Requirements for successful creative problem solving in teams : one TMS, a strong sense of team identification, and a whole lot of reflexivity : a study on how TMSs benefit creative problem solving through team identifi

MSc. Business Administration 2017 – 2018

Master’s Thesis: Strategy Track

Name:

Maartje Joanna Lydia de Jong

Student number:

10590633

Email address:

maartjedejong@planet.nl

Supervisor:

dr. P. van Neerijnen

Date of submission:

22 June 2018

Requirements for Successful Creative Problem Solving in Teams:

one TMS, a Strong Sense of Team Identification, and a Whole

Lot of Reflexivity

A study on how TMSs Benefit Creative Problem Solving through Team

Identification, including the All-Important Moderating Role of Reflexivity

Statement of Originality

This document is written by Maartje Joanna Lydia de Jong 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

As creative problem solving is increasingly appreciated as the foundation for organisational innovation and the use of teams has become a leading approach for organising, creative problem solving in teams is considered to be an interesting research topic for organisations. However, according to literature, creative problem solving in teams does not always work out successfully, as the complex process often poses challenges for information processing. Therefore, this thesis aims to determine how to successfully achieve creative problem solving in teams. Data is collected at a business school in the Netherlands, where student teams participated in the Business Strategy Game. During this longitudinal simulation, students filled out a survey about key determinants of team performance. Results show that TMS has a significant positive influence on creative problem solving, and that this influence is carried partly through team identification. It was also found that reflexivity interacts with team identification and that higher reflexivity leads to a more positive effect of team identification on creative problem solving. An unexpected finding of this research is that gender has a significant negative effect on TMS and creative problem solving. Furthermore, a post-hoc analysis was conducted to check causality between TMS and team identification, which showed that TMS and team identification have a simultaneous positive influence on each other. Finally, based on the results, theoretical and practical implications of this study are discussed, as well as limitations and suggestions for future research.

Keywords: Creative problem solving, transactive memory systems, team identification, reflexivity, information processing

Table of Contents

1. Introduction………...5

2. Theory………10

2.1 Creative Problem Solving………10

2.1.1 Definition of creative problem solving………...10

2.2 Transactive Memory Systems………..13

2.2.1 Definition of transactive memory systems………..13

2.2.2 The effect of TMS on creative problem solving……….15

2.3 Team Identification………..19

2.3.1 Definition of team identification………19

2.3.2 The effect of TMS on team identification………22

2.3.3 The effect of team identification on creative problem solving………. 25

2.3.4 The role of team identification in the relationship between TMS and creative problem solving………...28

2.4 Reflexivity………...29

2.4.1 Definition of reflexivity………29

2.4.2 The interaction effect between reflexivity and team identification and its influence on the relationship between team identification and creative problem solving………31

2.5 Conceptual Model………35

3. Research Design……….36

3.1 Sample……….36

3.2 The Business Strategy Game………...…..37

3.3 Measures………..38

3.3.1 Creative problem solving……….……….38

3.3.2 Transactive memory systems……….………....39

3.3.3 Team identification………..39

3.4 Statistical Methods………..41

4. Results………...42

5. Discussion……….47

5.3 Limitations and Future Research……….…53

6. Conclusion………...………...…....56

7. Acknowledgements...58

8. References...59

9. Appendices...70

9.1 Appendix A: Items Used in Questionnaire...70

9.2 Appendix B: Output Hypothesis 1...73

9.3 Appendix C: Output Hypothesis 2...75

9.4 Appendix D: Output Hypothesis 3...76

1. Introduction

Creative problem solving is increasingly appreciated as the foundation for organisational innovation (Camacho et al., 2016; Richter et al., 2012; George, 2007; Zhang & Bartol, 2010). It allows companies to bring new and novel ideas to market, which grants them significant growth and sustained competitive advantage (Crawford, 1987; Zhang & Bartol, 2010). At the same time, teams are becoming the building blocks of contemporary organisations (Widmer, Schippers & West, 2009; De Dreu, 2002). Specifically, it is said that the use of teams has become “a leading approach for organising” (Solansky, 2011, p. 247). For organisational teams to be effective, it is of the utmost importance to be innovative, as this enables them to survive and thrive within constantly changing and challenging circumstances (De Dreu, 2002; De Dreu & West, 2001). What is more, as creative problem solving is seen as a source of innovation, creative problem solving in teams has become an especially interesting research topic for organisations (Hirst, Van Knippenberg & Zhou, 2009; Hirst, Van Dick & Van Knippenberg, 2009).

However, looking at studies on creative problem solving in teams, it becomes clear that this process does not always work out successfully. One reason for this is that creative problem solving poses high task complexity, which makes information processing challenging at times (Schippers, Edmondson & West, 2014). As a result, information processing failures occur such as critical omissions, misplaced emphases, and distortion (Flores et al., 2012; Schippers, Edmondson & West, 2014). Furthermore, being part of a group possibly also inhibits intellectual activity and results in other team-level biases such as groupthink (Paulus & Nijstad, 2003; Schippers, Edmondson & West, 2014). Particularly, group members might feel pressured to reach consensus which results in non-creative solutions to problems (Janis, 1982). As creative problem solving in teams is becoming exceedingly important for companies as a source of competitive advantage, it is crucial for companies to correctly deal with these challenges in

information processing. Nevertheless, current literature does not yet articulate how teams can optimise the information processing process in such a way that it leads to successful creative problem solving. Therefore, the aim of this thesis is to fill this existing research gap and to provide managers with suggestions on how to manage the creative problem solving process in teams in such a way that it is successful and effectively reaches its innovative potential. In particular, this research puts forward three variables that together enhance creative problem solving in teams. These variables are: transactive memory systems, team identification, and reflexivity. With regard to a transactive memory system (TMS), this concept has been proven to be an effective way of processing information in teams, as it is considered to be a group information processing system (Wegner, 1987; Griffith & Neale, 2001). Furthermore, it is also said to reach creative outcomes within teams, but has not yet been proven to positively influence creative problem solving (Mitchell & Nicholas, 2006; Ren & Argote, 2011). As the name preludes, TMSs allow team members to extend their individual memory by having a collective system that team members use to “encode, store and retrieve knowledge” (Ren & Argote, 2011, p. 190). In fact, the development of TMSs within teams facilitates team members with a common knowledge base that combines information, expertise and perspectives of all different team members (Gino et al., 2010). As a result, a TMS enables team members to create new ideas and to provide innovative solutions to complex problems (Cordery & Soo, 2008). Specifically, this research finds that a TMS benefits creative problem solving as it enables a specialised division of cognitive labour, allows for the generation of creative ideas, and induces individual and collaborative learning.

