The analysis of the qualitative data resulting from the semi-structured interviews has led to the emergence of three aggregate dimensions: (1) Team member emotions, (2) Team member manner of processing information, (3) Normative interpersonal behavior. Although the methodological approach that has led to the emergence of these dimensions may be well-executed and -substantiated, Gioia et al. (2013) argue that this hardly matters if the theory is not narrated in an intellectually compelling manner. Thus, the remainder of this chapter will cross-compare cases while adhering to the structure of the aggregate dimensions. The chapter will proceed as follows: Subsections 4.1., 4.2., 4.3. will elaborate on the resemblances or disparities between the cases on each aggregate dimension (Please refer to appendix 7.2. for an extensive summative overview of viewpoints of each case on each aggregate dimension and corresponding second-order themes). Subsection 4.4 will elaborate on the configuration between these aggregate dimensions and second-order themes, and Subsection 4.5. will explore what the influence of self-managed structuring of teams is on that configuration. To validate data-to-theory connections, elaborations, and explorations in each chapter are supported by a selection of the numerous direct quotations of interviewees (Gioia et al., 2013).
4.1. Team Member Emotions
Team cohesion
The first emerging theme is team cohesion, which refers to an individuals’ feeling of being a valued integral part of a team and their closeness with the other team members. It hence serves as an umbrella term for “pride,” “togetherness,” “interpersonal liking,” “non-professional connection,” and “a common sense of humor.” Each interviewee referred to one or more facades of team cohesion, implying that the cases unanimously agree that this second-order theme is a fundamental aspect of a team climate for creativity. A remark of interviewee 2b demonstrates that such team cohesion is meaningful:
“Our clients also notice that sense of togetherness. They agree that cooperation that comes from this sense is much more important for the entire ideation process than some well-known
creatives who do it individually.”
Furthermore, the interviewees indicate several reasons why team cohesion is vital for the ideation process. First, interviewee 1b states that interpersonal liking and chemistry ensure mutual understanding and anticipation:
“Icebreakers allow you to get to know your team members in a different, non-professional
manner. For example, one colleague has four children. It makes you think: “How is he able to manage that with his job?” (…) Afterward, I understand what my team members need.”
Secondly, other interviewees’, like interviewee 3b, state that non-professional connection eases professional communication:
“I think it’s important that, while you’re brainstorming in a room together, you can also talk about other things than just work. I think that eases your work.”
“Creativity fuels from crazy or unexpected perspectives, and these, in turn, derive from
humor.”
A common sense of humor is, on the other hand, not at all highlighted by the remaining two cases, which operate in the field of UX and Design. Hence, one could infer that humor's importance is associated with the typology of creative output one expects the team to deliver.
Also, the results highlight that such team cohesion is activated by celebrating successes and, even more frequently mentioned, granting credit for ideas to the entire team instead of granting recognition to the individuals who may have initially suggested the idea. Many interviewees made comments affiliated with the following statement of interviewee 5a:
“It does not matter who came up with the initial idea. We never even mention that to each
other, let alone to others. Because in the end, an idea is always made by the entire team.”
Participation safety
“Discussing ideas is a very delicate process, in which one is very vulnerable. I remember that the first time I had to do that, I was terrified. You have to say: “Well, I thought we could maybe do this!” (…) If someone then says: “No, I think that’s stupid,” you instantly freeze.”
This quotation of interviewee 4b hints at the prevalence of participation safety in a team climate for creativity. Participation safety refers to the feeling of being safe to propose new ideas (Anderson & West, 1998), and relates to “trust,” “feeling at ease,” and “psychological safety.”
While the citation of interviewee 4b concerns feeling safe to propose ideas, participation safety also concerns feeling safe to express doubts. Demonstratively, Interviewee 2a says:
“The moment that one person felt comfortable to state that the idea did not appeal to him, which was a deviating opinion, others also started to express doubts.”
These two citations insinuate that feeling psychologically safe triggers, and is triggered by, behavioral norms: “team member support” and “transparency.” This linkage is further discovered in paragraph four of this chapter.
Also, it has become apparent that semi-autonomous teams act differently from autonomous groups in this regard. As indicated by interviewee 1b (a senior in a semi-autonomous team), seniors in a team feel the need to safeguard participation safety:
“Sometimes, I notice that people are reluctant to share their opinion, possibly out of fear. It’s then my task to indicate that this isn’t a healthy atmosphere.”
For SMT’s, psychological safety must be obtained differently. Although the interviewees of the fully autonomous cases indicate that they feel psychologically safe within their team, this must develop over time and is not guaranteed to transpire. Interviewee 4b states:
“In past teams, I sometimes did not dare to be honest about the work of my teammates, so
then I just did not say anything. I must say that I was younger and less confident then.”
