and spon-
taneous communication.
In summary, members of VTs are geographically dispersed and must rely on technology
to communicate. Geographic dispersion and reliance on technology affect the exchange of
both task related and task unrelated information among members, and the frequency of
spontaneous and planned communications. This in turn affects the role of factors such as
psychological safety, conflict, cohesion, trust, and task focus in team creativity. Compared to
co-located team members, VT members are more likely to possess the necessary task SKAs,
have easy access to archives from prior communications, and experience less production
blocking. VT members are often more nationally diverse and may experience more process
conflict than co-located team members.
Due to methodological issues (e.g., confounding variables), complex results (e.g., several
moderating and mediating variables), and gaps in the literature, it is difficult to provide
practitioners with empirically validated suggestions to improve VT performance in a vari-
ety of organizational systems and for a variety of tasks. However, the following are likely to
improve VT effectiveness:
1. select or train VT members so that they hold the task-necessary SKAs, team relevant
SKAs, technology SKAs, and VT-specific SKAs,
2. select the technology (especially its media richness) based on members’ computer
competencies, which may vary with age, and culture,
3. consider varying face-to-face and computer-mediated phases based on the creativity
phase and task requirements, and
4. guide VT task performance, providing performance feedback at key points concerning
individual and team goals that foster psychological safety, cohesion, and trust.

C. GROUP LEVEL INFLUENCES
14. COLLABORATIVE CREATIVITY—GROUP CREATIVITY AND TEAM INNOVATION
348
CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
It is apparent that a broad range of factors can increase innovation in teams. Basically
it appears that with the right people, the right supporting, motivational and task con-
texts, and effective social and cognitive processes, teams can be highly innovative.
These results are consistent with the integrative model in Figure 14.1. This outcome is
probably not surprising and to some extent states the obvious. We would expect highly
creative, motivated people, who work in environments that encourage creativity, to
excel. However, such excellence may not be inevitable in teams, since this configuration
adds a level of complexity. Team members have to coordinate effectively, efficiently and
adequately share and combine their relevant knowledge, select the best ideas, and effec-
tively implement them. It may take considerable training and experience for teams to
excel at team creativity.
Although this summary picture seems straightforward and supportive of using teams
for creativity purposes, much of the evidence for this conclusion comes from stud-
ies using verbal reports of processes and outcomes. We do not know of a study that
has clearly demonstrated synergy in real world work teams—that is, enhanced per-
formance of teamwork relative to working as individuals (see also Staw, 2009). There
is a need for studies that provide objective measures of processes and outcomes in real
world settings with appropriate comparison groups. Laboratory studies of creativity in
short-term groups suggest that groups will often underperform and will exceed non-
interactive baselines only under conditions that are optimal for group idea exchange
(e.g., efficient interaction patterns and mixing of group and solitary interaction).
However, the fact that laboratory studies have been able to find synergy with ad-hoc
groups in short-term settings suggests that teams which involve members suited for
teamwork, who have worked together for some time and have the diverse perspectives
needed for a problem, should also be able to achieve synergistic outcomes under the
right conditions.
Another complexity for practitioners is the fact that, for practically all of the factors that
have been demonstrated to influence team creativity, there are a number of limiting condi-
tions. Moreover, in most cases there appears to be a need for some degree of balance. Teams
should be cohesive but not too cohesive. Working as a VT can have benefits, but face-to-face
interaction seems to be important at different times during the course of the project or task.
Working as a team can have benefits, but the most effective pattern may involve a balance
of teamwork, working in pairs, and working alone. Teams should be diverse, but too much
diversity can be a problem. Some conflict can be stimulating if it occurs in the right con-
text and manner, but most conflict seems to be detrimental. A supportive context in which
one feels safe to try out ideas is important, but there also may need to be some external
demands and goals to keep the team moving forward. Intrinsic motivation appears to be
important but external incentives can also have a positive benefit. More research is needed
to discover the right balance among these and the other factors we have discussed using
both laboratory and field studies. However, at this point a number of practical suggestions
can be made based on the literature.

C. GROUP LEVEL INFLUENCES
349
REFERENCES
PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS
Team innovation requires a supportive context. Although team members may be capable of
innovation, innovative behaviors are not likely to occur at a high level unless there is encourage-
ment and support from the organization, leaders, and fellow team members. This includes an
atmosphere of trust and psychological safety in which team members feel free to engage in some
of the risky behaviors involved in creativity. Team and member characteristics are also impor-
tant. Although large teams may provide a broad range of expertise, effective interaction among
team members is most likely in relatively small teams, or in one-to-one exchanges. Diversity of
expertise or background may facilitate creativity, but such diversity needs to be relevant to the
task domain. It is important that the team members are able to understand and appreciate each
other’s diverse expertise and contributions. The social dynamics in the team can limit its creative
potential, since there may be a tendency to conform and converge on areas of agreement. Teams
need to develop a culture that encourages the exchange of diverse perspectives. Competition
within teams or among teams can provide additional motivation for creative activities.