Furthermore, team identification has been an interesting variable to study from the moment teamwork was introduced to companies, but the strongly growing use of teams in organisations has definitely increased its significance (Solansky, 2011; Lembke & Wilson,

themselves in terms of his/her team membership (Van Knippenberg & Van Schie, 2000). It is an especially interesting variable to study with regard to creative problem solving in teams, as recent research has shown that it can both help and hurt creative behaviour (Litchfield et al., 2018; Harvey & Kou, 2018). Regarding hurting creative behaviour, research has shown that strong team bonds rather foster conformity instead of creativity, which makes it difficult to come up with novel and innovative ideas (Janssen & Huang, 2008). However, this research finds that team identification significantly contributes to creative problem solving, as a strong team identification enables team members to comfortably express ideas and allows for effective conflicts that benefit the creative problem solving task, and because a strong sense of team identification motivates team members to persist in their efforts of successfully achieving the complex task that is creative problem solving. In fact, this thesis shows that team identification actually partially mediates the positive relationship between TMS and creative problem solving. Moreover, this research also incorporates a variable that has been said to benefit innovative team efforts by means of acting as an antidote for the possible information processing failures that could occur in creative team processes (Schippers, Edmondson & West, 2014; Litchfield et al., 2018). This variable is called ‘reflexivity’ and in a team context it refers to the extent to which team members reflect upon the team’s objectives, strategies, and processes and adapts accordingly to current internal or external circumstances (Litchfield et al., 2018). In particular, it has been proposed that reflexivity could counter possible hindering effects of a strong team identification (Schippers, Edmondson & West, 2014; Litchfield et al., 2018). To be precise, it is found that reflexivity encourages a team to view approaches that are different or new and that potentially challenge the status quo as beneficial and identity consistent, and provides a context where distinctive opinions can be expressed and are valued, which is advantageous for creative problem solving (Litchfield et al., 2018).What is more, this

thesis finds that reflexivity interacts with team identification in such a way that it actually acts as a moderator in the relation between team identification and creative problem solving.

To summarise, this thesis will determine how the development of TMS together with a strong team identification and the use of reflexivity can lead to a successful creative problem solving process in teams, in such a way that information processing runs effectively and the team reaches its innovative potential. This is a theoretically relevant topic, as current literature does not explicitly point out how to achieve successful creative problem solving in teams (Paulus & Nijstad, 2003; Schippers, Edmondson & West, 2014). Moreover, it is also relevant, as it addresses the ambiguity in literature on the effectiveness of team identification in creative team processes, and because it points out the remedial role of reflexivity with regard to information processing issues with team identification and creative problem solving in teams (Schippers, Edmondson & West, 2014; Sung & Choi, 2012; Litchfield et al., 2018). What is more, the research is also practically relevant, as more and more companies are interested in creative problem solving and appreciate teams as the source of innovation (Camacho et al., 2016; Solanksy, 2011). As a result, it is crucial for managers to know how they can induce successful creative problem solving in teams by facilitating for desirable information processing in order to optimise a team’s innovative potential (Nijstad & De Dreu, 2002; Sung & Choi, 2012). Therefore, this study will provide managers with clear and substantiated insights towards achieving this.

Finally, this thesis is structured as follows. Chapter 2 provides a review of literature on all variables, outlining the theoretical framework and eventually leading to three hypotheses on the specific roles of TMS, team identification and reflexivity in achieving successful creative problem solving in teams. After this, chapter 3 will explain how data was collected for this research, and will also mention the measures used for the variables as well as statistical

and managerial implications of the findings will be discussed in chapter 5. Additionally, limitations of this thesis will be mentioned, as well as future research suggestions. In the end, the conclusion of this study will be provided in chapter 6.

2. Theory

2.1 Creative Problem Solving

As stated in the introduction, this thesis will centre its attention on teams engaged in creative problem solving. In order to go into more depth regarding the specific effect of the development of transactive memory systems on creative problem solving and the roles of team identification and reflexivity in this relation, it is first important to clarify what actually classifies as creative problem solving. Therefore, this section will provide the definition of creative problem solving as used in this thesis.

2.1.1 Definition of creative problem solving

To provide a definition of creative problem solving, it is crucial to first discuss the two components out of which creative problem solving consists: creativity and problem solving. Firstly, we will provide an explanation of the concept of creativity. In existing literature, creativity is defined as “the ability to discern new relationships, examine subjects from new perspectives and to form new concepts from existing notions” (Forgionne & Newman, 2007, p. 2126). Furthermore, creativity is also described as “an intellectual thought process of generating ideas that are new and potentially useful” (Tummers & Kruyen, 2014, p. 3). It is therefore crucial for companies to foster creativity among their employees, as the innovative ideas generated by creative employees can help the firm to stay competitive (Woodman, Sawyer & Griffin, 1993; Shalley & Perry-Smith, 2001; Zhou & Hoever, 2014). Particularly, because creative persons possess the flexibility and capacity to cope with the opportunities, advances and changes that are part of current operations in business (Runco, 2004). As a result, creativity is in practice often a reaction to problems that people encounter. Therefore, creativity is especially useful as part of the problem-solving process (Mumford et al., 1991; Runco, 1994).

an achievement (Forgionne & Newman, 2007). This thesis focuses on creative behaviour as an achievement, particularly as a possible product from the development of transactive memory systems, as well as from team identification and reflexivity.

Furthermore, we will now briefly discuss the general notion of problem solving. Research and theory on problem solving has been done in various fields, including experimental psychology, education, and management science (Anderson et al., 2016; D’Zurilla & Goldfried, 1971). In terms of the definition of problem solving, early on it has been defined as a behavioural process, which encompasses activities that include the generation of alternatives as well as decision-making behaviour (Maier, 1960; D’Zurilla & Goldfried, 1971). In addition, recent literature describes problem solving as “the process of identifying a difference between the actual and the desired state of affairs and then taking action to resolve the difference” (Anderson et al., 2016, p. 3). Moreover, even though studies show large differences in the way individuals actually engage in problem solving, there has been a significant amount of agreement among various researchers regarding the general activities involved in the problem solving process (D’Zurilla & Goldfried, 1971). In particular, a consensus has been reached with regard to the following stages: (1) orientation, (2) problem identification and formulation, (3) generation of alternatives, (4) evaluation of alternatives and decision-making, (5) implementation, and (6) evaluation and verification of the outcome (Anderson et al., 2016; D’Zurilla & Goldfried, 1971). However, it is important to note that this stage-sequential approach to problem solving does not necessarily imply that this is the exact way in which problem solving is, or should be, carried out in practice. To be precise, the stages mentioned here often overlap and interact with each other.

