The Role of Team Reflexivity in The Relationship Between
Collective Agreeableness and Problem-Solving Creativity and
Problem-Solving Speed
Master’s Thesis
Student: Vincent van den Herik /Student’s № 6068812/
University of Amsterdam, Faculty of Economics and Business
Supervisor: Dr. Bernardo Lima
Statement of originality
This document is written by student Vincent van den Herik who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.
I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it. The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.
ABSTRACT
Problem-solving creativity and problem-solving speed have been emphasized by both practitioners and academics in predicting a sustainable competitive advantage. However, problem-solving creativity and problem-solving speed are individual decision making
processes, but nowadays more and more decisions are made by project teams. These decisions require a certain level of collective agreeableness. Existing literature about the relationship between collective agreeableness and problem-solving creativity and problem-solving is contradictive. In an attempt to explain the relationship between collective agreeableness and problem-solving creativity and problem-solving speed, a cross-level research between individual-level outcomes and team-level predictors was conducted while introducing the moderating effect of team reflexivity. The results showed a significant moderating effect of team reflexivity on the relationship between collective agreeableness and problem-solving creativity and problem-solving speed. The study contributes to the cross-level research described above about the interaction between team processes and individual decision making.
c60c384e-674e-427f-935a-aa51fad41f58 / 20160624T203247
Table of content
Introduction ... 5
Literature review ... 7
Problem-solving creativity and problem-solving speed ... 7
Collective agreeableness and Problem-solving creativity/speed ... 8
Team reflexivity ... 11 Research question ... 13 Theoretical Framework ... 14 Research method ... 18 Data collection ... 18 Sample ... 18 Measures ... 19 Collective agreeableness ... 19 Team reflexivity ... 19 Problem-Solving Creativity ... 19 Problem-Solving Speed ... 20 Control variables ... 20
Validation of multilevel data structure ... 22
Results ... 23 Reliability analysis ... 23 Descriptive statistics ... 24 Categorical variables ... 24 Correlations analysis ... 27 Regression analysis ... 28 Individual-level results ... 29 Team-level results ... 29 Cross-level interaction ... 29 Team-level results ... 33 Cross-level interaction ... 33 Discussion ... 36
Implications for practice and theory ... 37
Limitations and avenues for future research ... 39
References ... 42
Introduction
“Small-group research has demonstrated the potential pitfall of “groupthink,” in which dangerous decisions can result when there is no vocal dissent in groups to challenge
consensus ideas and decisions” (Kurtzberg & Amabile, 2001, p. 287).
The importance of developing problem-solving competence by organizations to acquire a sustainable competitive advantage has been emphasized by both practitioners and theorists (Appleyard, Brown, & Sattler, 2006). Problem-solving competence is considered one of the core predictors of success in many innovation projects, because it enables companies to identify and solve many customer problems (Clark, 1985). According to Atuahene-Gima & Wei (2011), the two main predictors of problem-solving competence are problem-solving creativity and problem-solving speed. However, many firms are struggling to develop the problem-solving skills, because they are very hard to generate (Atuahene-Gima, 2003). The main objective of this study is to support academics and practitioners in finding the
underlying predictors that can explain how to generate the problem-solving skills.
The main issue with these skills is that they are very hard to execute simultaneously, because creative thinking usually requires brainstorming and information gathering. This could make solving a problem fast almost impossible (Atuahene-Gima, 2011). Moreover, solutions to problems are often identified by individuals, but decisions are more and more made by project teams nowadays. This also complicates solving problems fast and being creative simultaneously (Meier et al., 2010). These issues require practitioners and academics to understand how certain team processes interact with individual decision making. However, cross-level research on this topic is highly underexplored (Gupta, Smith & Shalley, 2006). High levels of agreeableness in a team could enhance fast decision making by
individuals (Meier et al., 2010; Bradley et al., 2013). Still, Ellis et al. (2003) state that collective agreeableness in a team discourages the open discussion of new ideas and
perspectives and leads to group thinking, which impedes individual creativity and finding the right solutions timely (Janis, 1972). However, most of the studies that found a negative relationship between collective agreeableness and creativity and problem-solving are neglecting certain conditions that can explain or strengthen the positive effect of collective agreeableness (Bradley et al., 2013). Hoegl & Parboteeah (2006) introduce team reflexivity as a condition that can enhance creativity and problem-solving, by creating a “sharing”
environment where team members are continuously encouraged to share their perspectives and ideas on the evaluation of strategies, objectives and work methods.
Therefore, this study uses a multi-level method to illuminate team processes in relation to individual decision making. In particular, by introducing team reflexivity as a moderator in the relationship between collective agreeableness and individual problem-solving speed and problem-solving creativity.
The current study addresses the contradictions in the empirical research about collective agreeableness, contributes to the cross-level research described above about the interaction between team processes and individual decision making and introduces team reflexivity as a factor that can explain the positive effect of collective agreeableness on problem-solving speed and creativity. Furthermore, this study would support the manager in what extent he or she needs to focus on a reflective environment to enhance creativity and problem-solving speed in individuals.
This paper is structured as follows; first, a critical review of the existing literature is outlined. Second, a theoretical framework is provided and the research method is outlined. Third, the empirical results of this study are shown, followed by the discussion and limitations of the study. Finally, the main conclusions of this study are presented.
Literature review
The following paragraphs discuss the main insights of the existing literature on the topic. I first discuss the role of collective agreeableness in a team context. Second, team reflexivity is introduced as a moderator in explaining the effect of collective agreeableness in a team context on individual problem-solving creativity and problem-solving speed.
Problem-solving creativity and problem-solving speed
Atuahene-Gima & Wei (2011) note that problem-solving competence builds on two constructs, namely solving speed and solving creativity. Four problem-solving dimensions were formerly identified: Solutions found, problem-problem-solving speed, solution quality and cost-effectiveness (Atuahene-Gima, 2003; Sheremata, 2000). However, the volume of solutions may be of little value without the speed to find and implement the solutions, so it was incorporated in the problem-solving speed construct. Also, solution quality and cost-effectiveness are incorporated in the problem-solving creativity construct (Atuahene-Gima &Wei, 2011). In this section both attributes will be briefly introduced. An individual attribute that has been extensively discussed and that firms are dealing with on a daily basis, is problem-solving creativity. Problem-solving creativity is described as the ability to find and implement new and cost-effective solutions (Atuahene-Gima & Wei, 2011). Taggar (2002, p. 315) defines creativity as “According to the theory, a product or response is creative when observers independently agree that it is novel and appropriate, useful, correct, or valuable to the task at hand, and when that task is open-ended and appropriately carried out via discovery rather than via a predetermined step-by-step procedure.” Amabile et al. (1996) define creativity as the production of new and value creating ideas in any discipline and call creativity the seed of every innovation.
timely. The speed in which these solutions are found and implemented brings employees in a state of hypothesis-testing. This way the employee develops a better understanding and acquires new insights of customers’ demands. Eisenhardt (1989) proposed two main
antecedents of problem-solving speed, namely the amount of simultaneous alternatives taken into consideration and the presence of an experienced manager. Taking multiple alternatives into consideration when making a decision accelerates cognitive processing and therefore, problem-solving speed. Also, experienced managers show a tendency to give the confidence to employees to act fast and decisively (Eisenhardt, 1989).