However, even highly motivated teams may not be particularly successful unless they utilize
effective interaction processes. Meetings should be kept as small as possible and idea exchange
using writing or electronic means should be encouraged. After a period of idea exchange, there
should be an allocated period for additional reflection and building on the exchanged ideas. It
is also helpful if the idea generation process is structured. Decomposing the problem into sub-
components, periodic reflective breaks, and explicit instructions to combine and elaborate on the
shared ideas can facilitate the generation of creative ideas. Once ideas are generated, groups or
individuals need to select the best ones for implementation. There is often a bias against select-
ing the most innovative ideas in favor of the most useful ones. Although this may be a rational
policy in the long term, procedures should be in place to maintain awareness of the most novel
ideas and periodically assess their potential. For teams to achieve their creative potential, it may
be important to have leaders who focus both on effective relations and appropriate task orienta-
tion. Some training on ways to work effectively as an innovative team may also be important.
Although it is important for teams to develop some sense of cohesion and shared experience to
work together effectively, some degree of change in membership can stimulate creative think-
ing in the group. Many team creative activities can be done virtually, but the process of decision
making tends to be done best in face-to-face settings.
Acknowledgement
This chapter and related efforts are supported by a collaborative grant BCS 0729305 to the
first author from the National Science Foundation, which includes support from the Deputy
Director of National Intelligence for Analysis and a collaborative CreativeIT grant 0855825
from the National Science Foundation.
References
Aiello, J. R., & Kolb, K. J. (1995). Electronic performance monitoring and social context: Impact on productivity and
stress. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 339–353.

C. GROUP LEVEL INFLUENCES
14. COLLABORATIVE CREATIVITY—GROUP CREATIVITY AND TEAM INNOVATION
350
Ancona, D., & Bresman, H. (2006). Begging, borrowing, and building on ideas from the outside to create pulsed
innovation inside teams. In L. L. Thompson & H. Choi (Eds.), Creativity and innovation in organizational teams
(pp. 87–108). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ancona, D., Bresman, H., & Caldwell, D. (2009). The X-factor: Six steps to leading high-performing X-teams.
Organizational Dynamics, 38, 217–224.
Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. (1992). Bridging the boundary: External activity and performance in organiza-
tional teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 634–665.
Anderson, C. A., Lindsay, J. J., & Bushman, B. J. (1999). Research in the psychological laboratory: Truth or triviality?
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8, 3–9.
Anderson, N., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Nijstad, B. A. (2004). The routinization of innovation research: A constructively
critical review of the state-of-the-science. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 147–173.
Antoni, C., & Hertel, G. (2009). Team processes, their antecedents and consequences: Implications for different
types of teamwork. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 18, 253–266.
Atwater, L., & Carmeli, A. (2009). Leader–member exchange, feelings of energy, and involvement in creative work.
The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 264–275.
Baan, A., & Maznevski, M. (2008). Training for virtual collaboration: Beyond technology competencies. In
J. Nemiro, M. M. Beyerlein, L. Bradley & S. Beyerlein (Eds.), The handbook of high-performance virtual teams: A
toolkit for collaborating across boundaries (pp. 345–365). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Baas, M., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Nijstad, B. A. (2008). A meta-analysis of 25 years of Mood–Creativity research:
Hedonic tone, activation, or regulatory focus? Psychological Bulletin, 134, 779–806.
Baer, J. (1993). Creativity and divergent thinking : A task-specific approach. Hillsdale, N.J: L. Erlbaum Associates.
Barkhi, R., Jacob, V. S., & Pirkul, H. (1999). An experimental analysis of face to face versus computer mediated com-
munication channels. Group Decision and Negotiation, 8, 325–347.
Baruah, J., & Paulus, P. B. (2008). Effects of training on idea generation in groups. Small Group Research, 39, 523–541.
Baruah, J., & Paulus, P. (2009). Enhancing group creativity: The search for synergy. In E. A. Mannix, M. A. Neale &
J. A. Goncalo (Eds.), Creativity in groups (pp. 29–56). Bingley, UK: Emerald.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Beal, D. J., Cohen, R. R., Burke, M. J., & McLendon, C. L. (2003). Cohesion and performance in groups: A meta-
analytic clarification of construct relations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 989–1004.
Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L. (2003). Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity
dilemma revisited. The Academy of Management Review, 28, 238–256.
Bledow, R., Frese, M., Anderson, N., Erez, M., & Farr, J. L. (2009). A dialectic perspective on innovation: Conflicting
demands, multiple pathways, and ambidexterity. Industrial & Organizational Psychology, 2, 305–337.
Bouncken, R. B., Ratzman, M., & Winkler, V. A. (2009). Cross-cultural innovation teams: Effects of four types of
attitudes towards diversity. Journal of International Business Strategy, 8, 26–36.