Now, after discussing creativity as well as the general notion of problem solving, it is time to establish what creative problem solving entails. Firstly, this process differs from routine problem solving in the sense that routine problem solving makes use of a pre-established

method for solving a problem, even though the stages might not always be executed sequentially (Williams, 2002). With creative problem solving, any existing method for solving the problem is either not known or not used. It requires divergence from the usual thinking patterns (Camacho et al., 2016; Williams, 2002). Therefore, creative problem solving is characterised by the search for new solutions, while routine problem solving makes use of old solutions (Williams, 2002). Secondly, in contrast to routine problem solving, creative problem solving is often carried out in collaboration and is most effectively accomplished as a team effort. What is more, it has been found that innovation demands a specific kind of problem solving ability, such as creative problem solving, as it requires teams to be insightful and to recognise connections among concepts, even if they appear to be unrelated (Camacho et al., 2016). In particular, creative problem solving is a process in which team members work together in such a way that they link ideas from multiple sources, delve into unfamiliar areas to find better or unique approaches to solving a problem, or seek out new ways of performing tasks (Gilson & Shalley, 2004). Thus in order to achieve innovative outcomes in teams, it is crucial to engage in creative problem solving. Specifically, it has been found that teams that engage in creative problem solving are able to solve a variety of complex issues by reaching a creative outcome (Camacho et al., 2016; Lumsdaine & Lumsdaine, 1994).

Altogether, this leads to the following definition of creative problem solving as used in this thesis: “A social, iterative and collaborative thinking process of generating new ideas and approaches to solve problems by diverging from usual thinking patterns, linking multiple sources, and examining subjects from new perspectives.”

2.2 Transactive Memory Systems

In this subchapter, firstly a definition of transactive memory systems will be provided. After this definition, assumptions will be made on the effect of transactive memory systems on creative problem solving, which will result in the first hypothesis of this thesis.

2.2.1 Definition of transactive memory systems

The concept of transactive memory systems was first introduced by Wegner and his co-authors in 1985, after which many researchers in different fields of interest, such as management, psychology, communication, and information systems, have studied transactive memory systems (Ren & Argote, 2011). As a result, the existing body of literature regarding TMS consists of a broad range of antecedents and consequences of the use of TMS. The initial idea behind transactive memory systems was to show how people can use external sources such as books, artefacts, or group members to extend their individual memory (Wegner, Giuliano & Hertel, 1985). In existing literature, the concept of transactive memory is often thought to be interchangeable with the concept of transactive memory systems. However, these two are fundamentally distinct as transactive memory is a component of a TMS (Ren & Argote, 2011). In particular, Wegner et al. (1985) distinguished two components of a TMS: (1) a structural component, that concerns how transactive memory link individual memories to a collective network of knowledge, and (2) three transactive processes which can take place during the encoding, storing, and retrieval of information in the group memory. This second component can also be referred to as metaknowledge, as it helps people to retrieve information from external sources. Thus, even though transactive memory allows someone to know who knows what, a TMS transcends this presence of knowledge and requires groups or dyads to also engage in transactive processes.

Furthermore, this thesis focuses on TMS within groups and does not consider dyads. In particular, Wegner (1987) emphasises that a transactive memory system is the property of a group, and involves “the operation of the memory systems of the individuals and the processes of communication that occur within the group” (p. 191). Thus according to Wegner (1987), a TMS is a group operation which is built up over time by its individual group members and can be viewed as a group information processing system. Moreover, other researchers have also considered TMS in terms of a group property, by stating that it is a knowledge repository for a group memory (Argote & Ingram, 2000; Walsh & Ungson, 1991). Consequently, a TMS is said to store “knowledge of who knows what, which can influence the future performance of the group” (Ren & Argote, 2011, p. 193). So by developing TMSs teams can form a shared awareness of who knows what, which means that when team members need information but cannot recall it themselves, they can turn to each other for help (Moreland & Myaskovsky, 2000). What is more, research has found that it is crucial to know the division in knowledge and information among team members. Specifically, teams have shown to make fewer mistakes than individuals, especially when every team member knows his or her responsibilities, as well as the responsibilities of other team members (Michinov et al., 2008).

To be clear, the working of a TMS involves three core activities: directory updating, information allocation, and retrieval coordination (Wegner, 1995). Through directory updating, individuals learn about every member’s domains of expertise, which leads to the development and maintenance of a directory of who knows what. Information allocation entails the matching and transmission of incoming information to experts from this directory for storage. Finally, the retrieval coordination process allows group members to contact designated experts to retrieve stored information when necessary (Cordery & Soo, 2008).

includes a shared understanding of which group members possess specialised expertise, that there is confidence in the reliability of that knowledge and expertise, and clarity on how to best share that knowledge and expertise to accomplish the teams’ task.” (Seong et al, 2015, p. 1191) So specialization refers to the differentiated structure of member knowledge, where credibility refers to members’ beliefs about the accuracy and reliability of other members’ knowledge, and coordination is about effective and orchestrated knowledge processing (Lewis, 2003).

Altogether, this thesis will base its definition of TMS on its most commonly used definition (Ren & Argote, 2011; Ren, Carley & Argote, 2006; Littlepage et al., 2008; Lewis, 2003), and will include the notion that TMS is a group property. This leads to the following definition: “A transactive memory system is a group information processing system that people in groups develop for encoding, storing, and retrieving information from different domains, and it includes a shared understanding of who knows what, as well as confidence in the reliability of other’s knowledge and expertise, and clarity on how to best share that knowledge and expertise to accomplish the teams’ task.”

2.2.2 The effect of TMS on creative problem solving

Now that the definition of transactive memory systems has been established, it is time to look at the relation between transactive memory systems and creative problem solving. We will analyse this relation by looking at three arguments. These are, respectively: (1) ‘division of cognitive labour’ argument, (2) ‘creativity-nurturing environment’ argument, and (3) ‘individual and collaborative learning’ argument.