Collective agreeableness and Problem-solving creativity/speed
Collective agreeableness can be associated with cooperation, consensus and effective conflict management in teams or organizations (Halfhill et al., 2005). Bradley et al. (2013) describe collective agreeableness as the combined degree of individual agreeableness in a team and associate collective agreeableness with selection. Schudy (2010) mentions that a certain degree of team agreeableness is required to be able to explore new grounds, because a team must agree on new technologies, markets and processes to be able to do this. (2010) calls this collective agreeableness. Schudy (2010) argues that teams with high collective agreeableness receive less idea resistance than teams with low collective agreeableness. In teams with low collective agreeableness, the discussion about new ideas or implementation of ideas can easily lead to a conflict.
Bell (2007) states that collective agreeableness indirectly relate to individual creativity and problem solving, through an emphasis on social harmony and reducing within-group competition. Such an environment leaves more room to use the resources and time for more productive causes than conflict. Bradley et al. (2013) found that teams with high
indicates a higher level of idea contribution from individual team members. Given the definition provided in Amabile et al. (1996), that creativity is equal to production of new and value-creating ideas in any discipline, collective agreeableness seems an important antecedent of problem-solving creativity. Also, Halfhill et al. (2005) state that team agreeableness can be associated with fast selection of ideas, because during group brainstorming and meetings new ideas and perspectives aren’t overly discussed. The two positive consequences of high
collective agreeableness on individual team members indicate the ability to find and implement big numbers of solutions timely.
However, Ellis et al. (2003) argue that collective agreeableness leads to the uncritically acceptance of new ideas and perspectives with a lack of critical discussion of ideas, thoughts and information. It could be argued that collective agreeableness leads to cutting corners and exclude critical evaluation of a communicated idea or perspective (Lukas and Menon, 2004). Also, Esser (1998) argues that teams with a high level of agreeableness will enhance cooperation and consensus, but agreeableness can also lead to group thinking. Group thinking is associated with less creative and efficient solutions than for example divergent thinking (Nemeth & Kwan, 1985; Nemeth & Wachtler, 1983).
Lots of research have shown negative direct relationships and positive indirect relationships between collective agreeableness and creativity and problem-solving. The studies that found a negative direct relationship seem to neglect certain team processes that can facilitate or strengthen the motivation of an individual to share his or her own perspective. For example, Bradley et al. (2013) found a positive relationship between collective
agreeableness and problem-solving, mediated by communication and social cohesion. Wang et al. (2010) found this positive effect of collective agreeableness through the harmonious interpersonal relationships that it creates. The main argument in these positive indirect relationships is that collective agreeableness increases mutual support and helps develop an
environment that encourages information sharing (Graziano, Jensen-Campbell, & Hair, 1996). Discovering under what combinations of conditions or factors collective agreeableness may enhance individual problem-solving creativity and problem-solving speed can be highly important knowledge for teams and business and requires a cross-level understanding of how team processes influence individual decision making. Team reflexivity could be one of these key conditions that addresses this gap, because it stimulates awareness of strategies,
objectives, environments and processes in teams (Schippers, West & Dawson, 2015).
While in teams with high collective agreeableness team members have difficulty with open discussion and sharing of ideas, teams that focus extensively on reflection encourage sharing of ideas and communication of individual views (Hoegl and Parboteeah, 2006). Controversially, De Dreu (2002) argues even that high levels of team reflexivity is a necessary condition for a team to be able to think creatively and solve problems timely.
Team reflexivity
In a research about the counterpart of collective agreeableness; minority dissent, De Dreu (2002) found that a high level of team reflexivity moderated the relationship between minority dissent and innovation. Team reflexivity is defined as “The extent to which team members overtly reflect upon the group’s objectives, strategies, and processes and adapt them to current of anticipated endogenous or environmental circumstances” (West, 1996, p.559). He later gave a much broader definition: “Reflection includes behaviors such as questioning, planning, exploratory learning, analysis, diversive exploration, making use of knowledge explicitly, planfulness, learning at a meta-level, reviewing past events with self-awareness, and coming to terms over time with a new awareness.”. Hoegl and Parboteeah (2006) state that reflexivity of a team is based on the notion that an environment is always dynamic and to cope with this environment there is a constant demand for reflection. De Dreu (2002) argues that high levels of team reflexivity can enhance creativity in individuals and might encourage a process where team members separate good from bad ideas and develop effective solutions to problems. Also, West (2000) introduced team reflexivity as an important antecedent of team effectiveness, through reflecting the work methods and work environment and adapting these aspects.
Moreover, teams with a low level of team reflexivity show a tendency to be more reactive than proactive and react in a defensive manner to threats. While teams with high levels of reflexivity are more focused on planning, are more long-term oriented and are better able to observe environmental changes and adapt to them (Patterson et al., 1997). Hoegl and Parboteeah (2006) also note that individuals in teams with high levels of reflexivity are better able to cope with unexpected situations. In innovative project teams, members usually deal with high task variety and low task analyzability. While in teams with high collective
that focus extensively on reflection encourage sharing of ideas and communication of
individual views (Hoegl and Parboteeah, 2006). Also, reflective teams incorporate individuals that show a tendency to question everything and do a lot of ‘out of the box thinking’ (Boud & Walker, 1988). Out of the box thinking can be associated with innovation and creativity. Therefore, team reflexivity is proposed as a moderator in the relationship between collective agreeableness and creativity and problem solving.
Considering the contradictive empirical evidence about the relationship between collective agreeableness and problem-solving creativity and speed, the lack of cross-level research about the influence of team processes in individual decision making and the extensive empirical evidence of positive effects of team reflexivity on problem-solving creativity and problem-solving speed, team reflexivity is proposed to moderate the relationship between collective agreeableness and creativity and problem-solving.