The above citation insinuates that confidence and assertiveness ought to become increasingly important in the absence of participation safety.
(Shared) Confidence
This study highlights the significance of (shared) confidence in a team climate for creativity, which here refers to someone’s belief in his/her ability (hence shared is deliberately written in parathesis) and the team's skills. It thus involves remarks that are associated with confidence and team potency. The results convey the impression that (shared) confidence triggers team member support. Illustratively, interviewee 4b states:
“Sometimes, the ideation process reaches low points when you can’t possibly see how you’re
going to think of anything creative. But I always try to remind myself and others that we will think of something and that this fear is not realistic.”
In light of this research, (shared) confidence does, however, not merely relate to belief in
designated to safeguard participation safety. After asking a follow-up question to interviewee 4b on how he handled the situation of not daring to be honest about the work of his teammates (described in the last citation of the paragraph on participation safety), he answered:
“It was up to our creative director, who was not part of our team, to decide and to be honest about the quality. (…) I realize that this is not a fair thing to do.”
The answer demonstrates that, if team members do not have (shared) confidence, it influences normative behavior: transparency is inhibited, and conflict management is complicated.
4.2. Team Member Manner of Information Processing
Task Orientation
“Great ideas are those that improve the user experience, contribute to our client’s business goals, and are unique and original” (Interviewee 1b)
The first cognitive facet that became apparent from the data is task orientation: “the shared concern of excellence in task executions” (Anderson & West, 1998). The preceding quotation indicates that the tasks of the interviewed cases are centered around the encouragement and introduction of novel and useful ideas, which hints towards the fact that support for innovation and risk-taking are also considered part of task orientation.
While the prevalence of task orientation as part of a team’s climate emerged from each case, there seems to be a significant discrepancy between semi- and fully autonomous teams on task orientation is expressed. The data suggest that for semi-autonomous teams, senior team members take on a rather supervisory role. For example, in the semi-autonomous teams, one of the senior interviewees’, interviewee 2b, commented:
“To be creative, you should be able to approach something from various angles (…). This
manner of thinking is hard to learn, but it starts with being around the right people, who ask the right questions and show how it’s done.”
Additionally, senior interviewee 3b commented:
“Sometimes you have too many opinions, and then it’s like: “(…) This is what we are going
to do because that’s what I’ve decided” – It’s always a kind of a democratic process, but you do need people that have the deciding vote.”
Coherently, the interviews reveal that juniors thereupon embrace a more submissive role: they
“Senior creatives often have a creative frame of reference in mind that they use to assess the
output of the team.”
However, one should not infer that the junior in semi-autonomous teams always consents to seniors. At times, juniors act according to norms that resemble SMT’s: observe others and keeping each other focused. This could be exemplified by the similarity of two quotations: one of interviewee 1a (junior of a semi-autonomous team):
“The fact that you’re working in a team determines the quality level of the team’s output. You
should keep each other focused, and that way, the quality will be higher.”
and one of interviewee 5b (member of an SMT’s):
“We’re often critical of each other's work. This way, we keep each other sharp.”
In line with the preceding, it is debatable whether the presence of seniors to administer quality standards is a necessity, a redundancy, or maybe even an inhibitor of creativity, as juniors possibly exploit the reliance on seniors and no longer think for themselves.
Shared Vision
The second emerging cognitive theme, a shared vision, relates to team members' concordance and clarity about the pursuit of a project and the higher-order goals. To be creative, analyzed cases not only acknowledge the prominence of a shared vision from the instigation of the project onwards, but also underpin the significance of being attentive to everyone acting according to that shared vision. A comment of interviewee 3b embodies this:
“Sometimes people act out of other interests. If this takes too long to become apparent, it
takes up a lot of energy to battle this; energy you’d rather spend on the project.”
Furthermore, virtually all cases agree that teams should attain the configuration of such a shared vision through team consultation; every analyzed case seems to sympathize with the comment of interviewee 3a:
“We should determine the direction into which we're heading by discussing this together.”
It could, however, be debated whether the direction is determined through team consultation since interviewee 3a later indicates the following:
“In teams where there is no seniority difference, in which I have worked before, you have a say in the decisions made and the determined direction.”
Furthermore, the assurance of whether everyone adheres to this direction also seems to deviate between SMT’s and semi-autonomous teams. For semi-autonomous teams, seniors like interviewee 2b shoulder responsibility for guaranteeing that everyone is on the same wavelength regarding higher-order goals and the project’s pursuit:
“I think that the starting point of each project should be clarity about expectations. So, I always ask: “Does everyone get it?” If not, I will explain it one more time.”