To begin with, the ‘division of cognitive labour’ argument will be discussed. In current literature, the group information processing system that is a transactive memory system is said to enable a shared division of cognitive labour (Ren & Argote, 2011). Moreover, it has been found that a division of cognitive labour benefits the information processing demands of

problem solving. The reason for this is that dividing the cognitive labour concerned with a problem at hand will help the members of a team to deal with the high cognitive demands of problem solving (Lewis & Herndon, 2011). These cognitive demands include the iterative cycles of reviewing evidence, creating hypotheses, and probing for new evidence (Larson, 2010). Like routine problem solving, creative problem solving also has high cognitive demands in terms of linking multiple sources, examining subjects from new perspectives and generating new approaches to solve problems (Gilson & Shalley, 2004). Therefore, a well-functioning TMS is expected to benefit teams with regard to creative problem solving.

Secondly, the ‘creativity-nurturing environment’ is built upon evidence that states that creative thinking is not simply an individual trait, but that it can also be the result of processes (Leifer, 2000; Schmitt & Brown, 2001; Forgionne & Newman, 2007). Specifically, it is said that creative behaviour can be induced by a certain idea-nurturing team environment (Forgionne & Newman, 2007). Especially, creative problem solving is said to be cooperative in nature and most effective when done in a team (Lumsdaine & Lumsdaine, 1994). Additionally, it was found that having sufficient knowledge in particular areas benefits creativity (Shalley & Gilson, 2004). Transactive memory systems within teams allow for just this, as they are cooperative and allow the sharing of knowledge, which enables every team member to store and retrieve information from different domains (Ren & Argote, 2011; Ren, Carley & Argote, 2006; Littlepage et al., 2008). In particular, this knowledge sharing can be considered the source of creative ideas, as it allows team members to metaphorically ‘stand on the shoulders of giants’ and see further than others (Paulus & Nijstad, 2003). This is because the transactions between team members enable teams to combine information held by different team members in novel ways (Wegner, 1987). Specifically, it was found that the awareness regarding other team members’ knowledge empowers teams to better envision creative combinations than teams

be assumed to benefit creative problem solving.

Lastly, concerning the third argument, existing literature has found that transactive memory systems benefit both individual and collaborative learning (Ren & Argote, 2011; Lewis & Herndon, 2011). In particular, it is found that transactive processes refine information in the TMS structure, and that they generate individual and collaborative learning outcomes which is useful for performance (Lewis & Herndon, 2011).

With regard to individual learning, TMS supports new learning that occurs during task processing. This is because performing a task provides team members with diagnostic feedback concerning the functioning of retrieval and communication activities, and by helping members to establish routines (Lewis & Herndon, 2011). Specifically, in this sense performing a task aids the learning process of an individual, and therefore it can be seen as “learning by doing”, which also aids in constituting routines for interacting in the future (Lewis, Lange & Gillis, 2005). An important notion here is that “learning by doing” entails that the learning benefits of TMS increase in the long-term, as members interact more and perform more tasks over time.

Furthermore, we will now pinpoint why the induction of individual learning benefits creative problem solving. Particularly, it is expected that this learning process allows team members to improve their ability to deal creatively with problems for two reasons. Firstly, because it has been proven that the transactive processes that lead to “learning by doing” increase the possibility that new ideas emerge out of task processing (Lewis & Herndon, 2011). Secondly, for the reason that individual learning allows team members to understand their own creative abilities and styles more thoroughly, which allows them to attain greater success with their creative efforts (Treffinger, 1995).

Concerning collaborative learning, it was found that this type of learning is related to the process by which team members obtain meta-knowledge about the domain expertise of the other team members, which is enabled by TMS, and use this knowledge to pool and process

unshared information (Noroozi et al., 2013a). Research shows that effective collaborative learning depends on how individuals engage in transactive discussion when they discuss, question, build upon and give counter-arguments against the contributions of other team members (Noroozi et al., 2013b). Thus, the development of a TMS in a team helps members to start productive discussions in order to pool and process team members’ unshared information and knowledge resources (Rummel, Spada & Hauser, 2009; Moreland & Myaskovsky, 2000). Shared knowledge is then assumed to develop through the cycles in which team members engage in transactive processes to store and retrieve knowledge that is relevant to the group’s collaborative task, which results in successful collaborative learning (Michinov & Michinov, 2009; Noroozi et al., 2013a).

This collaborative learning process has been said to be essential for creative problem solving (Ninck, 2013). To begin with, it has been found that collaborative learning enables team members to perform at higher intellectual levels (Vygotsky, 1978), which benefits the complex process that is creative problem solving. Specifically, as collaborative learning stimulates thinking and allows team members to gain new perspectives and obtain different interpretations of a problem, as result of an active exchange of ideas (Gokhale, 1995; Bruner, 1985). What is more, the collaborative learning process provides team members with an opportunity to engage in sustained discussion, which promotes critical thinking, leads to a better overall understanding, and enhances creative efforts (Totten et al., 1991; Peppler & Solomou, 2011). In addition, collaborative learning also contributes to creative problem solving, because it allows for the creation of new and novel knowledge derived from the linking of expertise and synthesising of knowledge domains (Laisema & Wannapiroon, 2013). Altogether, it can therefore be assumed that both the individual and collaborative learning outcomes of TMS will benefit creative problem solving.

To conclude, we have discussed three arguments that explain why transactive memory systems have a positive relationship with creative problem solving. Respectively, because TMSs enable a cognitive division of labour, allow for the generation of creative ideas, and induce individual and collaborative learning. Altogether, these assumptions lead to the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1: The development of transactive memory systems has a positive effect on creative problem solving.

2.3 Team Identification

In this section, we will first provide a definition of team identification. Once it is clear what this concept entails, we will shift our attention towards the role of team identification in the relationship between TMS and creative problem solving. To do this, firstly the effect of TMS on team identification will be examined, after which we investigate the effect of team identification on creative problem solving. Finally, a hypothesis will then be provided on the specific role that team identification plays in the relationship between TMS and creative problem solving.

2.3.1 Definition of team identification

The concept of team identification has been an interesting topic for researchers as soon as teamwork and team-based activities were introduced to organisations, and it is increasing in its significance as the use of teams is becoming a leading approach for organizing (Lembke & Wilson, 1998). Specifically, it has been argued that the outcome produced by a team depends largely on the strength of the identification among individuals (Solansky, 2011). To clarify,

when discussing the notion of a team, this entails two or more people that interact interdependently towards a common goal (Salas et al., 1992).