Research question
The aim of this research is to provide an in-depth understanding of the relationship between collective agreeableness and creativity and problem-solving, while taking into account the moderating effect of team reflexivity. Hence, the research question that this paper aims to answer is the following:
What is the moderating effect of team reflexivity on the relationship between collective agreeableness and individual creativity and problem-solving in a team?
This study will make several contributions to practice and theory. First, the findings of the research would shed light on the relationship between collective agreeableness in a team and problem-solving creativity and speed. Second, the role of team reflexivity in this
relationship will be examined. Also, in light of practice this study would support the manager in to what extent he or she needs to take the level of collective agreeableness into
consideration when composing a team that can show creativity and problem-solving.
Moreover, the increased use of project teams in organizations has strengthened the attention on the key factors that drive project success. Therefore this study extends the existing knowledge about which key factors drive project success and narrows it to the relationship between collective agreeableness and problem-solving creativity and speed, which show contradicting effects in the existing literature. With respect to theory, this study addresses the contradictions in the existing literature about the effect of agreeableness on creativity and problem-solving and also expands the empirical research about this relationship. The research also contributes to the strategy field by extending and complementing previous work on problem-solving competence through analyzing the relationship between collective
agreeableness and problem-solving creativity and speed in a cross-level context and by introducing team reflexivity as a novel moderator in this relationship.
Theoretical Framework
Ellis et al. (2003) argue that agreeable teams tend to accept the opinions of other team members unconditionally and increases the risk of group thinking. Group thinking is a big threshold for individual creativity in teams (Nemeth & Kwan, 1985). However, collective agreeableness is consensus and cooperative oriented and these are the characteristics of a team that are needed to explore new grounds, because these teams are better able to make decisions to adapt (Hoffman & Jones, 2005; Schudy, 2010). Also, Bradley et al. (2013) found that collective agreeableness leads to a higher level of idea contribution from individual
employees, because these teams are better able to communicate ideas with each other. The main argument here is that collective agreeableness emphasizes social harmony, creates mutual trust and reduces within-group competition. This gives employees the room and freedom to think creatively and use resources for productive and creative objectives instead of resolving conflicts (Bell, 2007; Schudy, 2010).
However, this positive relationship between collective agreeableness and problem-solving creativity will be weaker under low levels of team reflexivity than under high levels of team reflexivity. Teams with low levels of team reflexivity show a tendency to be more reactive than proactive and prefer to react in a defensive way to threats. They also work without any self-awareness needed to be able to continuously improve the problem-solving process (Hoegl and Parboteeah, 2006). Team reflexivity creates a metaphorical “sharing” environment that invites individuals to participate in creative thinking about how to understand the current work methods, strategy and objectives and how to improve these processes (Hoegl and Gemuenden, 2001; Sethi and Nicholson, 2001; Ancona and Caldwell,
1990; Hoegl and Parboteeah, 2006). Therefore, the ability of the highly collective agreeable teams to communicate and contribute new ideas will be lower under low levels of team reflexivity, than under high levels of team reflexivity (Hoegl and Parboteeah, 2006).
This positive effect of team reflexivity can be explained by multiple reasons. To illustrate, reflexivity involves the team members to share their view on the problem or issue, which makes them less judgmental about new innovative ideas and more focused on finding the best solution to the problem. The sharing of information within and across the team results in better performance through highly informed team members about current problems and possible solutions (Hoegl and Parboteeah, 2006). By focusing on team reflexivity, team members comprehend their current work and are able to understand emerging challenges and conditions. The team members in reflective teams also show the ability to develop efficient solutions to these changes and conditions (Carter and West, 1998). Tjosvold et al. (2004) performed a study where team reflexivity was one of the two main antecedents of innovation in teams, aside with cooperative goal interdependence. Finally, individuals in teams with high collective agreeableness, are continuously challenged to contribute their perspectives and will enhance creativity through an effective idea exchange process (Paulus & Yang, 2000). In line with the summarized findings above, the following hypotheses are derived:
Hypothesis 1: Team reflexivity moderates the relationship between collective agreeableness and problem-solving creativity such that the positive relationship between collective agreeableness and problem-solving creativity is stronger at high levels of team reflexivity than at low levels of team reflexivity.
Problem-solving speed has been defined as the ability to find and implement big numbers of solutions timely (Atuahene-Gima & Wei, 2011). Individuals in teams with high
agreeableness are fast in selecting new ideas, because they face less idea resistance and inter-group competition (Halfhill et al., 2005; Bell, 2007). They are also able to find solutions to problems quickly, because through the high volumes of information and idea exchange, team members are better informed about certain conditions, changes and solution possibilities (Bradley et al., 2013; Ancona & Caldwell, 1988).
However, this positive relationship between collective agreeableness and problem-solving speed will be weaker under low levels of team reflexivity than under high levels of team reflexivity. Teams with lower levels of team reflexivity have less awareness of resource constraints that most project teams are dealing with in highly dynamic environments. This is crucial for problem-solving speed in dynamic markets, where there is a constant demand for reflection of current activities, strategies and work methods (Hoegl and Parboteeah, 2006).
However, Boud and Walker (1988) argue that individuals in teams with high levels of team reflexivity develop a habit of reflexivity, in which they continually reflect on their experiences to determine how they can become more effective in problem solving. This leads to better solutions to problems individuals are facing, because of the reflection and self-awareness incorporated in the teams with high levels of reflexivity. Reflective groups show a tendency of constantly questioning their assumptions and finding new ways of analyzing situations, which leads to a continuous process of improvement in the problem solving process (Schwenk, 1988; Hirokawa, 1990). Especially in highly dynamic and uncertain projects, where teams constantly face ambiguous situations, self-reflection improves the problem-solving speed because each team member is more accurately informed of their objectives under high volatile circumstances (Ancona & Caldwell, 1988).
H2 H1
Hypothesis 2: Team reflexivity moderates the relationship between collective
agreeableness and problem-solving speed such that the positive relationship between collective agreeableness and problem-solving speed is stronger at higher levels of team reflexivity than at lower levels of team reflexivity.
Figure 1 – Conceptual model
Collective agreeableness Team reflexivity Problem-solving creativity Problem-solving speed
Research method
Data collection
The survey data for this study was extracted from previously collected data during the research project titled “Striving for Innovation Excellence: Competing on Knowledge”. This data was collected from two organizations that are leaders in innovation processes. The goal of the research project is to provide detailed insight into important factors that drive efficiency and effectiveness in new product development teams. Data for this research project is
collected through a survey questionnaire.
To test the hypotheses, the survey questionnaires will be used to analyze data on the personal characteristics of the respondents and their background – education level, function title, organizational tenure. First, the survey method enables the researcher to acquire big amounts of data, while keeping the variables standardized across big samples. Second, the data acquired through the survey instrument can be easily analyzed and interpreted (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2012).
