Innovative thinking : the effects of playfulness and the team climate

Master Thesis – Business Administration

Specialization: Entrepreneurship and Innovation

Innovative Thinking: The effects of

Playfulness and the Team Climate

Supervisor: Dr. Wietze van der Aa

Second supervisor: Dr. G.T. Vinig

Date: 21 November, 2014

Author:

Laura J. Abbink

Student number: 10668691

l.abbink@gmail.com

0646451182

Preface

This report is my master thesis for the conclusion of my master program Business Administration with a specialization in Entrepreneurship and Innovation at the University of Amsterdam.

I would like to thank my supervisor Wietze van der Aa for his time, valuable inputs, enthusiasm and support throughout the thesis period. I would also like to thank Jaspar Roos and all the other colleagues from Chief Humor Officer for helping me gathering data. I would like to thank them for their enthusiasm and the knowledge they shared with me.

Finally, I would like to thank my family, friends and my boyfriend Tjeerd for their helpfulness, support and interest during my time studying so far.

The copyright of this master thesis rests with the author. The author is responsible for its content. Amsterdam Business School, University of Amsterdam is only responsible for the educational coaching and cannot be held liable for the content.

T

1. Introduction 5

2. Literature review 8

2.1 Innovative thinking 8

2.2 Humor and playfulness 9

2.3 Innovative thinking and playfulness 11

2.4 Team climate and innovative thinking 12

2.4.1 Vision 14

2.4.2 Participative safety 14

2.4.3 Support for innovation 15

2.4.4 Task orientation 15

2.5 The moderating role of team climate 16

3. Methodology 19

3.1 Setting and sample 19

3.2 Research context 20

3.3 Procedure and measurement of the variables 20

3.4 Measurement analysis 21 3.4.1 Innovative thinking 21 3.4.2 Team climate 21 3.4.3 Playfulness 22 3.4.4 Control measures 23 4. Results 24 4.1 Descriptive statistics 24

4.2 Hypotheses tests and results 25

4.2.1. Group effects 28

5. Discussion and conclusion 31

5.1 Implications 33

5.2 limitations and future research 34

6. References 37

Abstract

This study examines the relationship between playfulness, the team climate and innovative thinking. The present study builds on the emerging literature on the antecedents of innovation. It contributes to our understanding of influence processes by synthesizing the innovation literature with the literature on playfulness. Data was collected through a sample of 10 teams consisting out a total of 87 members from different organizations and industries. The teams all participated in a Lego Serious Play (LSP) workshop. To enhance innovative thinking in teams, teams may benefit from playfulness: a pleasurable and purposeful activity involving a sense of freedom and spontaneity, playfulness is defined by a structure of interrelated rules involving the imagination. Also the team climate dimensions, support for innovation and task orientation, are seen as important antecedents of innovative thinking. Hypotheses predicting that support for innovation and task orientation positively influence innovative thinking and that playfulness is beneficial for innovative thinking were generally supported. Furthermore, findings suggest that the relationship between playfulness and innovative thinking is moderated by vision, support for innovation and task orientation in a way that the playfulness workshop has a stronger positive effect on innovative thinking when teams score high on these team climate dimensions.

1.

I

"The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Imagination is everything. It is the preview of life's coming

attractions. Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere. Knowledge is limited, Imagination encircles the world"

- Albert Einstein-

Today it is essential for business to innovate. In an increasingly changing environment, innovation is widely seen as a critical source of competitive advantage (Crossan and Apaydin, 2009). Businesses continuously need to improve and renew their offerings in order to secure long-term survival, growth and profitability (De Jong, 2007). In the last decades there has been a rapid growth in research into the facilitators and inhibitors of innovation in the workplace (Hülsheger et al., 2009). According to management scholars, innovation capability is the most important source for firm performance (Mone et al., 1998). A way for organizations to become more innovative is to exploit the ability of their employees to innovate (De Jong and Den Hartog, 2007). Members of an organization can help improving the performance of an organization through their ability to generate ideas and use these ideas as building blocks for new or improved products, services and work processes (De Jong and Den Hartog, 2007). Pressure from increasing competition, consolidation and innovation has lead to an ongoing shift from work organized around individual jobs to team-based work structures (Koslowski and Bell, 2003; Lawler et al., 1995). In organizations it is often the case that new ideas are proposed and pursued toward implementation by work teams (Hülsheger et al., 2009). Therefore, for any idea to be worked up toward an organizational-level innovation, it is important to critically assess the influences of teams (West, 2002). Relatively few studies on innovation have focused on the level of teams. It is a noteworthy shortcoming as it is often the case that innovations are originated and often developed by a team into routinized practice within organizations (De Dreu, 2002; West and Farr, 1990; Anderson and West, 1998).

Innovation researchers have identified multiple team-level variables that might have a positive or negative influence on innovation. Team input variables (i.e., team composition, task interdependence, team size) tend to have a weaker relationship with innovation than team processes (Hülsheger et al., 2009). West and Wallace (1991) found that team climate rather than individual factors are primary predictors of group innovativeness. Previous studies of

team innovation have ascribed a significant role to team process variables in explaining team innovation. Several team processes variables were positively linked with innovation: cohesion and communication (Woodman et al., 1993), vision, participative safety, support for innovation, task orientation (Mathisen et al., 2004; Ragazzoni et al., 2002; West and Anderson, 1996) and task and relationship conflict (De Dreu, 2006). In the study of West and Anderson (1996), four team processes are specified that promote team innovation: vision, participative safety, support for innovation and task orientation. These four dimensions determine the specific climate factors for innovation within work groups (Anderson and West, 1998). In this article the relationship between the four principal climate factors and innovative thinking is examined in more depth. As relatively few studies on innovation have focused on the level of teams it is important to address the subject of innovation thinking in the work team as an outcome in the relationship with team climate.

The production of novel and useful ideas by individuals and teams is a starting point for innovation (Amabile, 1996; Clapham, 2003; Smith, 2003). In this research the focus is on the starting point for innovation, also known as innovative thinking. Innovative thinking is a cognitive process that focuses on developing multiple possibilities or ideas rather that finding a single solution, which results in greater idea generation (Clapham, 2003; Root-Bernstein and Root-Bernstein, 2003; Smith, 2003). In past literature, several techniques and methods are identified that stimulate innovative thinking, which include brainstorming, Creative Problem-Solving and directed imagination training (Clapham, 2003). A relatively new type of practice that can stimulate innovative thinking is explored in this study, namely the use of humor in the form of playfulness.