Regarding the definition of team identification, it is clear that there is no consistency among researchers, as different definitions all exhibit a diverse range of language, terms, and concepts. In fact, you could almost speak of an ‘identity crisis’ in terms of the inconsistency with regard to the concept of team identification (Lock & Heere, 2017). To illustrate, definitions of team identification include: “an individual’s psychological connection to a team” (Wann et al., 1999, p. 1296), “personal commitment and emotional involvement” (Sutton et al., 1997, p.15), the extent to which a person views the team as an extension of his or herself (Wann et al., 2011), the extent to which individuals are involved with the team, are concerned with their performance, and view the team as a representation of themselves (Branscombe & Wann, 1992), and “the perception of oneness with or belongingness to some human aggregate” (Ashfort & Mael, 1989, p. 21).

However, there seems to be some consistency in four areas regarding what constitutes team identification (Lock & Heere, 2017). Firstly, with regard to the words ‘perception’ and ‘psychological connection’, it is implied that a person cognitively realises that he or she is connected to a group or team to some extent (Ashfort & Mael, 1989; Wann et al., 1999; Branscombe & Wann, 1992). Secondly, there is a consensus regarding the notion that team identification interacts with, or extends, an individual’s self-concept (Wann et al., 1999; Branscombe & Wann, 1992). Third, it is clear that team members with a strong team identification all have vested interests in team performance and thus care about the performances of their team (Branscombe & Wann, 1992; Sutton et al., 1997). Finally, a large part of the definitions imply that team identification has a certain degree of emotional importance (Sutton et al., 1997). Therefore, it can be concluded that team identification

involves: cognition, interaction with a person’s self-concept, interest in group status, and some degree of emotional value (Lock & Heere, 2017).

Furthermore, when looking at existing literature on team identification, it becomes clear that team identification is aligned with social identity theory, which is a social psychology theory based on membership of a group (Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Delia & James, 2017; Lock & Heere, 2017). Specifically, it has been found that psychological processes described by social identity theory are crucial to understanding the emotional and cognitive transition individual team members go through if they become a team. In particular, Tajfel and Turner (1986) clearly distinguish between a personal identity and a social identity held by individuals. Specifically, they describe social identification as a transition from thinking and feeling like a unique individual, to thinking and feeling like a representative of a social group, such as a team. Identification with a team equals a shift in salience from a personal identity towards a social identity (Ullrich, Wieseke & Van Dick, 2003; Solansky, 2011). Specifically, teams with high levels of identification have team members that are committed to the team and the team’s goals rather than their individual goals (Van der Vegt & Bunderson, 2005). Additionally, one’s identification with its team develops itself and grows stronger as the team becomes socially tighter (Solansky, 2011; Wheelan, 1994).

What is more, according to social identity theory, an individual is thought to derive a greater sense of self from the perceived awareness, value, and emotional significance of belonging to a certain group (Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Delia & James, 2017). Particularly, the groups to which individuals think they belong contribute to their self-image by classifying themselves with group members and distinguishing themselves from people that are not group members (Delia & James, 2017). In other words, team identification can be seen as a person’s sense of belonging with a social entity, such as a team (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). Altogether, it is clear that team identification is a widely researched concept with roots in social identity

theory and that it concerns cognition, interaction with a person’s self-concept, interest in group status, and some degree of emotional value. This leads us to the following hypothesis of team identification as used in this thesis: “Team identification concerns an individual’s psychological connection to a team by means of a sense of oneness and emotional involvement in such a way that an individual views the team and its performance as a representation of his or herself.”

2.3.2 The effect of TMS on team identification

Now that the definition of team identification is established, the effect of TMS on team identification will be discussed. To begin with, it is important to note that literature on the causality between TMS and team identification is slightly ambiguous. To illustrate, there is research that states that team identification positively affects the development of TMS, as members who identify with their team are more likely to rely on each other and share knowledge (Haslam, 2001; Liao et al., 2012), but there is also research that states that it is the other way around. However, findings that prove team identification to be an outcome of TMS are more widely represented (Ren & Argote, 2011; Michinov et al., 2008; Austin, 2003; Hackman, 1991; Pearsall & Ellis, 2006; Van der Vegt, Emans & Van de Vliert, 2001). Therefore, this thesis assumes team identification to be affected by the development of TMS, and this will be substantiated using two arguments: the ‘support system’ argument and the ‘affiliation with success’ argument.

The ‘support system’ argument refers to the fact that a TMS allows team members to rely on each other and actually provides the perception of teamwork, which forms a strong sense of team identification (Michinov et al., 2008). In particular, it was found that “the presence of a TMS is the most important factor contributing to perceptions of teamwork” (Michinov et al., 2008, p. 331). First off, this is because TMSs enhance communication between

2003). Moreover, besides providing teams with the all-important sharing of knowledge and information, a TMS also allows team members to know the division in knowledge and information among team members. It was found that team identification is particularly affected by the cooperative division of labour together with the communication of team knowledge as enabled by TMS (Pearsall & Ellis, 2006; Van der Vegt, Emans & Van de Vliert, 2001). Accordingly, when team members fail to coordinate their roles and responsibilities, as well as fail to distribute necessary knowledge, this creates a division between the members of the team, which weakens members’ team identification (Hackman, 1991; Pearsall & Ellis, 2006; Van der Vegt, Emans & Van de Vliert, 2001). Additionally, research states that when team members perceive that they can rely on other members to help them if they are experiencing difficulties or if they mistrust their own memory, this facilitates shared identities such as identification with the team (Michinov et al., 2008). The fact that a TMS allows team members to supplement their own memory capacities by making use of the knowledge stored by other team members facilitates a strong sense of team identification (Cordery & Soo, 2008; Michinov et al., 2008). In conclusion, the enhanced communication, cooperative division of knowledge, responsibilities and teamwork, and the collective memory system that are all the result of the development of a TMS are expected to have a positive effect on the identification of members with their team.

Secondly, research indicates that team identification is increased by positive performance feedback (Fisher & Wakefield, 1998). Numerous studies have found that the development of a TMS within a team has a strong positive effect on team performance (Ren & Argote, 2011). The ‘affiliation with success’ argument concerns this indirect effect of TMS on team identification, which consists of (1) a relation between TMS and performance, and (2) a relation between performance and team identification. With regard to the positive effect of TMS on team performance, it was found that team members’ knowledge on who knows what is

positively associated with team efficiency (Faraj & Sproull, 2000), and that teams with a well-functioning TMS are more effective in reaching their goals (Ren & Argote, 2011). This is not only the result of the sharing of knowledge and information, and knowledge of who knows what as enabled by TMS, but especially because it was found that teams make fewer mistakes when each team member knows his or her own responsibilities as well as those of other team members, leading to a better team performance (Xiao et al., 2004; Salas & Cannon-Bowers, 2000).