Brady, E., & Bradley, L. (2008). Generational differences in virtual teams. In J. Nemiro, M. M. Beyerlein, L. Bradley
& S. Beyerlein (Eds.), The handbook of high-performance virtual teams: A toolkit for collaborating across boundaries
(pp. 263–271). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Brown, V. R., & Paulus, P. B. (2002). Making group brainstorming more effective: Recommendations from an asso-
ciative memory perspective. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 208–212.
Burke, C. S., Stagl, K. C., Klein, C., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E., & Halpin, S. M. (2006a). What type of leadership
behaviors are functional in teams? A meta-analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 288–307.
Burke, C. S., Stagl, K. C., Salas, E., Pierce, L., & Kendall, D. (2006b). Understanding team adaptation: A conceptual
analysis and model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1189–1207.
Caldwell, D. F., & O’Reilly, C. A. I. (2003). The determinants of team-based innovation in organizations. the role of
social influence. Small Group Research, 34, 497–517.
Camacho, L. M., & Paulus, P. B. (1995). The role of social anxiousness in group brainstorming. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 68, 1071–1080.
Carmeli, A., Ben-Hador, B., Waldman, D. A., & Rupp, D. E. (2009). How leaders cultivate social capital and nurture
employee vigor: Implications for job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1553–1561.
Carmeli, A., & Schaubroeck, J. (2007). The influence of leaders’ and other referents’ normative expectations on indi-
vidual involvement in creative work. The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 35–48.

C. GROUP LEVEL INFLUENCES
351
REFERENCES
Carmeli, A., & Spreitzer, G. M. (2009). Trust, connectivity, and thriving: Implications for innovative behaviors at
work. Journal of Creative Behavior, 43, 169–199.
Chen, M. (2006). Understanding the benefits and detriments of conflict on team creativity process. Creativity and
Innovation Management, 15, 105–116.
Choi, H., & Thompson, L. (2005). Old wine in a new bottle: Impact of membership change on group creativity.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 98, 121–132.
Chudoba, K. M., Wynn, E., Lu, M., & Watson-Manheim, M. B. (2005). How virtual are we? Measuring virtuality
and understanding its impact in a global organization. Information Systems Journal, 15, 279–306.
Clegg, C., Unsworth, K., Epitropaki, O., & Parker, G. (2002). Implicating trust in the innovation process. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75, 409–422.
Connaughton, S. L., & Shuffler, M. (2007). Multinational and multicultural distributed teams. Small Group Research,
38, 387–412.
Coskun, H., Paulus, P. B., Brown, V., & Sherwood, J. J. (2000). Cognitive stimulation and problem presentation in
idea-generating groups. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 4, 307–329.
Cronin, M. A., & Weingart, L. R. (2007). Representational gaps, information processing, and conflict in functionally
diverse teams. Academy of Management Review, 32, 761–773.
Cross, R., & Cummings, J. N. (2004). Tie and network correlates of individual performance in knowledge-intensive
work. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 928–937.
Cummings, J. N. (2004). Work groups, structural diversity, and knowledge sharing in a global organization.
Management Science, 50, 352–364.
Cummings, J. N., Espinosa, J. A., & Pickering, C. K. (2009). Crossing spatial and temporal boundaries in globally
distributed projects: A relational model of coordination delay. Information Systems Research, 20, 420–439.
Cummings, J. N., & Kiesler, S. (2005). Collaborative research across disciplinary and organizational boundaries.
Social Studies of Science, 35, 703–722.
Cummings, J. N., & Kiesler, S. (2007). Coordination costs and project outcomes in multi-university collaborations.
Research Policy, 36, 1620–1634.
Cummings, J. N., & Kiesler, S. (2008). Who collaborates successfully? Prior experience reduces collaboration barri-
ers in distributed interdisciplinary research. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative
Work, November 10–12, San Diego, CA.
Curral, L. A., Forrester, R. H., Dawson, J. F., & West, M. A. (2001). It’s what you do and the way that you do it: Team
task, team size, and innovation-related group processes. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology,
10, 187–204.
De Dreu, C. K. W. (2002). Team innovation and team effectiveness: The importance of minority dissent and reflexiv-
ity. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 11, 285–298.
De Dreu, C. K. W. (2008). The virtue and vice of workplace conflict: Food for (pessimistic) thought. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 29, 5–18.
De Dreu, C. K. W., & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member
satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 741–749.
De Dreu, C. K. W., & West, M. A. (2001). Minority dissent and team innovation: The importance of participation in
decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1191–1201.
Dennis, A. R., Aronson, J. E., Heninger, W. G., & Walker, E. D. (1999). Structuring time and task in electronic brain-
storming. MIS Quarterly, 23, 95–108.
Dennis, A. R., & Williams, M. L. (2003). Electronic brainstorming: Theory, research, and future directions. In
P. B. Paulus & B. A. Nijstad (Eds.), Group creativity (pp. 160–178). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
DeRosa, D. M., Smith, C. L., & Hantula, D. A. (2007). The medium matters: Mining the long-promised merit of
group interaction in creative idea generation tasks in a meta-analysis of the electronic group brainstorming
literature. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 1549–1581.