In contrast, SMT members, like interviewee 4a, themselves would like to secure they understand the project’s pursuit:
“Last week, we started to work for a new client, and we told our account manager: “let us [the team] be part of the zoom meeting. That way, we get to know the client, and we all
understand what their needs are. This works particularly well for me.”
In like manner of task orientation, one could wonder whether the administering of understanding of the shared vision is redundant. Also, if seniors determine a vision, it is possibly not shared and could thus inhibit creativity. This is echoed by interviewee 1a:
“If we act according to a seniors’ opinion, the decisions are not widely held.”
Openness
Interviewee 2a: “To be creative, one needs to expose oneself to multiple experiences, like museums, movies, and life lessons in general. Because you never know when you need them.”
discovery phase or the diverging phase), teams intend to thoroughly understand the assignment and think of as many ideas as possible. Logically, openness is fundamental at these initial stages of creativity. Interviewee 3b explains how such ideation processes typically unfold through an anecdote:
“We had to design an innovative website for a client of ours, called Oak, a content marketing
agency. The central idea arose from asking questions and understanding the why: “Why is this company called Oak?” “Oak is a type of wood that comes from a tree, and a tree grows.” “They’re a marketing agency that helps people grow; why don’t we see this in their
website design?” That’s how ideas evolve, by being curious.”
Although openness predominantly refers to an individual’s cognition, it could be fueled by one’s surrounding team. Many interviewees indicated that within the entire creative- or design team (beyond the borders of a project team), creative content is constantly shared to inspire each other and trigger divergent thinking. Also, within a project team, two interviewees specifically emphasize the necessity to be appreciative and non-judgmental about weirdness:
“Extremely creative people tend to think in a bit of a twisted manner. Therefore, they could be hard to work with, but I personally always have faith in such people.”
The preceding citation hints toward a linkage between “openness” and an emotional variable:
“participation safety.” This association is further discovered in the fourth paragraph of this chapter.
4.3. Normative Interpersonal Behavior
Transparency
Since each interviewee addressed at least one of the inherent topics of transparency (“open communication,” “honesty,” “visibility,” and “reflexivity”), this second-order theme is contemplated to be a normative element of a team climate of creativity. A quotation of interviewee 5b perfectly articulates what virtually every interviewee attempts to bring across:
“During the concept development phase, one needs to be verbally strong and be able to think
out loud, for others to supplement that initial idea.”
Moreover, the data indicates that transparency does not limit itself to verbal communication.
Certain interviewees suggest that they are particularly visual-oriented, and hence indicate that creativity also benefits from observing what co-workers are doing:
“When you’re in the office, which we haven’t been for a while now, you could easily check up
on each other’s work and provide quick feedback.” (Interviewee 4b)
“Don’t just talk about what you’re doing, but also show what you’re doing. We’re working digitally now, but I’d rather paste everything on a wall.” (interviewee 3b).
These two interviewees also indicate why the current Covid-19 circumstances are disadvantageous for a team’s creativity.
Nonetheless, certain interviewees describe that this transparency does not necessarily come naturally. Transparency and assertiveness or extraversion are often mentioned in the same breath. Interviewee 1a clarifies that assertiveness is a behavioral characteristic that does not necessarily make an individual more creative, but is vital for a team’s creativity:
“Sharing and asking for feedback is extremely important. Therefore, it is beneficial that you
Logically, interviewees link transparency to other second-order themes, such as participative safety and interpersonal liking. An elaboration on this connection is given in paragraph 4.4.
Dynamism/Liveliness
Each of the five cases mentioned that a certain extent of dynamism, or liveliness, which refers to the eventfulness of teamwork (Ekvall, 1996), prompts an individual and the team’s creativity. Also, the results reveal that eventfulness could be deciphered in two manners. First, groups are shown to benefit from a dynamic and eventful environment that they have formed for themselves. A dynamic environment corresponded to an alternation of different surroundings and people or alternations within that surrounding. I.e., interviewee 1b states:
“In the office, we often work in this space called a war room, in which you can draw on walls
and paste things on them. If you want teams to be creative, you need a space where people could just go crazy. Every time you step into a war room, you instantly get more creative.”
It appears that seniors in the team safeguard this manner of dynamism. Interviewee 2b (a senior team member), for instance, states:
“If I feel that the team needs it, I sometimes say: “Alright guys, let’s go outside and just do something fun and forget about this for a minute.”
