NEWCOMER’S EMPATHY AND TEAM CREATIVITY: WHY AND WHEN?

NEWCOMER’S EMPATHY AND TEAM CREATIVITY: WHY AND WHEN?

Master thesis, Msc Human Resource Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business

February 2, 2014 ECATERINA RUSNAC Studentnumber: 2435543

Ids Wiersmahof 33 9203 RG Drachten tel.: +31 (0) 61-7329753 e-mail: e.rusnac@student.rug.nl

Supervisor

B. Nijstad

NEWCOMER’S EMPATHY AND TEAM CREATIVITY: WHY AND WHEN?

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of empathic newcomers on team creativity. Based on the literature suggesting conforming tendencies of newcomers, I hypothesized that there will be a negative relationship between empathic newcomers and team creativity.

Empathy was measured with the Toronto Empathy Questionnaire (TEQ). Based on the literature suggesting that individualistic norms fuel creativity, I hypothesized that the negative relationship between empathic newcomer and team creativity will be moderated by individualistic norms. The results did not support the hypothesis, and instead showed that less empathic newcomers, under individualistic norms, will increase team creativity.

Keywords: Newcomers, Empathy, Team Creativity, Norms.

INTRODUCTION

To gain competitive advantage, organizations quest for creative ideas that will eventually lead them into the moneymaking realm (Amabile et al., 1996). Creativity is the generation of ideas that are both novel and applicable (Sternberg & Lubart, 1999). Team creativity, especially, has gained significant attention in recent years. Few will disagree that teamwork is a major catalyst shaping the organizational performance, and thus the success of organizations is frequently reliant on the ability of groups to complete their tasks effectively and creatively. Consequently, much research has been conducted to understand the determining factors of group effectiveness (Levine &

Moreland, 1998) and creativity (Brown & Paulus, 2002; Paulus & Coskun, 2012; Paulus & Nijstad, 2003). For instance, groups’ performance will increase, if groups are encouraged to brainstorm after they feel they are out of ideas (Nijstad, Stroebe, & Lodewijkx, 1999); besides, iteration and starting alone have a positive impact on group creativity (Paulus, 2013).

Another factor that impacts creativity and has gained attention is membership change. Team membership is rarely constant, and group membership change is an inevitable occurrence in today’s business world. Constantly, teams are formed, dissolved, newcomers join, and old-timers leave. If not handled with care, membership change can lead to organizational chaos. However, if organizations realize the positive impact that newcomers can have on group functioning and creativity (Choi & Thompson, 2005), and use it to their advantage, they will be a step closer to triumphing over their competitors. Choi and Thompson (2005) demonstrated that membership change amplified the number of ideas formulated by groups (fluency), amplified the variation of these ideas (flexibility), and boosted the creativity of old-timers. Essentially, bringing in new talent to the group can guarantee that the group does not become unoriginal. It can also build the setting for healthy cognitive disagreements in work groups (Nemeth & Ormiston, 2007; West, 1996, 2003).

The rising level of employee mobility requires advanced understanding of the effectiveness

of newcomers for projects and companies. Newcomer characteristics will impact the effectiveness of

the team, and consequently, that of the organization. Membership change occurs every time a new

employee is hired. The job market competition is fierce, and employers pump up job descriptions

with required KSAOs (knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics required of the potential

employees) to the maximum, in order to select the best candidates. Newcomers are expected to be

strong team players, with advanced communication skills, ability to learn and adapt, tolerant to

difference and diversity (Forbes, 2013). In addition, every other job description and job specification

mentions empathy as a required characteristic of the future employee. Empathy is a trait being sought out in employees, due to the pro-social behaviors that arise as a result of it (Schutte et al., 2001). “Empathy is the most important 21

century skill”, stated Michael Geoghegan, former group chief executive of HSBC Bank.

Currently, no direct link has been made in the literature between newcomer’s empathy and team creativity. There is a significant amount of research on newcomers and how they impact team- level creativity (Rink & Ellemers, 2008; Choi & Thompson, 2005; Nemeth & Ormiston, 2007).

When assessing the impact of newcomer’s empathy on team creativity, two possibilities arise. On one hand, empathic team members lead to a higher group cohesion and performance due to their organizational citizenship behavior, elevated altruism, reduced aggression, acceptance of diversity in people, and conforming to the existing rules and norms (Eisenberg, 2000; Goleman, 1998; Daniels

& Duell, 2006). On the other hand, empathic newcomers tend to adjust their behavior to that of old- timers; and although conformity is associated with enhanced performance quality, it corrodes team creativity (Miron-Spektor at, al., 2011). Elevated levels of conformity may limit idea generation (Goncalo & Staw, 2006), and may lead to impulsive and premature consensus (De Dreu & West, 2001).

Because teams function under a social control system (Goncalo & Duguid, 2012; Goncalo &

Staw, 2006; Caldwell & O’Reilley, 2003; Bechtoldt & Choi & Nijstad, 2012), and group conformity entails following certain group norms, the moderating effect of individualistic norms upon team creativity will be considered. That is, norms can be an influential means to encourage innovative behaviors and attitudes by establishing a climate that ascribes social approval to creative actions, such as undertaking innovative ways of doing things, accepting mistakes, and other attitudes and behaviors associated with creativity. Research has shown that individualistic norms impact the ability of teams to generate a greater number of ideas and depart from pre-existing solutions (Goncalo & Staw, 2006).