Regarding the relation between performance and team identification, we will now discuss that the fact that teams with a well-developed TMS perform successfully, in turn, strengthens team members’ identification with the team. Specifically, research states that team members’ connection to a team is strengthened or weakened depending on that team’s performance. To illustrate, after a successful performance of the team, members will use the pronoun ‘we’, whereas ‘they’ is used after an unsuccessful performance (Cialdini et al., 1976; Fisher & Wakefield, 1998). Thus people want to be affiliated with a successful team and therefore, their identification with the team strengthens. Specifically, being affiliated with a successful team allows individuals to establish and maintain a positive view of themselves, as “being connected to a successful group provides distinctive and positive information about the self” (Fisher & Wakefield, 1998, p. 28). So group performance has a significant effect on team identification, and as it was previously established that teams with a TMS exhibit successful performance, it can be thought that when teams have a TMS, team members will have a strong sense of team identification as result of the good performance outcomes.

Altogether, we will now form a conclusion regarding the relation between TMS and team identification based on the arguments made above. To recap, the ‘support system’ argument argues that the enhanced communication, cooperative division of knowledge,

development of a TMS are expected to have a positive effect on the identification of members with their team. Furthermore, the ‘affiliation with success’ argument poses that the use of a TMS within a team leads to successful performance outcomes, which in turn leads to an increased sense of team identification due to team members’ desire to be strongly connected to a successful team. Eventually, this is results in the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2a: The development of TMS has a positive effect on team members’ identification with their team.

2.3.3 The effect of team identification on creative problem solving

After establishing the relationship between TMS and team identification, we will now discuss the relationship between team identification and creative problem solving. Accordingly, two arguments will be examined. These arguments are, respectively, the ‘positive interpersonal environment’ argument and the ‘motivated persistence’ argument.

The ‘positive interpersonal environment’ argument centres around the assumption that teams with a strong team identification operate in a positive interpersonal environment, which facilitates creative problem solving. Specifically, literature states that team identification can be described in terms of a positive interpersonal environment (Harvey & Kou, 2018; Kearney & Gebert, 2009). It is said that when team members work together in a team with a strong team identification, and thus in a positive interpersonal environment, it is clear that they communicate more and that their communication is deeper, which makes them more likely to share unique information and perspectives (Harvey & Kou, 2018). This is because the extent to which people identify with a group primarily shapes people’s level of cooperation (Tyler & Blader, 2003; Solansky, 2011).

Moreover, according to recent literature, positive interpersonal relationships between members of a team are essential for creative processes as they “help teams to overcome problems with conflict and dissent and make team members more comfortable offering their ideas and information” (Harvey & Kou, 2018, p. 92). In other words, when a team has positive interpersonal processes among its members, they are more likely to participate in effective conflict, which stimulates the generation of ideas (Van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007; Harvey & Kou, 2018). Specifically, strong team identification prevents task conflicts from becoming detrimental relationship conflicts, as team members are more likely to make favourable attributions regarding the underlying motives of critique (Schaeffner et al., 2015). This is because team members know that others share the same bond with the team and the same commitment to its goals, and as a consequence, critique is less likely to be taken personally, but is rather seen as an attempt for improving the performance of a team (Van Knippenberg & Ellemers, 2003; Fiske & Taylor, 1991). Thus, strongly identified teams are also less likely to experience interpersonal conflicts that can distract the team from its creative problem solving task (Harvey & Kou, 2018). Altogether, in teams with a strong sense of team identification, team members are more likely to feel comfortable expressing their ideas to each other, as well as to handle conflicts productively, and to probe other’s ideas in order to develop a more complete understanding. As a result, new ideas can sprout that benefit the complex process of creative problem solving (Axtel et al., 2000; Barsade et al., 2001).

Second, the ‘motivated persistence’ argument states that team identification inspires a certain amount of motivation and persistence, which benefits creative problem solving efforts. Accordingly, research shows that the more individuals identify with a team, the more they are motivated to work towards achieving the goals of the team (Ashfort & Mael, 1989; Van Knippenberg & Ellemers, 2003; Van Dick et al., 2007). This is because when people identify

the team are internalised (Hirst, Van Dick & Van Knippenberg, 2009; Deci & Ryan, 2000). Particularly the merging of an individual’s self-concept with a team’s identity provides an incentive for strongly identifying members to overcome certain barriers that impede progress and threaten the team’s success. Failure to overcome these barriers poses a threat to the self-esteem, specifically if failure has negative consequences on the team’s identity. It is this desire to avoid negative affiliations that stimulates team members with a strong team identification to invest sustained effort (Hirst, Van Dick & Van Knippenberg, 2009).

This persistence is especially crucial when developing creative solutions to problems, as this is a task which is by its very nature fraught with possible setbacks (Amabile, 1990). Creative problem solving involves uncertain and untested approaches and the commitment of team members to their team will drive team members to push through and reach success. In particular, their persistence and investment of effort will benefit knowledge acquisition and deep information processing strategies that allow them to master the complex and uncertain task that is creative problem solving (Fisher & Ford, 1998; Hirst, Van Dick & Van Knippenberg, 2009; Elliot & McGregor, 2001). In particular, extensive information searching and the exploration of new options will provide a greater understanding of a problem, which lays the groundwork for a creative solution (Hirst, Van Dick & Van Knippenberg, 2009). All in all, having established the motivating processes that team identification inspires, it is clear by now that a strong team identification encourages the persistence necessary to accomplish creative problem solving.

In conclusion, the ‘positive interpersonal environment’ argument and the ‘motivated persistence’ argument both expect that team identification has a positive relation with creative problem solving. Respectively, because a strong team identification enables team members to comfortably express ideas and allows for effective conflicts that benefit the creative problem solving task, and because a strong sense of team identification motivates team members to

persist in their efforts of successfully achieving the complex task that is creative problem solving. Eventually, this leads us to the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2b: Team identification has a positive effect on creative problem solving.

2.3.4 The role of team identification in the relationship between TMS and creative problem solving

To begin with, it is important to note that team identification on itself is not the only variable through which the effect of TMS on creative problem solving can be explained (Ren & Argote, 2011). Therefore, the mediation of team identification in the relationship between TMS and creative problem solving is assumed to be partial.