Within work groups, humor can provide valuable benefits (Duncan, 1982; Romero and Cruthirds, 2006). Despite this notion, often managers fail to take humor seriously and/or realize the major benefits it can create. It is generally agreed that humor is a unique type of communication that produces positive emotions and is accompanied by laughter or a smile (Duncan, 1982; Hatch and Ehrlich, 1993; Romeo and Cruthirds, 2006). Studying humor has the potential of providing important insights into management and organizational behavior (Avolio et al., 1999; Duncan et al., 1990). Nevertheless, relatively little research has examined the relationships between the use of humor and management or team processes.

Concepts that are often linked with humor are playfulness and fun (Dougherty and Takacs, 2004; Fleming, 2005; Glynn and Webster, 1992; Isaksen and Lauer, 2002). Humor is a complex concept that is difficult to make tangible or concrete. To make the concept of humor more measurable and concrete, in this study humor will be examined in the form of playfulness. Playfulness is a concept closely related to humor and it is difficult to see them separately as they are both characterized by fun (Fleming, 2005). In most literature playfulness is characterized as a pleasurable and purposeful activity, involving a sense of freedom and spontaneity (Linder et al., 2001). Besides this characterization, in this study, playfulness is defined by a structure of interrelated rules involving the imagination. Only after knowing how playfulness affects interpersonal relationships at work scholars can more fully understand the consequences of playfulness in the workplace and have the ability to inform practitioners in this field. Therefore research is needed to explore the effect of playfulness on group processes and its innovative performance.

This study builds on the knowledge of the importance of the team climate for innovation. In existing literature it has been shown that team climate is important for innovation in management and work teams (Anderson and West, 1998; Bain et al., 2001; Brodbeck and Maier, 2001; Eisenbeiss et al., 2008; Hulsheger et al., 2009; Mathisen et al., 2004; Ragazzoni et al, 2002, West and Wallace, 1991). By exploring the influence of playfulness on innovative thinking, a contribution is made to our understanding of influencing processes by synthesizing the innovation literature with the literature on playfulness. By drawing attention to this topic, scholars will acknowledge the potential that studying playfulness has to inform discourse on interpersonal relationships and social influences in organizations.

This research proceeds according to the following structure: section 2, the literature review will clarify the underlying concepts of this study and provide the hypotheses underlying the conceptual framework as presented in figure 2.1. Section 3, draws on the research design. The results of this study are presented in section 4. Finally section 5 contains the general discussion and conclusion.

2.

L

In this chapter the relevant existing literature about innovative thinking, playfulness and team climate will be discussed. Also hypotheses about the relatedness of the discussed concepts and a conceptual framework will be provided.

2.1

I

Pressures from increasing competition and rapidly changing markets make it crucial for organizations to have the ability to continuously innovate. Innovation is a key to success in the world of business. Companies recognize more than ever that they need employees and work teams who think innovatively in order to maintain competitive. Innovation has been defined as the introduction and application of processes, products or procedures new to the relevant unit of adoption within a group, organization or wider society and intended to benefit the group, individual or wider society (West and Farr, 1990).

The production of novel and useful ideas by individuals and teams is a starting point for innovation (Amabile, 1996; Clapham, 2003; Smith, 2003). In existing literature different terms are given to this starting point for innovation. Some of the mostly used terms are creative thinking (Amabile, 1996; Smith, 2003), divergent thinking (Clapham, 2003) and innovative thinking (Root-Bernstein and Root-Bernstein, 2003). In some studies these terms are used interchangeably. They all indicate the process of taking new perspectives on problems for the exploration of new cognitive pathways. For this study the term innovative thinking is used. Assuming that an individual has the incentive to perform an activity, performance will be technically good if expertise is in place. But even with extraordinarily skills, an individual will not produce innovative work if innovative thinking skills are lacking (Amabile, 1996). Innovative thinking is a cognitive process that focuses on developing multiple possibilities or ideas rather that finding a single solution, which results in greater idea generation (Clapham, 2003).

Innovative thinking starts in private feelings that reveal unexpected problems and unforeseen opportunities (Root-Bernstein and Root-Bernstein, 2003). When a person notices the existence of a problem or opportunity, he or she must then work with attendant emotions to translate it in an explicitly secondary step, into forms that can be communicated (Root-Bernstein and Root-(Root-Bernstein, 2003). So in the innovative thinking process it is not only

necessary to think about problems and opportunities, but also to communicate these personal insights verbally or visually.

In past literature, several techniques and methods are identified that stimulate innovative thinking. In the past, creative and innovation skills were viewed as a fixed inborn trait of people (Clapham, 2004). Amabile (1996) and Ripple (1999) state that creativity and innovative thinking consist of a combination of abilities, skills, motivation and attitudes, of which the last three are modifiable characteristics. Some of the most recent and frequently used and researched instructional programs to enhance innovative thinking include brainstorming, Creative Problem-Solving and directed imagination training (Clapham, 2003).

This study builds on the growing body of evidence that there are different methods and techniques to stimulate innovative thinking (Clapham, 2003). A relatively new type of practice that can stimulate innovative thinking is explored in this study, namely the use of humor in the form of playfulness. By exploring if playfulness might stimulate innovative thinking, a contribution is made to the existing innovation literature.

2.2

H

Humor is a common part of human interaction and therefore has an impact on workgroups and organizations (Duncan, 1982; Romero and Cruthirds, 2006). Within work groups, which are fundamentally driven by the rules of human interaction, humor can provide valuable benefits (Romero and Cruthirds, 2006). Despite this notion, often managers fail to take humor seriously and/or realize the major benefits it can create. Humor can be defined in different ways. It is generally agreed that humor is a unique type of communication that produces positive emotions and is accompanied by laughter or a smile (Duncan, 1982; Hatch and Ehrlich, 1993; Romeo and Cruthirds, 2006). Humor is comprised of many facets and styles and it can be used for more than simply joking and laughing (Romero and Cruthirds, 2006). Humor is a basic element of human interactions and an important factor of the organizational culture of successful companies (Romero and Cruthirds, 2006).

Past research on humor indicates that it has the ability to encourage positive affect and that individuals should be attracted to others who use humor effectively (Cooper, 2005). The use of humor has been associated with enhancing group cohesion, improving morale among

workers, stimulating group creativity and increasing motivation (Avolio et al., 1999). The use of humor stimulates a shift in perspective that allows people to stand back from a problem and to take a new and unique perspective to address it (Dixon, 1980). These unique perspectives and increasing diversity in the workspace are sources of new ideas (Romero and Cruthirds, 2006). Humor can serve as a toolkit, complete with a range of specific tools that can be selectively used and applied by managers (Romero and Cruthirds, 2006). Humor is used to build greater identification, cohesion and commitment in teams, clarifying differences between individuals in terms of needs and aspirations, and point out differences in logic and beliefs to stimulate innovative thinking (Avolio, 1999). Malone (1980), stated that when humor was properly used, it could enhance processes and performance.