Sample
The population used for this study consists of team members working in innovative project teams in two different companies operating in the high-tech industry. In total, 38 teams comprising 198 team members completed the survey.
There are a few advantages by using this sample. One advantage is that the data in the research project was collected from two different companies, which is beneficial for the generalizability. The other advantage is that it contains 198 respondents, which is much more than the suggested minimum of 100 respondents. Also, when looking at the
variables-respondents ratio, which is 11 versus 140, it is more than ten times as much. This satisfies the minimum ratio of 10 by Everitt (1975).
Measures
The research method in this study includes a multi-level structure, namely an individual level and a team level. The control variables are at the individual level and these include: education level, work experience industry, work experience organization and work experience team. The independent variable collective agreeableness and the moderating variable team reflexivity are at the team level. Finally, the two dependent variables creativity and problem-solving are at the individual level.
Collective agreeableness
To assess collective agreeableness, a 7-point Likert scale was used, from 1,
“completely disagree” to 7, “completely agree”. The four-item measure developed by Sethi & Nicholson (2001) was used. A sample item is “Getting this product approved was a big struggle”. This item is reverse coded to assess collective agreeableness.
Team reflexivity
To assess team reflexivity, the six-item measure from Patterson et al. (2005) was used. Two examples of the sample items are “We talk about different ways in which we can reach our objectives” and “We regularly discuss whether the team is working effectively”.
Problem-Solving Creativity
To assess problem-solving creativity, a three-item measure was used. A sample item is “Indicate the extent to which the output is creative.”. All measures displayed satisfactory reliability (a > .70).
Problem-Solving Speed
To assess problem-solving speed, a three-item measure from Atuahene-Gima (2003) was used. A sample item is “Finding and implementing solutions takes longer than expected”. This item was reverse coded.
Control variables
At the individual level, this study controlled for work experience in the same industry, organization and team, given the documented effect of work experience on individual
performance (McDaniel, Schmidt, & Hunter, 1988). This study also controlled for educational level, because employees with a high education level are usually associated with receptivity to innovation and are able to discriminate among different stimuli in dynamic environments (Schroder, Driver, & Streufert, 1967; Becker, 1970). Table 1 on the next page shows how the variables are categorized.
Table 1 – Control variables
Control variable Items
Education Vocational
Bachelor
Master
PhD
Work experience industry (in years) Up to 5
Between 6 and 10 Between 11 and 15 Between 16 and 20 Between 21 and 25 Between 26 and 30 Between 31 and 35 Between 36 and 40 Between 41 and 45
Work experience organization (in
years) Up to 5 Between 6 and 10 Between 11 and 15 Between 16 and 20 Between 21 and 25 Between 26 and 30 Between 31 and 35 Between 36 and 40 Between 41 and 45
Work experience team (in years) Up to 5
Between 6 and 10
Between 11 and 15
Between 16 and 20
Validation of multilevel data structure
Analyses include individual-level constructs, creativity and problem-solving, and team-level constructs, collective agreeableness and team reflexivity. Therefore two different analyses were performed to validate this data. According to the interrater agreement analysis, collective agreeableness differed (p < 0.05) between teams. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC1 = 0.37, ICC2 = 0.70) were comparable to other aggregate constructs shown in existing literature (Edmondson, 1999). ICC1 reflects the proportion of variance that can be attributable to being a member of that group relative to an individual and ICC2 is the reliability of the group mean, which should be above 0.70 to be sufficient. Also, according to the interrater agreement analysis, team reflexivity differed (p < 0.05) between teams. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC1 = 0.32, ICC2 = 0.74) were also sufficient. Table 2 and 3 below show the results of the interrater agreement.
Table 2 – Interrater agreement collective agreeableness
Intraclass 95% confidence interval F test with true value 0
correlation lower bound upper bound Value df1 df2 p
Single measures 0,369 ,291 ,452 3,381 172 516 ,000
Average
measures 0,701 ,621 ,767 3,381 172 516 ,000
Table 3 – Interrater agreement team reflexivity
Intraclass 95% confidence interval F test with true value 0
correlation lower bound upper bound Value df1 df2 p
Single measures 0,324 ,233 ,416 4,881 192 960 ,000
Average
Results
The following section reports the results of this research. First, the results of the reliability analysis for the variables that are measured with multiple items are reported. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was analyzed for the dependent variables: problem-solving creativity and problem-solving speed, as well as for the moderating variable: team reflexivity and the independent variable: collective agreeableness. Subsequently, descriptive statistics are given for the continuous and the categorical variables of the study to provide an overview of the data. Next, a correlation analysis is carried out and the most significant correlations are reported. Finally, hierarchical linear regressions were performed in order to test the
hypotheses that were formulated in the theoretical framework of this paper.
Reliability analysis
For the purpose of this research, four variables were measured using multiple items: the dependent variables – creativity and problem solving, and the moderating variable – team reflexivity and the independent variable – collective agreeableness.
The Cronbach’s alpha for collective agreeableness measured by the four items shown in table 1 is 0,70. According to Pallant (2007), a variable has a sufficient internal consistency if the Cronbach’s alpha is equal to or above 0.70, so this criteria is met.
The Cronbach’s alpha for team reflexivity is 0.80, which is considered as a good reliability.
The Cronbach’s alpha for creativity and problem solving are respectively 0.90 and 0.70. So they both show good internal consistency. The table on the next page summarizes the reliability analysis described above.
Table 4 – Reliability analysis
Variable Cronbach's alpha N
Collective agreeableness 0,7 4
Team reflexivity 0,8 6
Creativity 0,9 3
Problem solving 0,7 3
Descriptive statistics
For the purpose of this study, four categorical variables were used, namely the control variables level of education, work experience industry, work experience organization and work experience team. Work experience industry, work experience organization and work experience team weren’t completely categorical, but they were measured using several interval levels. For the purpose of this analysis, these control variables were classified as categorical.
Categorical variables
From the 192 respondents who filled in the level of education, 20 (10%) of them had a vocational level of education, 62 (31%) of the teams had a bachelor, 74 (37%) of the teams had a master and 36 (18%) had a PhD or higher.
From the 196 respondents who filled in the work experience industry, 65 (33%) of them worked up to 5 years in the industry, 36 (18%) of them worked between 6 and 10 years in the industry, 37 (19%) of them worked between 11 and 15 years in the industry, 20 (10%) of them worked between 16 and 20 years in the industry, 13 (7%) worked between 21 and 25 years in the industry, 10 (5%) of them worked between 26 and 30 years in the industry, 10 (5%) of them worked between 31 and 35 years in the industry, 4 (2%) of them worked between 36 and 40 years in the industry and 1 (1%) of them worked between 41 and 45 years in the industry.