Regarding this partial mediation, it is thought that there is a significant relationship between team identification and creative problem solving, as well as a direct relationship between TMS and creative problem solving. To be precise, it is expected that team identification is an intermediate step that partially contributes to the realisation of the effect of TMS on creative problem solving. Specifically, this is because TMS has different effects on both team identification and creative problem solving, but that its effects on team identification, in turn, affect creative problem solving as well. To recap, TMSs positively affect creative problem solving because they allow for the generation of creative ideas, enable a cognitive division of labour, and induce individual and collective learning. Concerning its positive effect on team identification, TMS is said to act as sort of a support system that enables team members to rely on each other, and the successful performance outcomes that are the result of TMS induces team members to be strongly connected with the team to benefit their own self-esteem. Consequently, the strong team identification induced by TMS in teams increases creative problem solving, as a strong team identification enables team members to comfortably express

because a strong sense of team identification motivates team members to persist in their efforts of successfully achieving the complex task that is creative problem solving.

Altogether, it is therefore assumed that team identification acts as a partial mediator in the relation between TMS and creative problem solving. This is stated in the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2c: Team identification partially mediates the relationship between TMS and creative problem solving.

2.4 Reflexivity

In this subchapter, the concept of reflexivity will be examined in depth. As a result, we will be able to form the definition of reflexivity, after which we will look at how reflexivity interacts with team identification and the possible consequences for creative problem solving. Eventually, a hypothesis regarding this relation will be constructed.

2.4.1 Definition of reflexivity

Reflexivity has often been identified as an important determinant of team performance (Konradt et al. 2016; Schippers et al., 2003). Although reflexivity can be considered at the individual level, this thesis will look at it as a group-level construct. Team reflexivity has often been defined as “the extent to which group members overtly reflect upon, and communicate about the group’s objectives, strategies (e.g. decision-making) and processes (e.g. communication), and adapt them to current or anticipated circumstances” (West, Garrod & Carletta, 1997, p. 296). In other words, team reflexivity describes the extent to which teams think about their strategies and behaviours and adapt accordingly, specifically when confronted with complexity and unpredictability (Konradt et al., 2016). When teams are non-reflexive, they show little

awareness of the team’s objectives, strategies and the surroundings in which the team operates. Often they are reactive rather than proactive and react in a defensive manner when posed with a threat. Whereas reflexive teams exhibit more detailed planning and pay more attention to long-term consequences, as well as a larger inventory of environmental cues to which they are able to respond (Schippers, Den Hartog & Koopman, 2007; West, 2000). So the opposite of reflexivity is the use of habitual routines to guide a team’s actions and behaviour. In particular, when teams make use of habitual routines, groups do not explicitly discuss whether or not a way of proceeding is better or worse than alternatives (Schippers et al., 2003). Therefore, not reflecting can lead to wrong decision-making and a decreased team functioning, also described as groupthink by Janis (1982).

Originally, the construct of reflexivity is thought of as an iterative process consisting of three parts: reflection, planning, and action or adaptation. Respectively, reflection concerns the consideration of work-related issues (Widmer, Schippers & West, 2009), and 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” (West, 2000, p.4). Moreover, the reflection part is assumed to have three different levels of depth: shallow, moderate and deep (Swift & West, 1998). Shallow reflection refers to the first phase of awareness and includes thinking about issues that are closely related to the task at hand. Moderate reflection concerns a more critical approach towards tasks, goals, processes, and strategies. Finally, in the stage of deep reflection, the norms and values of the team or organisation and their effect on team and organisational functioning are questioned (Schippers, Den Hartog & Koopman, 2007). Furthermore, the second part of the reflexivity process, planning, can be seen as the bridge between reflection and action or adaptation. In this phase,

Widmer, Schippers & West, 2009). Eventually, in the action part these plans are implemented. Specifically, according to West (2000), the action stage consists of goal-oriented behaviours that are crucial for achieving the desired changes in objectives, strategies, processes, organisations and environments as identified in the reflection phase. In practice, however, it has proven difficult to distinguish between the three components of reflexivity as teams easily switch between them, and because they are less sequential and more interrelated than depicted (Widmer, Schippers & West, 2009). Therefore, recent work views team reflexivity as one construct (Schippers, Edmondson & West, 2014; Schippers, Den Hartog & Koopman, 2007), as does this thesis.

Altogether, team reflexivity can be seen as a discussion-based process in which team evaluate current information together with their past or planned actions, decisions, or conclusions, regarding goals, processes, or outcomes. The intention of reflexivity in a team is to assess past actions and performance, learn from successes and failures, and create action intentions for improved functioning in the future (Ellis et al., 2014; Schippers, Edmondson & West, 2014). In conclusion, this leads us to form the following hypothesis as used in this thesis: “Reflexivity is a group-level construct that concerns the extent to which team members overtly reflect upon the team’s objectives, strategies and processes, plan ways to achieve the desired outcomes, and adapt accordingly to current or anticipated circumstances”.

2.4.2 The interaction effect between reflexivity and team identification and its influence on the relationship between team identification and creative problem solving

Previously in this thesis, it was established that team identification positively affects creative problem solving. However, even though a significant body of research supports this notion, there is also a longstanding recognition that strong team bonds may fail to encourage creative behaviour (Litchfield et al., 2018). Specifically, because creative problem solving requires things to be done differently and involves the change of approaches, and highly identified team

members might not be inclined to engage in these actions if the team construes novelty as a threat (Janssen & Huang, 2008; Litchfield et al., 2018). Moreover, recent literature found that reflexivity within highly identified teams benefits creative behaviour (Litchfield et al., 2018; Schippers, Edmondson & West, 2014). In this section, we will discuss two arguments concerning the specific effect of reflexivity on team identification, which will eventually allow us to form our final hypothesis. These arguments are, respectively, the ‘information processing failures antidote’ argument and the ‘anti-groupthink’ argument.

First off, the ‘information processing failures antidote’ argument will be discussed. In particular, teams that face highly complex tasks, such as creative problem solving, are particularly vulnerable to specific information processing failures (Schippers, Edmondson & West, 2014). This is because they have high information processing demands and require more sophisticated views of task environments (West, 2000). Moreover, research has identified three categories of information processing failures, respectively: “failure to search for and share relevant information, failure to elaborate on information and derive implications, and failure to alter shared conclusions and maintaining or even reinforcing existing team behaviours” (Schippers, Edmondson & West, 2014, p. 736). Regarding these failures, it has been found that these can be avoided in teams that make use of a conscious process of reflexivity, which includes reflection about what they are aiming to achieve, how they are going to do it, and how successful they are (Schippers, Edmondson & West, 2014). With regard to the failure to search for and share information, reflexivity could mitigate this failure by increasing the chances that a team will identify and make use of relevant, useful and correct information (Brodbeck et al., 2007; Schippers, Edmondson & West, 2014).