Humor is a complex concept that is difficult to make tangible or concrete. To make the concept of humor more measurable and concrete, in this study humor will be examined in the form of playfulness. Playfulness is a concept closely related to humor and it is difficult to see them separately as they are both characterized by fun (Fleming, 2005). According to Isaksen & Lauer (2002, p. 80), playfulness refers to “the amount of spontaneity and levity displayed within the team. A professional yet relaxed atmosphere where good-natured jokes and laughter occur often”. Playfulness includes team members having fun within the team and at work and the climate is characterized as easy-going and light-hearted (Isaksen and Lauer, 2002). The opposite climate contains seriousness and gravity within the team and the atmosphere is “stiff, gloomy and cumbrous and jokes and laughter are regarded as improper and intolerable” (Isaksen and Lauer, 2002, p. 80). Playfulness is a central and essential human activity in which people adapt and explore new possibilities (Linder et al., 2001).

In most literature playfulness is characterized as a pleasurable and purposeful activity, involving a sense of freedom and spontaneity (Linder et al., 2001). Besides this characterization, in this study, playfulness is defined by a structure of interrelated rules involving the imagination. A structure has to be set up permitting the activity of playfulness to take place, and possibilities have to be generated for the imagination to unfold. For example, this can be a playfulness workshop, session or an intervention. The time of play has a beginning and an end and the length of the imaginary situation is thus limited (Duflo, 1997). With playfulness, the imaginary situation permits a shift from a real world dominated by things and actions, to a world of meaning (Linder et al., 2001). For example, a red LEGO brick may represent a bike, a room, an emotion or an abstract concept like a stop sign.

A majority of the playfulness literature is focused on child’s play that suggest alternative descriptions of play. In this study the focus is on adult playfulness at work as the interest is in organizational phenomena, especially in how playfulness may enhance innovative thinking. In some studies, adult play is called “serious play” (Linder et al., 2001; Roos and Victor, 1999). Adults play for a serious purpose, beyond playfulness and pleasure.

Only after knowing how playfulness affects interpersonal relationships at work, scholars can more fully understand the consequences of playfulness in the workplace and have the ability to inform practitioners in this area.

2.3

I

The use of humor has been described as motivating divergent, unconventional, creative and innovative thinking (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996) because humor stimulates a shift in perspectives that allows people to stand back from a problem and to take a new perspective to address it (Avolio, 1999). As playfulness also stimulates a shift in perspectives according to Linder et al., (2001) it is expected that playfulness will have a positive effect on innovative thinking too.

The most important input for innovation has always been the interplay between people and the expression of their ideas (Schrage, 1999). The development of innovative ideas occurs when new associations are made between existing pieces of information (Parnes, 1999). According to Parnes (1999), innovative thinking requires fuel to make it run and the removal of brakes to allow it to run. He states that the fuel are sensory impressions from sources like books, the environment and experience. The brakes consist of constraints that limit the mental exploration. By adding playfulness to the work floor, an environment is created where experience provide the fuel for innovative thinking. Playfulness promotes openness to new ideas by relaxing people and making tem less likely to criticize mistakes or new ideas (Romero and Cruthirds, 2006). By having less criticism, the environment becomes safe for people to act on innovative thinking and implement ideas more freely.

An additional explanation for the positive effect of playfulness on innovative thinking might be that a playful environment leads to increased creativity by encouraging a spreadable “fun

mood” in which original ideas are more likely to emerge (Ziv, 1983). Research indicates that exposure to humor has a positive effect with creative problem solving (Isen et al., 1987). In organizations where a significant effort is made to create a playful and creative work environment (e.g. Google and Yahoo) this finding is supported (Newstrom, 2002). This might be an indication that playfulness will enhance innovative thinking. As stated before, with playfulness the imaginary situation permits a shift from a real world dominated by things and actions, to a world of meaning. This productive imagination relates to the capacity of suggesting original possibilities, which can emerge through recombining or transforming things or concepts (Linder et al., 2001). Innovative thinking comes from drawing new conclusions about thinks and placing them in new relationships with another (Clapham, 2003). Because of what is stated above, it is hypothesized that:

H1: Playfulness will be positively related to innovative thinking.

2.4

T

In the last decades there has been a rapid growth in research into the facilitators and inhibitors of innovation in the workplace (Hülsheger et al., 2009). In organizations it is often the case that new ideas are proposed and pursued toward implementation by work teams (Hülsheger et al., 2009). Therefore, for any idea to be worked up toward an organizational-level innovation, it is important to critically assess the influences of teams (West, 2002). Work teams and groups exist in various types and sizes and some scholars distinguish work teams and work groups (Katzenbach and Smith, 1993). Following Kozlowski and Bell (2003), in this research no such distinction is made and the terms are used interchangeably. Kozlowski and Bell (2003), combined several features of work teams and group provided in other studies to formulate a basic definition of work teams and groups which will be used in this study too:

“Work teams and groups: (1) are composed of two or more individuals, (2) exist to perform

organizationally relevant tasks, (3) share one or more common goals, (4) interact socially, (5) exhibit task interdependencies, (6) maintain and manage boundaries and (7) are embedded in an organizational context that sets boundaries, constrains the team and influences exchanges with other units in the broader entity.”

Relatively few studies have focused on the level of teams. It is a noteworthy shortcoming as it is often the case that innovations are originated and often developed by a team into routinized practice within organizations (De Dreu, 2002; West and Farr, 1990; Anderson and West, 1998). Teams are the building blocks of organizations, so insights into the factors that contribute to team performance and effectiveness is important (De Dreu, 2002). Innovations are crucial for work teams to be effective in a constantly changing and complex environment (De Dreu, 2002). Therefore it is important to address the subject of innovation thinking in the work team as an outcome in the relationship with team climate.

Innovation researchers have identified multiple team-level variables that might have a positive or negative influence on innovation. Team input variables (i.e., team composition, task interdependence, team size) tend to have a weaker relationship with innovation than team processes (Hülsheger et al., 2009) and team climate rather than individual factors are primary predictors of group innovativeness (West and Wallace, 1991). Previous studies of team innovation have ascribed a significant role to team process variables in explaining team innovation. Several team process variables were positively linked with innovation: cohesion and communication (Woodman et al., 1993), vision, participative safety, support for innovation, task orientation (Mathisen et al., 2004; Ragazzoni et al., 2002; West, 1990), task and relationship conflict (De Dreu, 2006).