Derry, S. J., Gernsbacher, M. A., & Schunn, C. D. (2005). Interdisciplinary collaboration: An emerging cognitive science.
Mahwah, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Diehl, M., & Stroebe, W. (1987). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward the solution of a riddle. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 497–509.
Diehl, M., & Stroebe, W. (1991). Productivity loss in idea-generating groups: Tracking down the blocking effect.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 392–403.

C. GROUP LEVEL INFLUENCES
14. COLLABORATIVE CREATIVITY—GROUP CREATIVITY AND TEAM INNOVATION
352
Drach-Zahavy, A., & Somech, A. (2001). Understanding team innovation: The role of team processes and structures.
Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 5, 111–123.
Duarte, D. L., & Snyder, N. T. (2006). Mastering virtual teams: Strategies, tools, and techniques that succeed (3rd ed.).
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Dugosh, K. L., & Paulus, P. B. (2005). Cognitive and social comparison processes in brainstorming. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 313–320.
Dugosh, K. L., Paulus, P. B., Roland, E. J., & Yang, H-C. (2000). Cognitive stimulation in brainstorming. Journal of
Personality & Social Psychology, 79, 722–735.
Dunbar, K. (1995). How scientists really reason: Scientific reasoning in real-world laboratories. In R. J. Sternberg &
J. E. Davidson (Eds.), The nature of insight (pp. 365–395). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Edmondson, A., & Roloff, K. (2009). Overcoming barriers to collaboration: Psychological safety and learning in diverse
teams. In E. Salas, G. F. Goodwin & C. S. Burke (Eds.), Team effectiveness in complex organizations: Cross-disciplinary
perspectives and approaches (pp. 183–208). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. New York, NY: Routledge.
Edwards, B. D., Day, E. A., Arthur, W., & Bell, S. T. (2006). Relationships among team ability composition, team
mental models, and team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 727–736.
Eisenbeiss, S. A., van Knippenberg, D., & Boerner, S. (2008). Transformational leadership and team innovation:
Integrating team climate principles. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1438–1446.
Farrell, M. P. (2001). Collaborative circles: Friendship dynamics & creative work. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press.
Faure, C. (2004). Beyond brainstorming: Effects of different group procedures on selection and implementation of
ideas. Journal of Creative Behavior, 38, 13–34.
Fay, D., Borrill, C. S., Amir, Z., Haward, R., & West, M. A. (2006). Getting the most out of multidisciplinary teams:
A multi-sample study of team innovation in health care. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 79,
553–567.
Fiore, S. M. (2008). Interdisciplinarity as teamwork: How the science of teams can inform team science. Small Group
Research, 39, 251–277.
Fisher, K., & Fisher, M. D. (2001). The distance manager: A hands-on guide to managing off-site employees and virtual
teams. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Forsyth, D. R. (2006). Group dynamics (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth.
Gardner, H. (1993). Creating minds: An anatomy of creativity seen through the lives of Freud, Einstein, Picasso, Stravinsky,
Eliot, Graham, and Gandhi. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Gibson, C. B., & Gibbs, J. L. (2006). Unpacking the concept of virtuality: The effects of geographic dispersion,
electronic dependence, dynamic structure, and national diversity on team innovation. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 51, 451–495.
Gilson, L. L., & Shalley, C. E. (2004). A little creativity goes a long way: An examination of teams’ engagement in
creative processes. Journal of Management, 30, 453–470.
Gino, F., Todorova, G., Miron-Spektor, E., & Argote, L. (2009). When and why prior task experience fosters team
creativity. In E. A. Mannix, M. A. Neale & J. A. Goncalo (Eds.), Creativity in groups (pp. 87–110). Bingley, UK:
Emerald.
Griffith, T. L., Mannix, E. A., & Neale, M. A. (2003). Conflict and virtual teams. In C. B. Gibson & S. G. Cohen
(Eds.), Virtual teams that work: creating conditions for virtual team effectiveness (pp. 335–352). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Hackman, J. R. (1987). The design of work teams. In J. W. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 315–
342). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Hackman, J. R. (2002). Leading teams: Setting the stage for great performances. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School
Press.
Hargadon, A. B., & Bechky, B. A. (2006). When collections of creatives become creative collectives: A field study of
problem solving at work. Organization Science, 17, 484–500.
Hegedus, D. M., & Rasmussen, R. V. (1986). Task effectiveness and interaction process of a modified nominal group
technique in solving an evaluation problem. Journal of Management, 12, 545.
Henderson, S. J. (2004). Inventors: The ordinary genius next door. In R. J. Sternberg, E. E. Grigorenko & J. L.
Singer (Eds.), Creativity: From potential to realization (pp. 103–126). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.