Secondly, dynamism and liveliness could be decrypted as to the variety of tasks and autonomy in task execution. This aspect presumably differentiates SMT’s from semi-autonomous teams, as could be deferred from comment interviewee 3a (junior member of a semi-autonomous team):
“For smaller projects, we sometimes work with two juniors, which I prefer, because you’re
responsible for more aspects of the job and free to decide what you’re doing. (…) In a team with juniors and seniors, many tasks are taken from you, for you to focus on your tasks
entirely.”
This way of working contrasts with how interviewee 4a currently works (SMT member):
“Our team has full responsibility for all tasks, which means that I also have intakes with the client. These intakes help me to understand the client better.”
Conflict management
Several cases accredited the creativity of teams to conflict (management) among team members because it improves decision-making. This accreditation could be derived from the quotation of interviewee 2b and other quotes alike:
“You need people who oppose each other, yet who bring out the best in one another. So those
who dare to engage in conflict. And I don’t mean an actual argument. (…) Nothing gets any better if people continuously agree with each other”
However, it is remarked that conflicts among team members should purely be task-oriented, and that criticism should never be interpreted as a personal attack. Interviewee 3b reflects this remark by the undermentioned comment:
“You want an atmosphere where sometimes provoking things are said but where it isn’t taken
personally by anyone.”
Nonetheless, not every case endorses the assertion that conflict is beneficial for a team’s creativity: Some interviewees indicated that they rather avoid conflict or unnecessary confrontation. These interviewees emphasize with the annotation of interviewee 4a:
“For me, it wouldn’t work if someone is pushing my buttons to get the best out of me (…).
Other creatives may be blunter toward each other, but I wouldn’t feel comfortable with that.”
Personal preferences may explain dissimilarities in this regard, but divergences could also be associated with other second-order themes such as confidence. These associations are further described in the ultimate chapter of the result section.
Team member support
It becomes apparent that the creative occupations of the interviewees involve frequent disappointments and pressures of all kinds. Hence, mental resilience is required. As indicated by interviewee 2a:
“If it takes a while before an idea comes to mind, it could be frustrating, and the team may
start to feel despondent, thinking: “Shit, I’m not sure if we’ll ever fabricate anything good.”
Cogently, each case declares team member support as a normative element of an effective team climate. Many interviewees mention something equivalent to the subsequent comment of interviewee 4b:
“If we come up with an idea about which we’re excited, and the client criticizes it or barely
responds, you feel insecure. You have to support each other and make each other feel better.”
Once more, contrasting insinuations of the interviewees suggest that the implication of “team member support” diverges between semi- and fully autonomous teams. As indicated by interviewee 5b, SMT’s mutually support each other:
“You kind of have to sense what the others need. Because we work together quite intensely you sort of know when you can push the other, or when to support the other.” (interviewee 5b) Conversely, interviewee 2b (a senior member of a semi-autonomous team) instead suggests that he carries the responsibility to offer support to his team through encouragement:
“I know people can become confident by just doing it. I know (name of interviewee 2a) is, for
example, not the type of person that will just speak his mind. While working together, I try to support him by encouraging him to speak up.”
One could dispute whether team member support in the context of semi-autonomous teams must always be a one-way street: somewhat contradictory is the statement of interviewee 2a, who indicates that every team member tries to be constructive toward each other:
“If we’re given a dressing down, we often say to each other: “Alright, let’s start over, let’s
4.4. Mechanisms of climate facets and variables
From these results, one could conclude that the ten identified variables of a team climate for creativity are all overarched by one of the three higher-order classifications. Hence, one could stipulate that from these findings, it becomes apparent that a team climate for creativity exists of three facets, rather than two: (1) team member emotions, (2) team member manner of processing information, and (3) normative interpersonal behavior. This study demonstrates that the climate facets one to three do not simply exist in a vacuum. Instead, the facets and the corresponding second-order themes relate to one another. In the preceding paragraphs, a few instances of these liaisons were already briefly addressed. The similar deconstruction of some other cases allowed exploration on whether there is a uniformity in how the facets and themes liaise.
During this exploration, it became evident that many events highlighted by the interviewees almost all follow a sequential order that iterates throughout the time the individuals are part of the respective team. Ordinarily, the interviewed team members feel certain emotions that trigger how they think and how they behave toward their team members.
In succession, this interpersonal behavior triggers the emotions of team members.
This cycle could be demonstrated by one a quotation of interviewee 2a, which has been mentioned already in the subsection on participation safety:
“The moment that one person felt comfortable to state that the idea did not appeal to him, which was a deviating opinion, others also started to express doubts.”
In this quotation, the person in question felt the participative safety (individual emotions) to have the opinion that the idea did not meet the standard of excellence strived for (manner of