The use of teams is known to increase the commitment, loyalty and creativity of employees, but effective team work require a team atmosphere or “climate” that facilitates this efficient performance (Ragazzoni et al., 2002). Four team process dimensions determine the specific climate factors for innovation within work groups (West and Anderson, 1996). These four climate factors have been replicated in various other studies internationally (Anderson and West, 1998; Bain et al., 2001; Brodbeck and Maier, 2001; Eisenbeiss et al., 2008; Hulsheger et al., 2009; Mathisen et al., 2004; Ragazzoni et al, 2002; West and Wallace, 1991) and serve to structure themes that have been studied in primary studies. The four-factor model is one of the leading models for innovation in work groups, which suggests that innovation in groups is essentially related to vision, participative safety, support for innovation and task orientation (Ragazonni et al., 2002). Therefore these four dimensions will also be used in this research when developing a set of specific propositions on the relationship between playfulness, team climate and innovative thinking.

2.4.1

V

The first team climate dimension that seems to have strong positive relationship with innovation is vision. ‘Vision is an idea of a valued outcome which represents a higher order goal and a motivation force at work’ (West, 1990, p.310). This dimension has also been referred to as ‘clarity and commitment to objectives’ (West and Anderson, 1996) as this dimension assesses the extent to which members of a team have a common understanding of objectives and show high commitment to the goals of the team (Hülsheger et al, 2009). Vision in the team includes clarity, a visionary nature, attainability and shared team goals (Bain et al, 2001). If vision is high, teams and organizational objectives or goals are clear to the team members, goals are highly valued, perceived as attainable and team members feel committed to these objectives (Hülsheger, 2009). Teams with clearly defined and shared objectives and vision are more likely to develop new goal relevant methods of working because they have a focus and direction (Anderson and West, 1998; Ragazzoni et al., 2002).

The clarity and specificity of objectives or goals has been shown to predict team effectiveness and performance outcomes (Guzzo and Shea, 1992; Weldon and Weingart, 1993). By enabling focused developments of new ideas that can be assessed with more precision, vision in the context of team innovations is likely to facilitate innovation (West and Anderson, 1996). Clearly set objectives help team members to focus their efforts, it gives their work meaning and it motivates members to enhance their innovative performance (Hülsheger, 2009). Therefore it is hypothesized that:

H2: Vision will be positively related to innovative thinking.

2.4.2

P

Participativeness and safety can be characterized as single psychological constructs that are likely to motivate and reinforce the involvement in decision making while occurring in an environment which is perceived as interpersonally non-threatening (West, 1990). The participative safety dimension relates to active involvement in group interactions wherein the predominant interpersonal atmosphere is one of non-threatening trust and support (Anderson and West, 1998).

It is argued by Anderson & West (1998) that participative safety exists where all group members feel able to propose new ideas and solutions for problems in a non-judgemental

climate. The more members of a team participate in decision making through having influence, interacting and sharing information, the more likely it is that they contribute in the outcomes of those decisions and to bring new ideas for new or improved ways of working (Anderson and West, 1998; West, 1990). Therefore it is hypothesized that:

H3: Participative safety will be positively related to innovative thinking.

2.4.3

S

Another team climate dimension that seems to have a strong positive relationship with innovation is support for innovation. Support for innovation describes the “expectation, approval and practical support of attempts to introduce new and improved ways of doing things in the work environment” (West, 1990, p.315). It is the articulate and enacted support of attempts to introduce new and improved ways of doing things (Bain et al., 2001). Support for innovation varies across teams to the extent that it is both articulated and enacted (Anderson and West, 1998).

In a work environment where innovation is supported and where there are articulated and enacted norms for innovation, team members are more likely to take risk to implement new ideas because failures are more likely to be tolerated (Hülsheger, 2009). Innovations are more likely to occur if an organization or team is more open to change, if they encourage and value new ideas, if they publicly recognize and reward them and if support for new ideas and their implementation is provided by managers, supervisors and co-workers (Amabile et al., 1996; Hülsheger, 2009). Therefore it is hypothesized that:

H4: Support for innovation will be positively related to innovative thinking.

2.4.4

T

Task orientation can be defined as “a shared concern with excellence of quality of task performance in relation to shared vision or outcomes, characterized by evaluations modifications, control systems and critical appraisals’ (West, 1990). Task orientation in teams is evidenced by emphasis on individual and team accountability, including control systems for evaluating performance, reflecting on work methods, intra-team advice, feedback and cooperation, mutual monitoring, outcome criteria and a concern to maximize performance quality (Anderson and West, 1998). Summarized, task orientation describes a general

commitment to excellence in task performance in combination with a climate that supports the adoption of improvements to established policies, procedures and methods (Anderson and West, 1998; West, 1990).

Teams high on task orientation are striving for the highest standards of performance achievable. Because of mutual monitoring, feedback and regular appraisal of ideas and performance, this will lead to the exploration of contrasting opinions and the consideration of alternatives and thereby to the improvement of the quality of decisions and ideas (Anderson and West, 1998; Hülsheger, 2009). These factors also seem important functions of plan execution, which is one of the processes involved in innovative team performance (Burke et al., 2006). Therefore it is hypothesized that:

H5: Task orientation will be positively related to innovative thinking.

2.5

T

As past literature suggests that team climate is one of the primary predictors of innovativeness in teams (West and Wallace, 1991), it is likely that the team climate has an effect on the relationship between playfulness and innovative thinking.

Playfulness stimulates a shift in perspectives (Linder et al., 2001) and promotes openness to new ideas by relaxing people and making tem less likely to criticize mistakes or new ideas (Romero and Cruthirds, 2006). This will have a positive effect on innovative thinking. Participative safety may strengthen this effect because when members feel able to propose new ideas and solutions for problems it will bring out different perspectives. The more members have influence, are interacting and sharing information, the more perspectives are shown which will contribute to bringing ideas for new or improved ways of working (Anderson and West, 1998). Also support for innovation may strengthen this effect as in a work environment where innovation is supported and where there are articulated and enacted norms for innovation, team members are more likely to take risk to implement new ideas (Hülsheger, 2009). A shift in perspectives and change are more likely to occur if an organization encourages and values new ideas, which in turn will lead to more innovative thinking.