From the 198 respondents who filled in the work experience organization, 91 (46%) of them worked up to 5 years in the organization, 34 (17%) of them worked between 6 and 10 years in the organization, 31 (16%) of them worked between 11 and 15 years in the
organization, 14 (7%) of them worked between 16 and 20 years in the organization, 13 (7%) worked between 21 and 25 years in the organization, 4 (2%) worked between 26 and 30 years in the organization, 8 (4%) worked between 31 and 35 years in the organization, 1 (1%) of them worked between 36 and 40 years in the organization and 2 (1%) of them worked between 41 and 45 years in the organization.
From the 192 respondents who filled in the work experience team, 155 (78%) of them worked up to 5 years in the team, 27 (14%) of them worked between 6 and 10 years in the team, 6 (3%) of them worked between 11 and 15 years in the team, 2 (1%) of them worked between 16 and 20 years in the team and 2 (1%) of them worked between 21 and 25 years in the team. The table on the next page summarizes the analysis provided above.
Table 5 – Frequencies for the Categorical variables
Variable Level Frequency % Valid %
Cumulative %
Level of education 1 - Vocational 20 10,1 10,4 10,4
2 - Bachelor 62 31,2 32,3 42,7
3 - Master 74 37,2 38,5 81,3
4 - PhD or higher 36 18,1 18,8 100,0
Work experience industry 1 - Up to 5 65 32,7 33,2 33,2
2 - Between 6 and 10 36 18,1 18,4 51,5 3 - Between 11 and 15 37 18,6 18,9 70,4 4 - Between 16 and 20 20 10,1 10,2 80,6 5 - Between 21 and 25 13 6,5 6,6 87,2 6 - Between 26 and 30 10 5,0 5,1 92,3 7 - Between 31 and 35 10 5,0 5,1 97,4 8 - Between 36 and 40 4 2,0 2,0 99,5 9 - Between 41 and 45 1 ,5 ,5 100,0 Work experience organization 1 - Up to 5 91 45,7 46,0 46,0 2 - Between 6 and 10 34 17,1 17,2 63,1 3 - Between 11 and 15 31 15,6 15,7 78,8 4 - Between 16 and 20 14 7,0 7,1 85,9 5 - Between 21 and 25 13 6,5 6,6 92,4 6 - Between 26 and 30 4 2,0 2,0 94,4 7 - Between 31 and 35 8 4,0 4,0 98,5 8 - Between 36 and 40 1 ,5 ,5 99,0 9 - Between 41 and 45 2 1,0 1,0 100,0
Work experience team 1 - Up to 5 155 77,9 80,7 80,7
2 - Between 6 and 10 27 13,6 14,1 94,8
3 - Between 11 and 15 6 3,0 3,1 97,9
4 - Between 16 and 20 2 1,0 1,0 99,0
Correlations analysis
This section outlines the results from the bivariate correlation analysis of the variables. The most significant correlations have been marked with an asterix (*). The relationships were measured using Pearson correlation coefficient. Table 6 displays the correlations among variables. The individual-level variables are below and aggregated variables are above the diagonal. The most important correlations with significant coefficients at or below the 0.05 level are discussed in this section.
In the individual-level analysis, as shown in table 6, collective agreeableness was slightly positively correlated with the independent variable problem-solving creativity (Pearson correlation coefficient = 0,19; N = 199; Sig. = 0,01). Also, there is a positive correlation between collective agreeableness and problem-solving speed (Pearson correlation coefficient = 0,24; N = 199; Sig. = 0,001). In the group-level analysis, there is also a positive correlation between collective agreeableness and problem-solving creativity (Pearson
correlation coefficient – 0,42; N – 38; Sig. – 0,000). Finally, table 6 shows a positive
correlation between collective agreeableness and problem-solving speed (Pearson correlation coefficient – 0,32; N – 38; Sig. – 0,000).
In the individual-level analysis, team reflexivity had a strong positive correlation with problem-solving creativity (Pearson correlation coefficient = 0,32; N = 199; Sig. = 0,000). Also, team reflexivity shows a very strong positive correlation with problem-solving speed (Pearson correlation coefficient = 0,65, N = 199; Sig. = 0,000). In the group-level analysis, there is also a positive correlation between team reflexivity and problem-solving creativity (Pearson correlation coefficient – 0,73; N – 38; Sig. – 0,000). Finally, there is a strong positive correlation between team reflexivity and problem-solving speed (Pearson correlation coefficient – 0,55; N – 38; Sig. – 0,000).
Table 6 – Correlations matrix Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Collective agreebleness 4,0 1,2 0,30 0,42* 0,32* 0,14 -0,26 -0,28 -0,03 Team reflexivity 5,0 0,9 0,14 0,73* 0,55* 0,23 -0,19 -0,12 -0,03 Problem-solving creativity 5,0 0,4 0,19* 0,32* 0,59* 0,30 -0,28 -0,23 -0,03 Problem-solving speed 5,0 0,9 0,24* 0,65* 0,33 0,10 -0,19 -0,15 -0,07 Education 2,7 0,9 0,08 0,20 0,10 0,17 -0,21 -0,18 -0,13 Work experience industry 2,9 2,0 -0,22*
-0,13* -0,19 -0,12 -0,21 0,77 0,32 Work experience organization 2,4 1,8 -0,22*
-0,05* -0,15 -0,04 -0,18 0,77 0,38 Work experience team 1,3 0,7 -0,03* 0,00 -0,07 0,05 -0,13 0,32 0,38
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
*. Values below the diagonal result from individual-level analyses; those above the diagonal result from group-level analyses, n = 38 teams comprising 198 employees
Regression analysis
Regressions were performed to test for the moderating effect of team reflexivity measured using the data from the survey, while controlling for level of education, work experience industry, work experience organization and work experience team. Hypotheses 1 and 2 (stating that team reflexivity moderates the relationship between collective
agreeableness and creativity and problem solving) are both cross-level interaction hypotheses. Hierarchical Linear modeling (HLM) was used to test the hypotheses. It reflects a 2-2-1 model, indicating the independent variable on the team-level, the moderating variable on the team-level and the dependent variable on the individual-level. The individual-level dependent variables were group-mean centered and the team-level variables weren’t centered to reduce possible complications with collinearity (Bryk & Raudenbush, 1987). The first hypothesis to
be tested was the following:
Hypothesis 1: Team reflexivity moderates the relationship between collective agreeableness and problem-solving creativity such that the positive relationship between collective agreeableness and problem-solving creativity is stronger at higher levels of team reflexivity than at lower levels of team reflexivity.