C. GROUP LEVEL INFLUENCES
353
REFERENCES
Hinds, P. J., & Mortensen, M. (2005). Understanding conflict in geographically distributed teams: The moder-
ating effects of shared identity, shared context, and spontaneous communication. Organization Science, 16,
290–307.
Hofstede, G. (1997). Culture’s consequences, international differences in work related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hollingshead, A. B. (1996). Information suppression and status persistence in group decision-making: The effects of
communications media. Human Computer Research, 23, 193–219.
Homan, A. C., van Knippenberg, D., Van Kleef, G. A., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2007). Bridging faultlines by valuing
diversity: Diversity beliefs, information elaboration, and performance in diverse work groups. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 92, 1189–1199.
Horvath, L., & Tobin, T. J. (2001). Twenty-first century teamwork: Defining competencies for virtual teams. In M. M.
Beyerlein, D. A. Johnson & S. T. Beyerlein (Eds.), Advances in interdisciplinary studies of work teams: Vol. 8. Virtual
teams (pp. 239–258). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science Ltd.
Hülsheger, U. R., Anderson, N., & Salgado, J. F. (2009). Team-level predictors of innovation at work: A comprehen-
sive meta-analysis spanning three decades of research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1128–1145.
Hunter, S. T., Bedell-Avers, K., & Mumford, M. D. (2007). The typical leadership study: Assumptions, implications,
and potential remedies. Leadership Quarterly, 18, 435–446.
Ilgen, D. R., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M., & Jundt, D. (2005). Teams in organizations: From input–process–output
models to IMOI models. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 517–543.
Janis, I. L. (1982). Groupthink : Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton
Mifflin.
John-Steiner, V. (2000). Creative collaboration. Oxford, UK; New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Kanev, K., Kimura, S., & Orr, T. (2009). A framework for collaborative learning in dynamic group environments.
International Journal of Distance Education Technologies, 7, 58–77.
Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. (1993). Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 681–706.
Kark, R., & Carmeli, A. (2009). Alive and creating: The mediating role of vitality and aliveness in the relation-
ship between psychological safety and creative work involvement. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30,
785–804.
Kearney, E., Gebert, D., & Voelpel, S. C. (2009). When and how diversity benefits teams: The importance of team
members’ need for cognition. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 581–598.
Keller, R. T. (2001). Cross-functional project groups in research and new product development: Diversity, communi-
cations, job stress, and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 547–555.
Kerr, N. L., & Tindale, R. S. (2004). Group performance and decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 55,
623–655.
Kilbourne, L. M., & Woodman, R. W. (1999). Barriers to organizational creativity. In R. E. Purser & A. Montuori
(Eds.), Social creativity (pp. 125–150). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Kohn, N. W., & Smith, S. M. (in press). Collaborative fixation: Effects of others’ ideas on brainstorming. Journal of
Applied Cognitive Psychology.
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Ilgen, D. R. (2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychological
Science in the Public Interest, 7, 77–124.
Kratzer, J., Leenders, R. T. A. J., & Van Engelen, J. M. L. (2004). Stimulating the potential: Creative performance and
communication in innovation teams. Creativity and Innovation Management, 13, 63–70.
Kratzer, J., Leenders, R. T. A. J., & Van Engelen, J. M. L. (2006). Team polarity and creative performance in innova-
tion teams. Creativity and Innovation Management, 15, 96–104.
Kuipers, B. S., & Stoker, J. I. (2009). Development and performance of self-managing work teams: A theoretical and
empirical examination. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20, 399–419.
Larey, T. S., & Paulus, P. B. (1999). Group preference and convergent tendencies in small groups: A content analysis
of group brainstorming performance. Creativity Research Journal, 12, 175–184.
Larson, J. R. (2010). In search of synergy in small group performance. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Lau, D. C., & Murnighan, J. K. (1998). Demographic diversity and faultlines: The compositional dynamics of organ-
izational groups. Academy of Management Review, 23, 325–340.
Lau, D. C., & Murnighan, J. K. (2005). Interactions within groups and subgroups: The effects of demographic fault-
lines. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 645–659.

C. GROUP LEVEL INFLUENCES
14. COLLABORATIVE CREATIVITY—GROUP CREATIVITY AND TEAM INNOVATION
354
Leenders, R. T. A. J., Kratzer, J, & Van Engelen, J. M. L. (2007). Media ensembles and new product team creativ-
ity: A tree-based exploration. In S. P. MacGregor & T. Torress-Coronas (Eds.), Higher creativity for virtual teams:
Developing platforms for co-creation (pp. 75–97). Harrisburg, PA: Information Science Reference.
Leenders, R. T. A. J., Van Engelen, J. M. L., & Kratzer, J. (2003). Virtuality, communication, and new product team
creativity: A social network perspective. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 20, 69–92.
Lewis, K. (2003). Measuring transactive memory systems in the field: Scale development and validation. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 88, 587–604.