Playfulness includes productive imagination, which relates to the capacity of suggesting original possibilities, which can emerge through recombining or transforming things or concepts (Linder et al., 2001). Innovative thinking comes from drawing new conclusions about thinks and placing them in new relationships with another (Clapham, 2003). Task orientation is a dimension that is very likely to strengthen the effect of playfulness on innovative thinking. Teams high on task orientation are striving for the best performance achievable. Mutual monitoring, feedback and regular appraisal of ideas and performance will lead to the exploration of contrasting opinions and the consideration of alternatives and thereby to the improvement of the quality of decisions and ideas (Anderson and West, 1998; Hülsheger, 2009). This complements the effects of playfulness on innovative thinking by encouraging changing perspectives and recombining or transforming things or concepts.

A playful environment leads to increased creativity by encouraging a spreadable “fun mood” in which original ideas are more likely to emerge (Ziv, 1983). Support for innovation is likely to strengthen this relationship as in a work environment where innovation is supported and where there are articulated and enacted norms for innovation, team members are more likely to take risk to implement new ideas because failures are more likely to be tolerated (Hülsheger, 2009). Vision can also lead to a more playful environment and increased creativity as teams with clearly defined and shared objectives and vision are more likely to develop new goal relevant methods of working because they have a focus and direction (Anderson and West, 1998; Ragazzoni et al., 2002). This relevant methods of working in this case can be to create a playful environment encouraging a spreadable “fun mood” in which innovative thinking is more likely to emerge.

All team climate dimensions seem to strengthen the relationship between playfulness and innovative thinking. This results in de following hypotheses:

H6: Vision will moderate the positive relationship between playfulness and innovative thinking, such that the relationship will be stronger in teams where vision is high rather than low.

H7: Participative safety will moderate the positive relationship between playfulness and innovative thinking, such that the relationship will be stronger in teams where participative safety is high rather than low.

H8: Support for innovation will moderate the positive relationship between playfulness and innovative thinking, such that the relationship will be stronger in teams where support for innovation is high rather than low.

H9: Task orientation will moderate the positive relationship between playfulness and innovative thinking, such that the relationship will be stronger in teams where task orientation is high rather than low.

Conceptual framework:

Figure 2.1

Playfulness Innovative Thinking

Team Climate 1. Vision

2. Participative safety 3. Support for innovation 4. Task orientation

3.

M

3.1

S

Data for this study is collected through primary data collection at different teams at multiple organizations. The data is collected in cooperation with Chief Humor Officer (CHO). CHO is a company specialized in advising, supporting and training organizations to implement a culture of fun by incorporating humor on the work floor (chiefhumorofficer, 2013). One way of CHO to incorporate humor and fun on the work floor is by doing playfulness workshops. For this research, different companies were interested to participate in a playfulness workshop. Together with the involved companies, organizational groups were identified that fitted the definition of teams (Kozlowski and Bell, 2003).

The respondents will include 87 participants divided into 10 teams. These teams all participated in playfulness workshops. The mainly used workshop was The LEGO Serious Play (LSP) workshop. This is a group process workshop that aims at increasing the commitment, confidence and insight of executives, managers and employees in an innovative way. LSP uses LEGO bricks and elements through which people in a unique method are empowered to think through their fingers and use their unleashing insights, inspiration and imagination. By using this method, team members will be able to see what everyone knows inside the team and what they don’t know they know. The workshop enables team members to take a speedy shortcut to the core and triggers processes that participants were previously unaware of. The LSP leads to skills to communicate more effectively, to engage participants their imaginations faster and to approach their work with more confidence, commitment and insight. The LSP looks like fun and games but at the same time it is a serious business.

The LSP concept is related to other managerial improving and learning techniques like “action based learning” (Willim, 2005). Both are intended to open up for change within groups and organizations. Innovation and change within work processes are largely influenced by the ability of the participants to develop collectively shared solutions (Schulz and Geithner, 2011). The LSP is developed to support these processes (Roos et al., 2004). The first step in the workshop is the expression of personal understandings, the individual awareness and the explication to the rest of the team. The next step is to build shared models that provide a shared understanding. This shared models represent different perspectives of the participants. Such diversity, based on a common focus, provides the basis for innovation

and development (West, 2002). In some workshops, some small additional opening games were used as a warm-up.

The participants of the workshops who formed teams operate in different industries and in different departments. On average participants are 37 years old and 57% are men. The smallest teams consists of 6 members and the largest team consists of 15 members. More information about the teams can be found in Appendix A.

3.2

R

Each member of the team independently had to fill in a survey a few days before the playfulness workshop (wave 1). This survey includes the questions related to team climate and innovative thinking. Also at the same time, teams with a supervisor or another individual external but knowledgeable about the team and its performance, were asked to rate the team on their innovative thinking skills as an extra objective measurement. After the workshop the team members and their supervisors had to fill in the same questionnaire about innovative thinking again (wave 2) with an additional questionnaire about how they experienced the workshop to test the playfulness of the workshop. All questionnaires can be found in appendix B till D. The main goal of this workshop is to examine if the playfulness workshop increased the innovation thinking in the work team.

3.3

P

Data was gathered through surveys and observations. All measures used in this research involved individual responses to the questions of the surveys. The questions in the survey include perceptions of team-level constructs. Other items not relevant to this study were included between these scales. For this research the same participants are questioned two times. One time before the workshop (wave 1) and one time after the workshop (wave 2). The major advantage of a repeated-measure design, instead of using different participants, is that when the same participants are used the error variance is reduced dramatically, making it easier to detect any systematic variance (Field, 2009).

The dataset was checked on the completeness of the questionnaires. Individuals that did not fill in most of the survey were removed from the database because these will not provide

representative data. After removing these individuals, the sample size of the first wave included 87 participants in 10 teams. For the second wave not all participants of the workshops were able or willing to finish the second survey. The sample size was reduced to 60 participants in 10 teams yielding an individual-level response rate of 69%. In four teams there was a supervisor who rated the innovative thinking capability of the team before and after the workshop. During the workshops the participants were observed in order to detect playfulness and innovative thinking.

3.4

M

Innovative thinking in this research is seen as the production of novel and useful ideas and a starting point for innovation. As mentioned in the literature section, innovative thinking is strongly comparable with creative thinking and divergent thinking. The innovative thinking questions are based on the creative thinking skills of Amabile (1996). Team members rate their team on innovative thinking in wave 1 and 2. Also team supervisors or other individuals external but knowledgeable about the team and its performance were asked to rate the team on their innovative thinking in wave 1 and wave 2 to make the measurement more objective. Innovative thinking of the team was measured on a 7-point scale (1=not at all to

7=completely).