Table 7 summarizes HLM results. First, the individual-level linear variables were introduced into the model (step 1). Second, the team-level variables were introduced (step 2) and finally, the cross-level interaction effect of collective agreeableness and team reflexivity on creativity was introduced (step 3).
Individual-level results
The first section of table 7 shows that among the level 1 control variables, only education level (β = 0.14, p < .05) was a significant predictor of problem-solving creativity.
Team-level results
The second section of table 7 shows that among the team-level variables, both collective agreeableness (β = 0.13, p < .05) and team reflexivity (β = 0.12, p < .05) were significant predictors of problem-solving creativity. The second step, including collective agreeableness and team reflexivity, accounted for 13 percent (∆R² = 0.13) of the variance in problem-solving creativity.
Cross-level interaction
The third step of the hierarchical linear model involved the testing of the first hypothesis, predicting that team reflexivity moderates the relationship between collective
agreeableness and problem-solving creativity. The interaction of collective agreeableness and team reflexivity was significant (β = 0.02, p < .05). Figure 2 on page 31 depicts the
interaction. The positive relationship between collective agreeableness and problem-solving creativity was stronger at higher levels of team reflexivity than at lower levels of team reflexivity, supporting hypothesis 1. The interaction accounted for 2 percent (∆R² = 0.02) of the variance in problem-solving creativity.
Table 7 – Results of Hierarchical Linear Modeling for Effects on Problem-Solving Creativity of Cross-Level Interaction of Collective Agreeableness with Team
Reflexivity
Variable Coefficient S.E t R R² b ∆R²
Level 1 variables
Intercept 4.83* 0.14 35.15* 0.42 0.18
Education 0.14* 0.04 3.20*
Work experience industry -0,01 0.01 -2,48
Work experience organization -0,01 0.01 -0,62
Work experience team 0.02 0.01 1.73
Level 2 variables
Collective agreeableness 0.13* 0.03 3.77* 0.55 0.31 0.13
Team reflexivity 0.12* 0.04 3.07
Linear cross level interactions
Collective agreeableness x team reflexivity 0.02* 0.01 2.18* 0.57 0.33 0.02 a Employees' n = 198, Teams' n = 38 b Indicates the proportion of variance explained at each level, i.e., level 1 within-team variance, level 2 between-team variance and cross-level interaction
Figure 2 - Interaction between Collective Agreeableness and Team Reflexivity Predicting Problem-Solving Creativity
The second hypothesis that was to be tested, was the following:
Hypothesis 2: Team reflexivity moderates the relationship between collective
agreeableness and problem-solving speed such that the positive relationship between collective agreeableness and problem-solving speed is stronger at higher levels of team reflexivity than at lower levels of team reflexivity.
HLM was conducted in the same steps as for hypothesis 1. Table 8 summarizes the results.
Team-level results
The second section of table 8 shows that among the team-level variables, only team reflexivity (β = 0.06, p < .05) was a significant predictor of problem-solving speed. The second step, including collective agreeableness and team reflexivity, accounted for 5 percent (∆R² = 0.05) of the variance in problem-solving speed.
Cross-level interaction
The third step of the hierarchical linear model involved the testing of the second hypothesis, predicting that team reflexivity moderates the relationship between collective agreeableness and problem-solving speed. The interaction of collective agreeableness and team reflexivity was significant (β = 0.04, p < .05). Figure 3 on the page 34 depicts the interaction. The positive relationship between collective agreeableness and problem-solving speed was stronger at higher levels of team reflexivity than at lower levels of team reflexivity, supporting hypothesis 2. The interaction accounted for 13 percent (∆R² = 0.13) of the variance in problem-solving speed.
Table 8 – Results of Hierarchical Linear Modeling for Effects on Problem-Solving Speed of Cross-Level Interaction of Collective Agreeableness with Team Reflexivity
Variable Coefficient S.E t R R² b ∆R²
Level 1 variables
Intercept 5.03* 0.10 48.66* 0.21 0.05
Education 0.02 0.03 0.68
Work experience industry -0.01 0.00 -1.767
Work experience organization 0.00 0.00 0.08
Work experience team 0.00 0.01 0.26
Level 2 variables
Collective agreeableness 0.04 0.03 1.51 0.31 0.10 0.05
Team reflexivity 0.06* 0.03 2.12
Linear cross level interactions
Collective agreeableness x team reflexivity 0.04* 0.01 5.04* 0.47 0.22 0.13
a Employees' n = 198, Teams' n = 38
b Indicates the proportion of variance explained at each level, i.e., level 1 within-team variance, level 2 between team-variance and cross-level interaction
Figure 3 - Interaction between Collective Agreeableness and Team Reflexivity Predicting Problem-Solving Speed
Discussion
As was outlined in the literature review, previous literature showed conflicting empirical evidence about the relationship between collective agreeableness and problem-solving creativity and problem-problem-solving speed. The main arguments for a positive relationship between collective agreeableness and problem-solving creativity and problem-solving speed is that through an emphasis on social harmony and reducing within-group competition. Such an environment leaves more room to use the resources and time for more productive causes than conflict. Also, teams with high agreeableness were found to be better able to
communicate ideas than teams with low agreeableness, so that indicates a higher level of idea contribution from individual team members (Bradley et al., 2013; Bell, 2007). However, the main argument for a negative effect was that teams that score high on collective agreeableness are unlikely to show constructive criticism, which is necessary for open discussion of ideas (Kostopoulos & Bozionelos, 2011; Ellis et al., 2003).
The literature review provided insight in the contradictive results in the relationship between collective agreeableness and problem-solving creativity and problem-solving speed. Still, little research investigated the direct relationship between collective agreeableness and creativity and problem solving under stimulating team-level conditions. Therefore, in this study team reflexivity was introduced as a facilitating condition, because team reflexivity has often been positively related to creative thinking and problem-solving competences. The main reason for this positive relationship and the introduction of the moderating effect of team reflexivity, is that it facilitates the open discussion of ideas and perspectives, by creating a metaphorical ‘sharing’ environment (Hoegl and Gemuenden, 2001; Sethi and Nicholson, 2001; Ancona and Caldwell, 1990; Hoegl and Parboteeah, 2006). Teams with high levels of team reflexivity show more generation of better and creative ideas than teams with low levels of team reflexivity. By focusing on team reflexivity, team members comprehend their current
work and are able to understand emerging challenges and conditions (Carter and West, 1998). Also, Boud and Walker (1988) argue that individuals in teams with high levels of team reflexivity develop a habit of reflexivity, in which they continually reflect on their experiences to determine how they can become more effective in problem solving. Opposite, Hoegl and Parboteeah (2006) argue that teams with low levels of team reflexivity show a tendency to be more reactive than proactive and lack any self-awareness needed to improve the problem-solving process continuously. This study found support for the moderating effect of team reflexivity on the relationship between collective agreeableness and problem-solving creativity and problem-solving speed, showing a small but significant effect. Teams with a higher level of team reflexivity showed a stronger positive relationship between collective agreeableness and problem-solving creativity and problem-solving speed than teams with a lower level of team reflexivity.