Li, J., & Hambrick, D. C. (2005). Factional groups: A new vantage on demographic faultlines, conflict, and disinte-
gration in work teams. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 794–813.
Madjar, N. (2005). The contributions of different groups of individuals to employees’ creativity. Advances in
Developing Human Resources, 7, 182–206.
Madjar, N. (2008). Emotional and informational support from different sources and employee creativity. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 81, 83–100.
Madjar, N., Oldham, G. R., & Pratt, M. G. (2002). There’s no place like home? The contributions of work and non-
work creativity support to employees’ creative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 757–767.
Mannix, E. A., & Neale, M. A. (2005). What difference makes a difference: The promise and reality of diverse
groups in organizations. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 6, 31–55.
Mannix, E. A., Neale, M. A., & Goncalo, J. A. (2009). Creativity in groups. Bingley, UK: Emerald.
Mayer, R. E. (1999). Fifty years of creativity research. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 449–458).
New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Moreland, R. L., Argote, L., & Krishnan, R. (1996). Social shared cognition at work: Transactive memory and group
performance. In J. L. Nye & A. M. Brower (Eds.), What’s social about social cognition? Research on socially shared
cognition in small groups (pp. 57–84). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Moreland, R. L., & Levine, J. M. (1989). Newcomers and oldtimers in small groups. In P. B. Paulus (Ed.), Psychology
of group influence (pp. 143–186). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Mortensen, M., & Hinds, P. (2001). Conflict and shared identity in geographically distributed teams. International
Journal of Conflict Management, 12, 212–238.
Mullen, B., & Copper, C. (1994). The relation between group cohesiveness and performance: An integration.
Psychological Bulletin, 115, 210–227.
Mullen, B., Driskell, J. E., & Salas, E. (1998). Meta-analysis and the study of group dynamics. Group Dynamics:
Theory, Research, and Practice, 2, 213–229.
Mullen, B., Johnson, C., & Salas, E. (1991). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: A meta-analytic integration.
Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 12, 3–23.
Mumford, M. D., Blair, C. S., & Marcy, R. T. (2006). Alternative knowledge structures in creative thought: Schema,
associations, and cases. In J. Baer (Ed.), Creativity and reason in cognitive development (pp. 117–136). New York,
NY: Cambridge University Press.
Nakui, T., Paulus, P. B., & van der Zee, K. I. (in press). The role of attitudes in reactions to diversity in work groups.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology.
Nemeth, C. J., & Nemeth-Brown, B. (2003). Better than individuals? The potential benefits of dissent and diver-
sity for group creativity. In B. A. Nijstad & P. B. Paulus (Eds.), Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration
(pp. 63–84). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Nemeth, C. J., & Ormiston, M. (2007). Creative idea generation: Harmony versus stimulation. European Journal of
Social Psychology, 37, 524–535.
Nemiro, J. E. (2002). The creative process in virtual teams. Creativity Research Journal, 14, 69–83.
Nijstad, B. A. (2009). Group performance. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Nijstad, B. A., & Stroebe, W. (2006). How the group affects the mind: A cognitive model of idea generation in
groups. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 186–213.
Nijstad, B. A., Stroebe, W., & Lodewijkx, H. F. M. (2002). Cognitive stimulation and interference in groups:
Exposure effects in an idea generation task. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 535–544.
Nijstad, B. A., Stroebe, W., & Lodewijkx, H. F. M. (2003). Production blocking and idea generation: Does blocking
interfere with cognitive processes? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 531–548.
Nunamaker, J. F., Jr., Applegate, L. M., & Konsynski, B. R. (1987). Facilitating group creativity: Experience with a
group decision support system. Journal of Management Information Systems, 3, 5–19.

C. GROUP LEVEL INFLUENCES
355
REFERENCES
Osborn, A. F. (1963). Applied imagination; principles and procedures of creative problem-solving (3d rev ed.). New York,
NY: Scribner.
Parnes, S. J. (1975). CPSI: A program for balanced growth. Journal of Creative Behavior, 9, 23–29.
Paulus, P. B. (1989). Psychology of group influence (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, N.J: L. Erlbaum.
Paulus, P. B. (1998). Developing consensus about groupthink after all these years. Organizational Behavior & Human
Decision Processes, 73, 362–374.
Paulus, P. B. (2000). Groups, teams, and creativity: The creative potential of idea-generating groups. Applied
Psychology: An International Review, 49, 237–262.
Paulus, P. B. (2007). Fostering creativity in groups and teams. In J. Zhou & C. E. Shalley (Eds.), The Handbook of
Organizational Creativity (pp. 159–182). Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis Group.
Paulus, P. B., & Brown, V. R. (2003). Enhancing ideational creativity in groups: Lessons from research on brain-
storming. In P. B. Paulus & B. A. Nijstad (Eds.), Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration (pp. 110–136)
(2nd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Paulus, P. B., & Brown, V. R. (2007). Toward more creative and innovative group idea generation: A cognitive-social
motivational perspective of brainstorming. Social and Personality Compass, 1, 248–265.