Explanatory Factor Analyses (EFAs) were performed on all the variables to provide evidence of convergent and discriminant validity. The following criteria were applied to each item: (1)KMO greater than 0.5, (2) Barlett’s test of sphericity should be significant, (3) commonalities higher than 0.3, (4) cross-loadings lower than 0.3 and (5) satisfactory scree plot criteria (Field, 2009). The principal component analysis and promax rotation (Kappa 4) were used for the EFAs. For innovative thinking in wave 1 and 2 the EFA resulted in the exclusion of item 5 as this makes the construct more reliable. The result for the remaining items can be found in table 3.1.

3.4.2TEAM CLIMATE

Team members were asked to fill in a survey about their team climate before the workshop (wave 1). Team climate was measured on four factors: vision, participative safety, support for innovation and task orientation. These four dimensions determine the specific climate factors

for innovation within work teams (Anderson and West, 1998). Vision of the team was measured on a 7-point scale (Anderson and West, 1998; Burningham and West, 1995), participated safety was measured on 5-point scales (Anderson and West, 1998; Tjosvold et al, 1986), support for innovation was measured on a 5-point scale (Siegel and Kaemmerer, 1978; Anderson and West, 1998) and task orientation was measured on a 7-point scale (Burningham and West, 1995). The team climate construct consists of four variables for which all an EFA is executed. For vision item 8 is excluded, for support for innovation item 3 is excluded and for task orientation items 3 and 7 are excluded to make the constructs more reliable. The outcomes of the EFAs can be found in table 3.1.

3.4.3PLAYFULNESS

After the workshop, work team members were asked to fill in a survey about the workshop and how they experienced it (wave 2). The questions are based on “the adult playfulness scale” of Glynn & Webster (1992) and the study of Karl et al. (2007). The level of fun experienced during the workshop was rated on a 5-point scale. Questions are reformulated in a way that they fit the workshop. Just as the observations of the workshops, the outcomes of the playfulness scale are used to control for the degree of which respondents found the workshop playful. The observations showed that the participants found the workshop very fun and imaginative but also difficult sometimes. Some participants were less comfortable with building with the LEGO bricks while others were very comfortable, saying that it remembered them on their carefree childhood. The workshops take about 3 hours and consist of several exercises. The observations and the follow-up survey indicate that the playfulness workshops, including the LEGO Serious Play, are a good way to add playfulness to the workplace.

Table 3.1 Explanatory Factor Analyses

Constructs KMO Barlett's test

of sphericity Cronbach's Alpha Communalities Dominant Loadings Explaining factors Innovative thinking wave1 0.859 0,000 0.899 0.51 – 0.77 0.72 – 0.88 1 (67.24%) Innovative thinking wave 2 0.872 0,000 0.932 0.62 – 0.90 0.79 – 0.92 1 (75.21%) Team Climate:

Vision 0.894 0,000 0.924 0.55 – 0.81 0.74 – 0.90 1 (70.17%)

Participative safety 0.849 0,000 0.873 0.40 – 0.72 0.63 – 0.85 1 (53.3%)

Support for innovation 0.816 0,000 0.877 0.45 – 0.75 0.67 – 0.87 1 (62.43%)

3.4.4CONTROL MEASURES

Since age, gender, educational background and team size could have influenced the innovative thinking of the team, it was necessary to control for these effects. First, age is included in the analyses as younger people are perceived to be more innovative and creative (Rosen and Jerdee, 1976). Second, the topic of gender and innovation is an emerging field of research (Lindberg and Schiffbaenker, 2013). The understanding of gender structures on in innovation policies, processes and networks seems very relevant (Lindberg and Schiffbaenker, 2013) and therefore it is important to control for this variable. Third, assuming that attained education level is correlated with cognitive ability, a higher level of education should be associated with the ability to generate creative solutions to complex problems (Bantel and Jackson, 1989). This may explain why people who are more educated have more receptive attitudes toward innovation (Kimberly and Evanisko, 1981). Finally, team size is likely to influence innovation. Since the dataset includes teams that consisted out of six to fifteen group members, teams size is included as a control variable in order to see if this could be an alternative explanation for influencing the results. Research on team size suggest that teams are most effective when they have sufficient, but not more than sufficient numbers of members to perform the team task (Guzzo and Shea, 1992; West and Anderson, 1996).

4.

R

4.1

D

Table 4.1 shows the descriptive statistics and correlations among all research variables at the individual level based on the Pearson Correlation test. These descriptive statistics provide preliminary evidence for the discriminant validity of the research constructs. Some interesting correlations can be found in this table. Participative safety, support for innovation and task orientation were positive and significantly related to innovative thinking (r = .38, p < .001, r = 49, p < .001 and r = 56, p < .001 respectively). Vision is positive but not significantly related to innovative thinking in wave 1 (r = .10, p = .286).

The control variables also show some interesting significant results in their correlation with innovative thinking. First of all it is shown that participants with a higher age have a lower score on innovative thinking. Secondly, men score higher on innovative thinking than women. Third, respondents with a higher education score higher on innovative thinking than respondents with a lower education, but this correlation is not significant. Finally, larger groups score lower on innovative thinking than smaller groups. The control variables are taken into account in the regression analysis to further verify their role in the statistical model of this research.

Table 4.1 Means, Standard Deviations and Inter-correlations among the research variables

Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. Innovative thinking 4.72 0.99 (0.90) 2. Vision 5.10 0.94 .10 (0.92) 3. Participative safety 3.91 0.60 .38*** _.37** _(0.87)

4. Support for innovation 3.39 0.70 .49*** _{.17 .67}*** _(0.88)

5. Task orientation 4.79 0.94 .56*** _.23* _.63*** _.56*** _(0.83) 6. Age 37.49 10.40 -.23* _.23* _{-.17 -.29}* _{-.07 _} 7. Gender 1.43 0.50 -.26* _{-.07 -.18 -.25}* _-.33** _-.28* _{_} 8. Education 5.25 1.34 .21 -.03 -.11 .04 .01 -.31** _{-.13 _} 9. Group size 9.80 3.39 -.34** _{-.14 -.12 -.34}** _{-.21 .11 .47}*** _-.34** _{_} Table 4.1. Note. *_p<.05. **_p<.01 ***_p<.001.

4.2

H

In order to detect if the playfulness workshop has a positive effect on innovative thinking, the means of innovative thinking before the workshop (wave 1) and after the workshop (wave 2) are compared. For this research a repeated-measures design is used as the same participants are exposed to different experimental manipulations at different points in time. First their perceived innovative thinking was measured before the playfulness workshop (wave 1) and secondly it was measured after the workshop (wave 2).