Implications for practice and theory
This study investigated the moderating effect of team reflexivity on the relationship between collective agreeableness and problem-solving creativity and problem-solving speed, while performing a cross-level methodology. In light with what this paper hypothesized, team reflexivity was found significant in moderating the relationship between collective
agreeableness and problem-solving creativity and problem-solving speed.
The findings of this study challenge the idea that collective agreeableness has a direct negative effect on problem-solving creativity and problem-solving speed in every setting. Indeed, Ellis et al. (2003) and de Dreu (2002) argue that collective agreeable teams show a tendency to uncritically accept ideas and perspectives, while hesitating to contribute their own opinion and view on the matter. However, these studies are neglecting certain conditions that can facilitate or strengthen the motivation of an individual to share his or her own perspective.
The findings in this study show that high agreeable teams relate more positively to individual problem-solving creativity and problem-solving speed in a highly reflective environment. Teams with high levels of team reflexivity facilitate the open discussion of ideas and perspectives, by creating a metaphorical ‘sharing’ environment (Hoegl and Gemuenden, 2001; Sethi and Nicholson, 2001; Ancona and Caldwell, 1990; Hoegl and Parboteeah, 2006). The sharing of information within and across the team results in more creativity through highly informed team members about current problems and possible solutions (Hoegl and Parboteeah, 2006). Reflective groups show a tendency of constantly questioning their assumptions and finding new ways of analyzing situations, which leads to a continuous process of improvement in the problem solving process (Schwenk, 1988; Hirokawa, 1990).
However, the main contribution of my study lies in the cross-level analysis. It extends the comprehension of the interplay between individual- and team antecedents of individual creativity and problem-solving. The cross-level interactions confirm the proposition that team reflexivity facilitates and invites individual creative and problem-solving behavior in
collective agreeable teams that normally show uncritical acceptance of strategies, ideas and perspective.
In the light of practice, this study supports the manager in the decision to what extent he or she needs to create a highly reflective environment to creative thinking and problem-solving competence. The findings in this study show managers that it can be beneficial for team outcome to invite employees to reflect on their own performance and team performance, but also to invite them to evaluate the overarching strategy, short and long term objectives and work methods. Also. this study found that managers need to take into account the synergies of having agreeable members in a team and how reflecting and evaluating decisions enhances the motivation and the confidence to contribute new ideas and to criticize new ideas
constructively (Hoegl and Gemuenden, 2001; Sethi and Nicholson, 2001; Ancona and Caldwell, 1990; Hoegl and Parboteeah, 2006).
Limitations and avenues for future research
The current research has several limitations from a methodological view. First, the sample size of this research was relatively small. 198 respondents working in 38 teams completed the survey of the research project between, titled “Striving for Innovation
Excellence: Competing on Knowledge”. This might have reduced the statistical power of the research. However, in spite of low statistical power for some analyses, full support was found for both the hypotheses. Furthermore, what can be considered as a strength of this research, namely that this study incorporates teams from two companies, can also be considered as a limitation. This is because the respondents from both companies are unevenly distributed, namely 142 respondents from one company in 31 teams and 57 respondents from the other company resulting in 7 teams. Moreover, the two companies in this research operate in one industry, the high-tech sector. The high-tech sector is a field with an extreme focus on creative outputs, so future research could also incorporate other industries where project teams are commonly used to investigate if there are differences between industry settings. This would also strengthen the generalizability of the findings. Finally, future research should use a larger sample size that is evenly distributed over multiple companies.
The collection of respondents within one industry might have affected the
generalizability of the findings. Another methodological limitation is the length of the survey, which was a questionnaire of 139 questions. This might have led to respondents losing
concentration and accuracy when filling out the survey. The length of the survey could lead to respondent errors. Finally, the independent variable collective agreeableness and moderating variable team reflexivity incorporate some interpersonal relationship elements that aren’t
easily captured by a quantitative study method such as a survey questionnaire. The underlying mechanisms behind these team level processes might be easier captured through in-depth interviews, using a qualitative study. Through in-depth interviews the researcher has the opportunity to dig much deeper into the underlying aspects that drive the above mentioned factors. Future research could use a quantitative method to further investigate and explain the underlying phenomena.
Conclusions
The main objective of this study was to examine the relationship between collective agreeableness and individual problem-solving creativity and problem-solving speed while taking into account the interaction effect of team reflexivity. This was conducted in a multi-level research with one independent team multi-level variable, one moderating team multi-level variable and two dependent individual level variables. The sample used in this paper consisted of 198 respondents and 38 teams in two different companies operating in the high-tech industry. This study found statistical evidence for the moderating effect of a team with higher levels of team reflexivity on the relationship between collective agreeableness and problem-solving
creativity and problem-solving speed.
This study contributes to the field of theory and practice, by showing how collective agreeableness positively relates to creative problem solving in a highly reflective environment and by emphasizing that managers also need to take into account the synergies of having agreeable members in a team and how an reflective environment enhances the open
discussion of new perspectives and ideas. The findings in this study show managers that it can be beneficial for individual problem-solving to invite employees to reflect on their own performance and team performance, but also to invite them to evaluate the overarching strategy, short and long term objectives and work methods. Future research should provide
further insight into how certain team-level conditions influence individual decision making in teams.
References
Amabile, T. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Organizational Behavior, 123-167.
Amabile, T., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. The Academy of Management Journal, 1154-1184.
Ancona, D., & Caldwell, D. (1990). Beyond boundary spanning: Managing external dependence in product development teams. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 119-135.
Appleyard, M., Brown, C., & Sattler, L. (2006). An International investigation of Problem-Solving Performance in the Semiconductor Industry. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 147-167.
Atuahene-Gima, K. (2003). The effects of centrifugal and centripetal forces on product development speed and quality: How does problem solving matter? The Academy of Management Journal, 359-373.