Paulus, P. B., & Dzindolet, M. T. (1993). Social influence processes in group brainstorming. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 64, 575–586.
Paulus, P. B., & Dzindolet, M. T. (2008). Social influence, creativity and innovation. Social Influence, 3, 228–247.
Paulus, P. B., Nakui, T., & Putman, V. L. (2006a). Group brainstorming and teamwork: Some rules for the road to
innovation. In L. L. Thompson & H. Choi (Eds.), Creativity and innovation in organizational teams (pp. 69–86).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Paulus, P. B., Nakui, T., Putman, V. L., & Brown, V. R. (2006). Effects of task instructions and brief breaks on brain-
storming. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 10, 206–219.
Paulus, P. B., & Nijstad, B. A. (2003). Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Paulus, P. B., & Van der Zee, K. I. (2004). Should there be a romance between teams and groups? Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77, 475–480.
Paulus, P. B., & Yang, H. (2000). Idea generation in groups: A basis for creativity in organizations. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82, 76–87.
Pearsall, M. J., Ellis, A. P. J., & Evans, J. M. (2008). Unlocking the effects of gender faultlines on team creativity: Is
activation the key? Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 225–234.
Pirola-Merlo, A., & Mann, L. (2004). The relationship between individual creativity and team creativity:
Aggregating across people and time. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 235–257.
Putman, V. L., & Paulus, P. B. (2009). Brainstorming, brainstorming rules and decision making. Journal of Creative
Behavior, 43, 23–39.
Reagans, R., & Zuckerman, E. W. (2001). Networks, diversity, and productivity: The social capital of corporate R&D
teams. Organization Science, 12, 502–517.
Reiter-Palmon, R., & Illies, J. J. (2004). Leadership and creativity: Understanding leadership from a creative prob-
lem-solving perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 55–77.
Rietzschel, E. F., Nijstad, B. A., & Stroebe, W. (2006). Productivity is not enough: A comparison of interactive and
nominal brainstorming groups on idea generation and selection. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42,
244–251.
Rietzschel, E. F., Nijstad, B. A., & Stroebe, W. (2007). Relative accessibility of domain knowledge and creativity: The
effects of knowledge activation on the quantity and originality of generated ideas. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 43, 933–946.
Rosen, B., Furst, S., & Blackburn, R. (2006). Training for virtual teams: An investigation of current practices and
future needs. Human Resource Management, 45, 229–247.
Salas, E., DiazGranados, D., Klein, C., Burke, C. S., Stagl, K. C., Goodwin, G. F., & Halpin, S. M. (2008). Does team
training improve team performance? A meta-analysis. Human Factors, 50, 903–933.
Salas, E., Goodwin, G. F., & Burke, C. S. (2009a). Team effectiveness in complex organizations: Cross-disciplinary perspec-
tives and approaches. New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
Salas, E., Rosen, M. A., Burke, C. S., & Goodwin, G. F. (2009b). The wisdom of collectives in organizations: An
update of the teamwork competencies. In E. Salas, G. F. Goodwin & C. S. Burke (Eds.), Team effectiveness in

C. GROUP LEVEL INFLUENCES
14. COLLABORATIVE CREATIVITY—GROUP CREATIVITY AND TEAM INNOVATION
356
complex organizations: Cross-disciplinary perspectives and approaches (pp. 39–79). New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor
& Francis Group.
Sawyer, R. K. (2007). Group genius: The creative power of collaboration. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept
based theory. Organization Science, 4, 577–594.
Shin, S. J., & Zhou, J. (2007). When is educational specialization heterogeneity related to creativity in research and
development teams? Transformational leadership as a moderator. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1709–1721.
Simonton, D. K. (1999). Origins of genius: Darwinian perspectives on creativity. New York, NY: Oxford University
Press.
Staples, D. S., & Zhao, L. (2006). The effects of cultural diversity in virtual teams versus face-to-face teams. Group
Decision and Negotiation, 15, 389–406.
Stasser, G., & Titus, W. (2006). Pooling of unshared information in group decision making: Biased information sam-
pling during discussion. In J. M. Levine & R. L. Moreland (Eds.), Small groups: Key readings (pp. 227–239). New
York, NY: Psychology Press.
Staw, B. M. (2009). Is group creativity really an oxymoron? Some thoughts on bridging the cohesion–creativ-
ity divide. In E. A. Mannix, M. A. Neale & J. A. Goncalo (Eds.), Creativity in groups (pp. 311–323). Bingley, UK:
Emerald.
Steiner, I. D. (1972). Group process and productivity. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Sternberg, R. J. (2006). Creating a vision of creativity: The first 25 years. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the
Arts, S, 2–12.
Sternberg, R. J., Grigorenko, E. L., & Singer, J. L. (2004). Creativity : From potential to realization (1st ed.). Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.
Straus, S. G., & McGrath, J. E. (1994). Does the medium matter? The interaction of task type and technology on
group performance and member reactions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 87–97.