First an error bar graph of the adjusted values of innovative thinking in wave 1 and 2 is conducted to see the sensitivity of the repeated-measures design. The mean of innovative thinking in wave 2 is higher than in wave 1. This indicates that innovative thinking of the teams became higher after the playfulness workshop. The supervisors of the teams also indicated that the innovative thinking of their teams was increased after the workshop (appendix E).

Figure 4.1 Error bar graph of the adjusted values of innovative thinking.

The bars in figure 4.1 show that differences between innovative thinking in wave 1 and wave 2 appear to be significant as the error bars do not overlap.

A paired sample t-test is conducted to test if the means for innovative thinking are different in wave 1 and wave 2. In wave 1 there are 87 respondents and in wave 2 there are 60 respondents (27 missing values), therefore the incomplete observations are dropped. The fact

that the t-value (-5.197) is negative means that innovative thinking in wave 1 had a lower mean than in wave 2, which means that the innovative thinking capability of the teams was higher in wave 2. There was a significant difference in the scores for innovative thinking wave 1 (μ = 4.46, SD = 0.99) and innovative thinking wave 2 (μ =4.93, SD = 1.08) with t(59) = -5.197 (p < 0.001). Therefore, it can be concluded that on average the innovative thinking capability of the teams was significantly higher after the playfulness workshop. This result was already predicted by the error bar chart in Figure 4.1. The confidence interval of 95% shows that the true mean difference lies between -0.66 and -0.29. This means that the true value of the mean difference is unlikely to be zero. Therefore a positive effect of the playfulness workshop is suggested with 95% confidence.

Even though the t-statistic is statistically significant on a 0.05 level, this does not mean the effect is substantive and important in practical terms (Field, 2009). To discover if the effect is substantive, the t-value has to be converted to the effect size r by using the t-value and the degrees of freedom:

(1)

Pearson’s r can vary in magnitude from -1 to 1, with 1 indicating a perfect positive linear relation. For social sciences, Cohen (2013) gives a benchmark of 0.30 for a medium effect size and benchmark of 0.50 for a large effect size. The effect size r of this sample is 0.56, which exceeds the threshold of 0.5 (Cohen, 2013) and therefore as well as being statistically significant, this effect is large and represents a substantive finding.

The results from the t-test and the effect size r indicate a positive, substantive and direct effect of the playfulness workshop on innovative thinking. Therefore it can be concluded that the innovative thinking of the members of the teams was enhanced after the playfulness workshop. Hypothesis 1 is therefore supported.

To test the relationships of the team climate dimensions and innovative thinking, a multiple regression model is built. The independent variables are vision, participated safety, support for innovation and task orientation. The dependent variable is innovative thinking. The four selected predictors, that together form the team climate, were selected based on past research and therefore the hierarchical regression model with the “enter” method is chosen. The

independent variables are assumed to influence innovative thinking simultaneously and directly. The variables that need to be controlled for are age, gender, education and group size. To make sure that these variables do not explain away the entire association between team climate and innovative thinking, these variables are added into the model first. By adding them first, the shared variability with team climate is credited to the control variables. Any observed effect of team climate can then be said to be “independent” from the effects of the control variables. The four team climate variables are then added in model 2.

First a regression analysis was conducted with all control variables. Only the control variable age showed a significant relation with innovative thinking and therefore only this control variable is included in the final regression analysis. To examine multicollinearity, the variance inflation factors (VIFs) were calculated for each of the regression equations. The maximum VIF in de models is 2.301, what is well below the rule of thumb cut-off value of 10 (Hair et al., 2006) and thus suggests there are no multicollinearity issues.

Table 4.2. Results of the hierarchical regression analyses: Team climate and Innovative thinking.

Dependent variable Innovative thinking

Model 1 Model 2

Control variable _ VIF _ VIF

Age -.294* _{1.000 -.230}* _1.269

Independent variables

Vision -.003 1.236

Participative safety -.197 2.301

Support for innovation .279** _2.093

Task orientation .500*** _1.839

F 6.919** _9.609***

R2 _{0.087 0.410}

Adjusted R2 _{0.074 0.368}

Adjusted R2 _{change 0.074}* _0.294***

Table 4.2. Note. N=75. Standardized regression coefficients are reported. *p<.05. **p<.01. ***p<.001.

In the first model the F-ratio is 6.919, which is significant (p < .01). For the second model the F-ratio is even higher (9,609) and very significant (p < .001). These results mean that model 1 improved the ability to predict innovative thinking, but that model 2 with the team climate variables significantly improved the ability to predict innovative thinking even more. In model 1 the adjusted R2 is .074, which indicated that 7.4% of the variation in innovative

thinking is explained by age. In model 2 the adjusted R2 is 0.368, which means that 36.8% of the variation in innovative thinking is explained by the team climate and the age. The adjusted R2 change in model 2 is 0.294, what indicates that the team climate accounts for 29.4% of the variation in innovative thinking. The team climate can therefore be seen as an important factor in influencing innovative thinking.

The beta’s indicate to what degree each variable affects innovative thinking if the effects of all other variables are held constant. The results of model 1 indicate that age has a negative significant relationship with innovative thinking (β = -.294, t(73) = -2.630, p = .01). Participants of an older age perceived the innovative thinking of their team lower than participants with a younger age. The results of model 2 still indicate a negative significant effect of age on innovative thinking (β = -.230, t(69) = -2.210, p = .03). Vision has a very small non-significant negative relationship with innovative thinking (β = -.003, t(69) = -0.030, p = .98). This indicates that there is no substantive relation found between clearly defined and shared objectives and innovative thinking. Therefore hypothesis 2 is not supported. Also participative safety has a negative non-significant effect on innovative thinking (β = -.197, t(69) = -1.408, p = .16). This entails that the degree of shared interactions, opinions and perspectives has no substantive effect on innovative thinking. Therefore hypothesis 3 is not supported.

Support for innovation has a positive and significant relationship with innovative thinking (β = .279, t(69) = 2.088, p = .04) and therefore hypothesis 4 is supported. This means that in a work environment where innovation is supported and where there are articulated and enacted norms for innovation, team members are better able to think innovatively. Also task orientation has a strong positive and significant effect on innovative thinking (β = .500, t(69) = 3.990, p = < .001) and therefore hypothesis 5 is supported. It can therefore be concluded that when team members have a general commitment to strive for the highest standard of performance achievable, the innovative thinking of the team members is higher.