Atuahene-Gima, K., & Wei, Y. (2011). The vital role of problem-solving competence in new product succes. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 81-98.
Beckman, C., Haunschild, P., & Philips, D. (2004). Friends or strangers? Firm-specific uncertainty, market uncertainty, and network partner selection. Organization Science, 259-275. Bell, S. (2007). Deep-level composition variables as predictors of team performance. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 595-615.
Boud, D., & Walker, D. (1988). Making the most of experience. Studies in Continuing Education, 61-80.
Bradley, B., Baur, J., Banford, C., & Postlethwaite, B. (2013). Collective Performance: How agreeableness affects team performance over time. Small Group Research, 680-711. Bryk, A., & Raudenbush, S. (1987). Application of hierarchical linear models to assessing change.
Psychological Bulletin, 147-158.
Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2015). Business Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Buffardi, L., Fleishman, E., Morath, R., & McCarthy, P. (2000). Relationships between ability
requirements and human errors in job tasks. Journal of Applied Psychology, 551-564. Byrd, J., & Brown, P. (2003). The innovation equation: Building creativity and risk-taking in your
organization. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.
Carter, S., & West, M. (1998). Reflexivity, effectiveness, and mental health in BBC-TV production teams. Small Group Research, 583-601.
Clark, K. (1985). Interaction of design hierarchies and market concepts in technlogical evolution. Research Policy, 235-251.
de Dreu, C. (2002). Team innovation and team effectiveness: The importance of minority dissent and reflexivity. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 285-298'.
De Dreu, C. (2006). When too little or too much hurts: Evidence for a curvilinear relationship between task conflict and innovation in teams. Journal of Management, 1-25.
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 350-383.
Eisenhardt, K. (1989). Making fast strategic decisions in high-velocity environments. The Academy of Management Journal, 543-576.
Ellis, A., Porter, C., Hollenbeck, J., Ilgen, D., & Moon, H. (2003). Team learning: Collectively connecting the dots. Journal of applied psychology, 821-835.
Esser, J. (1998). Alive and well after 25 years: A review of groupthink research. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 116-141.
Everitt, B. (1975). Multivariate Analysis: The need for data, and other problems. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 237-240.
Gelade, G. (1997). Creativity in Conflict: The Personality of Commercial Creative. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 67-78.
Gibson, C., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal , 209-226.
Graziano, W., Jensen-Campbell, L., & Hair, E. (1996). Perceiving interpersonal conflict and reacting to it: The case for agreeableness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 820-835.
Gupta, A., Smith, K., & Shalley, C. (2006). The interplay between exploration and exploitation. The Academy of Management Journal, 693-706.
Halfhill, T., Sundstrom, E., Lahner, J., Calderone, W., & Nielsen, T. (2005). Group personality composition and group effectiveness. Small Group Research, 83-105.
Harreld, B., O'Reilly, C., & Tushman, M. (2007). Dynamic Capabilities at IBM: Driving Strategy into Action. California Management Review, 21-43.
Hirokawa, R. (1990). The role of communication in group decision-making efficacy: A task-contingency perspective. Small Group Research, 190-204.
Hoegl, M., & Gemuenden, H. (2001). Teamwork quality and the success of innovative projects: A theoretical concept and empirical evidence. Organization Science, 435-449.
Hoegl, M., & Parboteeah, P. (2006). Team reflexivity in innovative projects. R&D Management, 113-125.
Hofmann, D., & Jones, L. (2005). Leadership, collective personality, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 509-522.
Janis, I. (1972). Victims of groupthink: A psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and fiascoes. Oxford: Houghton Mifflin.
Kostopoulos, K., & Bozionelos, N. (2011). Team exploratory and exploitative learning: Psychological safety, task conflict, and team performance. Group & Organization Management, 385-415. Kurtzberg, T., & Amabile, T. (2001). From guilford to creative synergy: Opening the black box of
Lukas, B., & Menon, A. (2004). New product quality: intended and unintended consequences of new product development speed. Journal of Business Research, 1258-1264.
McDaniel, M., Schmidt, F., & Hunter, J. (1988). Job experience correlates of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 327-330.
Meier, B., Robinson, M., Carter, M., & Hinsz, V. (2010). Are sociable people more beautiful? A zero-acquaintance analysis of agreeableness, extraversion, and attractiveness. Journal of Research in Personality, 293-296.
Nemeth, C., & Kwan, J. (1985). Originality of word associations as a function of majority vs. minority influence. Social Psychology Quarterly, 277-282.
Nemeth, C., & Wachtler, J. (1983). Creative problem solving as a result of majority vs. minority influence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 45-55.
Patterson, M., West, M., Lawthom, R., & Nickell, S. (1997). Impact of people management practices on business performance. London: Institute of Personnel and Development.
Patterson, M., West, M., Shackleton, V., Dawson, J., Lawthom, R., Maitlis, S., . . . Wallace, A. (2005). Validating the organizational climate measure: links to managerial practices, productivity and innovation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 379-408.
Paulus, P., & Yang, H.-C. (2000). Idea generation in groups: A basis for creativity in organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76-87.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhil, A. (2012). Research methods for business students. Pearson Education Limited: Edinburgh Gate.
Schippers, M., West, M., & Dawson, J. (2015). Team reflexivity and innovation: The moderating role of team context. Journal of Management, 769-788.
Schroder, H. M., Driver, M. J., & Streufert, S. (1967). Human information processing. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Schudy, C. (2010). Contextual Ambidexterity in Organizations: Antecedents and performance consequences. St. Gallen: University of St. Gallen.
Schwenk, C. (1988). The cognitive perspective on strategic decision making. Journal of Management Studies, 41-55.
Sethi, R., & Nicholson, C. (2001). Structural and contextual correlates of charged behavior in product development teams. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 154-168.
Sheremata, W. (2000). Centrifugal and Centripetal Forces in Radical New Product Development Under Time Pressure. Academy of Management Review, 389-408.
Taggar, S. (2002). Individual creativity and group ability to utilize individual creative resources: A multilevel model. The Academy of Management Journal, 315-330.
Tjosvold, D., Yu, Z.-y., & Hui, C. (2004). Team learning from mistakes: The contribution of cooperative goals and problem-solving. Journal of Management Studies, 1223-1245.
Wang, Z., Chen, Y.-F., Tjosvold, D., & Shi, K. (2010). Cooperative goals and team agreeableness composition for constructive controversy in China. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 139-153.
West, M. (1996). Reflexivity and work group effectiveness: a conceptual integration. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
West, M. (2000). Reflexivity, revolution and innovation in work teams. Product development teams, 1-29.