Sutton, R. I., & Hargadon, A. B. (1996). Brainstorming groups in context: Effectiveness in a product design firm.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 685–718.
Taggar, S. (2001). Group composition, creative synergy, and group performance. Journal of Creative Behavior, 35,
261–286.
Tasa, K., Taggar, S., & Seijts, G. H. (2007). The development of collective efficacy in teams: A multilevel and longitu-
dinal perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 17–27.
Taylor, A., & Greve, H. R. (2006). Superman or the Fantastic Four? Knowledge combination and experience in inno-
vative teams. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 723–740.
Thompson, L. (2003). Improving the creativity of organizational work groups. Academy of Management Executive, 17,
96–109.
Thompson, L. L., & Choi, H. (2006). Creativity and innovation in organizational teams. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Tjosvold, D. (1991). The conflict-positive organization: Stimulate diversity and create unity. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Tjosvold, D., & Sun, H. F. (2002). Understanding conflict avoidance: Relationship, motivations, actions, and conse-
quences. International Journal of Conflict Management, 13, 142–164.
Tjosvold, D., Tang, M. M. L., & West, M. A. (2004). Reflexivity for team innovation in china: The contribution of
goal interdependence. Group & Organization Management, 29, 540–559.
Trzcielin´ski, S., & Wypych-Z
˙ółtowska, M. (2008). Toward the measure of virtual teams effectiveness. Human Factors
and Ergonomics in Manufacturing, 18, 501–514.
Van de Ven, A. H., & Delbecq, A. L. (1974). The effectiveness of nominal, delphi, and interacting group decision
making processes. Academy of Management Journal, 17, 605–621.
van der Zee, K. I., & Paulus, P. B. (2008). Social psychology and modern organizations: Balancing between innova-
tiveness and comfort. In L. Steg, A. P. Buunk & T. Rothengatter (Eds.), Applied social psychology: Understanding
and managing social problems (pp. 271–290). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
van Knippenberg, D., & Schippers, M. C. (2007). Work group diversity. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 515–541.
van Oudenhoven-van der Zee, , Paulus, P. B., Vos, M., & Parthasarathy, N. (2009). The impact of group composition
and attitudes towards diversity on anticipated outcomes of diversity in groups. Group Processes & Intergroup
Relations, 12, 257–280.

C. GROUP LEVEL INFLUENCES
357
REFERENCES
Wageman, R., Fisher, C. M., & Hackman, J. R. (2009). Leading teams when the time is right: Finding the best
moments to act. Organizational Dynamics, 38, 192–203.
Walvoord, A. A. G., Redden, E. R., Elliot, L. R., & Coovert, M. D. (2008). Empowering followers in virtual teams:
Guiding principles from theory and practice. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 1884–1906.
Watson, W. E., Kumar, K., & Michaelsen, L. K. (1993). Cultural diversity’s impact on interaction process and per-
formance: Comparing homogeneous and diverse task groups. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 590–602.
Webster, J., & Staples, D. S. (2006). Comparing virtual teams to traditional teams: An identification of new research
opportunities. In J. J. Martocchio (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources management (vol. 25, pp. 181–
215). San Diego, CA: Elsevier Science/JAI Press.
Wesner, M. S. (2008). Assessing training needs for virtual team collaboration. In J. Nemiro, M. M. Beyerlein,
L. Bradley & S. Beyerlein (Eds.), The handbook of high-performance virtual teams: A toolkit for collaborating across
boundaries (pp. 273–294). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
West, M. A. (1990). The social psychology of innovation in groups. Innovation and creativity at work. In M. A. West
& J. L. Farr (Eds.), Psychological and organizational strategies (pp. 309–333). Oxford, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
West, M. A. (2002). Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: An integrative model of creativity and innovation
implementation in work groups. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 51, 355–387.
West, M. A. (2003). Innovation implementation in work teams. In P. B. Paulus & B. A. Nijstad (Eds.), Group creativ-
ity: Innovation through collaboration (2nd ed.) (pp. 245–276). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Williams, K. Y., & O’Reilly, C. A. III. (1998). The complexity of diversity: A review of forty years of research. In
M. Neale, E. Mannix & D. H. Gruenfeld (Eds.), Research on managing in groups and teams (Vol. 1). Greenwich, CT:
JAI Press.
Wuchty, S., Jones, B. F., & Uzzi, B. (2007). Increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science, 316,
1036–1039.
Zaccaro, S. J., Heinen, B., & Shuffler, M. (2009). Team leadership and team effectiveness. In E. Salas, G. F. Goodwin
& C. S. Burke (Eds.), Team effectiveness in complex organizations: Cross-disciplinary perspectives and approaches
(pp. 83–111). New York, NY: Routledge.
Ziegler, R., Diehl, M., & Zijlstra, G. (2000). Idea production in nominal and virtual groups: Does communication
improve group brainstorming. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 3, 141–158.