What is more, considering the failure to elaborate on information and derive implications, in this sense elaboration means “working out in detail, and revealing intricacy,

relevant to a team’s decision-making process” (Schippers, Edmondson & West, 2014, p. 740-741). The notion that concerns the derivation of implications refers to the identification or exploration of relationships between propositions that arise from the information. Reflexivity might help avoid the failure to elaborate and derive implication from information by means of explicit information processing (Wei & Wu, 2013; Schippers, Edmondson & West, 2014). This means weighing information in an unbiased way before eventually reaching a final decision regarding the team’s objectives, processes and strategies. Finally, reflexivity within teams can help avoid the failure to revise and update conclusions by encouraging explicit attention to the decision-making process in the team. Especially, because reflexivity consists of reflecting on how decisions are made and whether or not the team is well on its way toward reaching its goals (Schippers, Edmondson & West, 2014).

Furthermore, the ‘anti-groupthink’ argument will now be explained. As established before, creative problem solving requires people to engage in behaviours that have the potential to cause them to stand out in a team, for example by breaking habitual routines (Schippers et al., 2003). Nevertheless, high levels of team identification might result in certain concurrence-seeking tendencies and a failure to realistically evaluate other alternatives, also known as groupthink. This convergent style of thinking and confirmatory way of evaluating information is unlikely to lead to creative solutions (Nijstad & De Dreu, 2002). However, reflexivity might prevent these negative effects of team identification. Firstly, because reflexivity encourages teams to develop a more sophisticated view of the task environment. As such, reflexive teams are more likely to acknowledge that creative behaviour, even though it may disrupt short-term priorities, could serve the team’s long-term objectives, and supports the team’s identity (Litchfield et al., 2018). So reflexivity is essential in strongly identified teams, as an identity motivates behaviour that is identity-consistent and suppresses behaviour that is seen as inconsistent with the prevailing team identity (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). Without reflexivity,

creative behaviour could be viewed as less identity-consistent, and thus less encouraged by a strong team identification.

In addition, reflexivity may enable teams to leverage team member’s individual identities, as it allows members to feel both integrated to the group and respected as individuals (Leonardelli, Picket & Brewer, 2010; Litchfield et al., 2018). Specifically, reflexivity legitimizes the distinctiveness of an individual without actually compromising inclusion in the team (Ellemers, Gilder & Haslam, 2004; Brewer & Gardner, 1996). In other words, it enables team members that are part of a strongly identified team to express their individual thoughts, perspectives and opinions, which benefits creative problem solving. Altogether, reflexive teams are more likely to address differences in opinions and question problem-solving assumptions, as well as incorporate new creative solutions and develop novel techniques to perform better (De Dreu, 2006; Hirst, Van Knippenberg & Zhou, 2009; Schippers, West & Dawson, 2015).

In conclusion, it can therefore be assumed that reflexivity interacts with team identification in such a way that it acts as an antidote for team information processing failures and mitigates possible groupthink effects. Specifically, because it encourages the team to see approaches that are different or new and potentially challenge the status quo as beneficial and identity consistent, and because it provides a context where distinctive opinions can be expressed and are valued, which is advantageous for creative problem solving (Litchfield et al., 2018). All in all, this leads us to the final hypothesis of this thesis:

Hypothesis 3: Reflexivity interacts with team identification and moderates its effect on creative problem solving such that team identification will most positively influence creative problem solving when reflexivity is high.

2.5 Conceptual Model

Altogether, the hypotheses that have been developed in the previous sections can be summarised in the conceptual model illustrated in Figure 1.

3. Research Design

In this section, I will explain how the data collection for this study took place. Firstly, the sample will be discussed, after which the Business Strategy Game (BSG) will be explained in detail, as this was used to collect data for this thesis. Finally, variable measurements and corresponding reliabilities are mentioned, as well as statistical methods. Moreover, the items of the survey used in this research design can be found in Appendix A.

3.1 Sample

For this research, a survey has been conducted during a second-year bachelor course in strategic management at a business school in the Netherlands, which has led to a total sample of 566 business school students. The course was built around the BSG, which is a longitudinal simulation game that will be explained thoroughly in the next sub-chapter. The survey was conducted at five different points in time during the BSG and recorded key determinants of team performance. During the first week of the BSG the first wave was surveyed, after which wave two to five followed in each consecutive week. Concerning the response rates for the survey, these ranged from 69% to 92.77%. Furthermore, the students participating were divided into teams consisting of five people, of which 35% were randomly assigned by the professor. The remaining teams were formed by the students themselves.

Regarding the final sample used for this thesis, the input of 81 participants was removed due to incomplete data. Additionally, 21 teams were removed as well, because less than four of their members filled out the survey. This choice was made because if only three or even fewer team members filled out the survey, there was no guarantee that the data was representative of the entire team. Therefore, the final dataset contains data from 380 participants who were grouped into 76 teams. The average age of the students participating was 19.5 years, with a

1.16 years. Looking at gender, it is clear that the majority of the participants was male (68%). Additionally, it is essential to remark that all students granted permission for the use of the data gathered by the questionnaire for research purposes.

3.2 The Business Strategy Game

The Business Strategy Game is an experiential simulation game which required participants to work as an integrated top management team of a particular company (Thompson & Stappenbeck, 2001). Altogether, the business simulation game had a duration of nine weeks. This longitudinal nature of the simulation provides an insight into the evolution of teams and their performance, which allows us to make more precise inferences regarding causality (Chen et al., 2010). Furthermore, students’ motivation to engage in the business simulation game stemmed from two sources. Firstly, the realism of the business game has been said to serve as a motivation for participation (Clark & Montgomery, 1996). Secondly, and most importantly, the students were motivated as their firm’s performance constituted a part of their course grade. Thus, like the top management team of a real firm, participants were highly motivated to engage and perform well (Chen et al., 2010).

The scope of the simulation game was the global athletic footwear industry. In this industry, all teams had to compete directly with each other. What is more, all of the 76 teams started under the exact same conditions with a company that performed well in terms of both revenues and profits. The purpose of the simulation game was to see how teams react to the changing organisational environment and how they choose an appropriate strategy. All team members were rewarded in the exact same way, namely based on how well their team performed. Furthermore, teams could maintain their operations and sell in four different geographical markets: North America, Asia, Europe, and Latin America (Mathieu & Rapp,