4.2.1.GROUP EFFECTS

In addition to the individual-level outcomes in this research, it is interesting to gain more insights about the differences between the participating teams and the relating effects of those differences. This section is about the influence of the team climate factors on the effect of the playfulness workshop on innovative thinking. Regression analyses are done to see if the effect

of the playfulness workshop depends on the team climate of the team. As these hypotheses are concerned about the differences between the groups, the data was aggregated to the team level. In appendix F the average scores of the teams on all variables are displayed.

A regression analyses was conducted with vision, participative safety, support for innovation and task orientation as independent variables and the effect of the playfulness workshop as dependent variable. The effect of the playfulness workshop is the difference of innovative thinking in wave 1 and 2.

Table 4.3. Results of the hierarchical regression analyses: Team climate and the effect of the playfulness workshop.

Dependent variable Effect of the playfulness workhop Model 1

Independent variables _ VIF

Vision .795** _1.195

Participative safety -1.242** _2.931

Support for innovation .535* _1.817

Task orientation 1.071** _2.906

F 22.921**

R2 _.948

Adjusted R2 _.907**

Table 4.3. Note. N=10. Standardized regression coefficients are reported. *p<.05. **p<.01. ***p<.001.

The F-ratio is 22.921, which is significant (p < .01). This implies that the model improves the ability to predict the effect of the playfulness workshop. The R2 is .907, which indicates that 90.7% of the variation in the effect of the playfulness workshop is explained by the team climate.

The results of the regression model indicate that vision has a positive significant relationship with the effect of the workshop (β = .795 , t(5) = 7.148, p = .001) and therefore hypothesis 6 is supported. This means that the playfulness workshop has a stronger positive effect on innovative thinking when the team has clearly defined and shared objectives. Participative safety has a negative significant relationship with the effect of the workshop (β = -1.242 , t(5) = 7.135, p = .001). This means that the playfulness workshop has a weaker effect on innovative thinking when there are a lot of interactions, opinions and perspectives within the team. This effect was not expected based on past literature and therefore hypothesis 7 is not supported. Support for innovation has a positive and significant relationship with the effect of

the workshop (β = .535 , t(5) = 3.901, p = .011). Which means that the playfulness workshop has a stronger positive effect on innovative thinking when there is a work environment where innovation is supported and where there are articulated and enacted norms for innovation. Therefore hypothesis 8 is supported. Finally, task orientation has a positive and significant relationship with the effect of the workshop (β = 1.071, t(5) = 6.180, p = .002). This means that the playfulness workshop has a stronger positive effect on innovative thinking when the team has a general commitment to strive for the highest standards of performance achievable. Therefore hypothesis 9 is supported.

5.

D

Researchers and organizations recognize more than ever that innovation is crucial for success in the world of business. There is a need for employees and work teams who think innovatively in order for organizations to maintain competitive. Researchers show that the team climate is one of the primary predictors of innovativeness in teams (Anderson and West, 1998; Bain et al., 2001; Hülsheger et al., 2009; Ragazzonni et al., 2002; West and Wallace, 1991; West and Anderson, 1996). By examining playfulness as an antecedent of innovative thinking and team climate as a moderator of this relationship, a contribution is made to the existing literature about innovation. Previous studies indicate there are relationships between playfulness and innovative thinking (Clapham, 2003; Linder et al., 2001; Romero and Cruthirds, 2006; Ziv, 1983) and team climate and innovative thinking (Anderson and West, 1998; Bain et al., 2001; Hülsheger, 2009; Ragazzoni et al., 2002).

The results of this study show that playfulness has a direct effect on innovative thinking. There is a large and substantive effect of the playfulness workshops on innovative thinking, indicating that the innovative thinking of the members of the teams was enhanced after the playfulness workshop. Also support for innovation and task orientation have a direct effect on innovative thinking. It is found that in a work environment where innovation is supported and where there are articulated and enacted norms for innovation, team members are better able to think innovatively. The innovative thinking of team members was higher when there was a general commitment to strive for the highest standards of performance achievable.

There are also some interesting results from the tests on the differences between teams. The results show that vision, support for innovation and task orientation strengthen the effect of playfulness on innovative thinking. This indicates that vision, support for innovation and task orientation moderate the relationship between playfulness and innovative thinking. The playfulness workshop has a stronger positive effect on innovative thinking when teams have a stronger vision, higher support for innovation and stronger task orientation.

The present study makes several important contributions to current research on innovation. First, this study builds on the emerging literature on the role of teams and draws attention to their role on innovative thinking. Within organizations it is often the case that new ideas are proposed and pursued toward implementation by work teams (Hülsheger et al., 2009). For any

creative proposal to be worked up to an organizational-level innovation the influences of work teams are critically important (Hülsheger et al., 2009; Shalley and Gilson, 2004; West, 2002). Because of the acknowledged importance and influence of team-based structures, it was attempted in this study to acquire more insights on how teams can think more innovatively.

Second, this study builds on the knowledge of the importance of the team climate for innovation. In existing literature it has been shown that team climate is important for innovation in management and work teams (Anderson and West, 1998; Bain et al., 2001; Brodbeck and Maier, 2001; Eisenbeiss et al., 2008; Hulsheger et al., 2009; Mathisen et al., 2004; Ragazzoni et al, 2002, West and Wallace, 1991). It is shown in this study that support for innovation and task orientation have a strong relationship with innovative thinking, which was expected from existing literature. Vision and participative safety did not show a strong relationship with innovative thinking in this study. This is comparable with past research where support for innovation and task orientation were the two strongest factors related to various innovation measures (Bain et al., 2001). A possibility for these results is that there is an optimal point for the influence of vision and participative safety on innovative thinking. Vision entails clearly defined and shared objectives which motivates members to enhance their innovative performance (Hülsheger, 2009). It is a possibility when vision is that strong, that team members focus on exactly the same objectives, there is no more room for different perspectives. Different perspectives are an important indicator for innovative thinking. Different perspectives will lead to the exploration of contrasting opinions and the consideration of alternatives and thereby to the improvement of the quality of decisions and ideas (Anderson and West, 1998). The opposite could be true for teams where participative safety is very high. When there are too much interactions, opinions and perspectives it could lead to chaos which may distract team members and prohibit them from straight and analytic thinking (De Dreu, 2006). The weak correlations between vision and participative safety with innovative thinking should not be regarded as a failure to replicate findings from previous studies, but rather as an indication that the relationship is more complex than is apparent from previous studies.

Third, this study gives a better understanding of the role of playfulness on innovation. It contributes to our understanding of influence processes by synthesizing the innovation literature with the literature on playfulness, thereby it demonstrates the potential value of