However, many questions arise when linking the above concepts together. Thus, the research question central to this study is as follows: “What is the effect of newcomer’s empathy on team creativity?”

Theoretically, in order to create more consistency among this literature, this study will

conduct a laboratory experiment to investigate the relationship between the newcomer’s empathy

and team creativity, and how this relationship is moderated by individualistic norms. In practice, it

may help companies to gain understanding on what kind of group norms need to be applied in order to achieve the highest levels of creativity, when membership change brings empathic newcomers.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Newcomers and Creativity

Membership change is inevitable in today’s business environment. The literature has generally favored stable group membership due to cohesion, improved morale, and better performance by means of comfort and joint experiences (Levine & Moreland, 1998). Maintenance of constant membership of a group leads to less insecurity (Kim, 1997). Moreover, evidence indicates that individuals who are familiar with each other are more likely to share unique information, which in its turn, enhances performance (Moreland, Argote, & Krishnan, 1998).

However, there has been a lengthy debate in the literature on the significance of comfort and cohesion for group performance. In fact, the main problem with comfort and cohesion is that they actively hinder dissent and encourage premature consensus, which results in an insufficient reflection upon the existing information and upon the different perspectives and, thus, poor decision making (Janis, 1972) and a failure to stimulate divergent and creative thinking (Nemeth et al., 2003).

Ziller’s research (1965) suggests that regular membership change contributes to team’s focus on their tasks, and high task focus among group members facilitates group creativity (West, 2003).

Moreover, newcomers can diversify a team’s knowledge base through the combination of new ideas, information, and prospects (Levine & Choi, 2004). Furthermore, when newcomers join old-timers, the latter may reflect on how the work is being performed (Levine & Moreland, 1998). This reflexivity can initiate a variety of activities that encourage group creativity, such as removal of barriers for information sharing, the execution of novel and enhanced methods to complete tasks, and reorganization of knowledge (West, 1996, 2003).

All in all, newcomers’ arrival can create the environment for healthy cognitive conflict in

work groups (West, 1996, 2003), essential to group creativity. Newcomers may bring in different

views, which can provide conflict that will encourage thinking in opposing ways and discovering

creative solutions (Nemeth et al., 2003). Furthermore, studies show that the drive for performance

and the stimulus of creative thought display a complex relationship to cohesion and comfort and are

frequently better served by variety and challenge (Nemeth & Ormiston, 2007). Also, the

experiments of Choi and Thompson (2005) have indicated that membership change increased the

number of ideas generated by teams (fluency), in addition to the variation of these ideas (flexibility).

Furthermore, they have discovered evidence that membership change also boosts the creativity of old-timers.

Next to the membership change, newcomer characteristics will further impact team creativity.

Newcomers and Empathy

Most organizations rely on team-work to help them face the fierce market competition. The effectiveness of teams depends heavily on the ability of its members to work well together. Thus, organizations look for specific characteristics in their future employees that would assist them in becoming strong team players. The escalating levels of employee mobility oblige for better understanding of the value of newcomers for projects and organizations (Chen & Klimoski, 2003).

Furthermore, newcomer’s characteristics are imperative, as organizations spend a significant amount of money on socializing newcomers (Bauer et. al, 1998).

Emotional intelligence is given more and more weight in the HR selection processes.

Employers actively seek emotionally intelligent employees, which are individuals with the capacity or tendency to recognize, comprehend, regulate, and connect emotions adaptively in the self and in others (Mayer & Salovey, 1997; Schutte et al., 1998). One of the four building blocks of emotional intelligence is empathy (Schutte et al., 2001). Empathy is separated into two types: emotional and cognitive (Decety & Jackson, 2004). Emotional empathy is feeling the emotion of another person, but maintaining a compassionate perspective. Cognitive empathy implies the recognition of another person’s mental state – comprehending their feelings, actions, and thoughts (Mehrabian & Epstein, 1972).

Empathic team members are aware of and accept the diversity of people and the impact culture can have on interactions within a team environment (Goleman, 1998). Also, empathy has been linked to various pro-social behaviors, such as higher social competency, elevated altruism and reduced aggression (Eisenberg, 2000). Moreover, when foreseeing employee behaviors, research has found a positive relationship between empathy and pro-social behaviors, such as organizational citizenship behavior (Daniels & Duell, 2006). All of the above mentioned attributes undoubtedly contribute to a better group cohesion and performance. Therefore, it does not come as a surprise that organizations are actively seeking out empathic team players.

Nevertheless, by being empathic, newcomers tend to adjust their behavior to that of old-

timers - that is they conform to the existing rules, norms, values, and working styles. And although

conformity is positively associated with performance quality, it often is negatively associated with team creativity (Miron-Spektor et. al, 2011). Conformists are usually not the initiators of breakthrough ideas. They will most probably commence incremental rather than radical changes (Shroder, 1989) and are unlikely to challenge a group consensus (Kirton & De Ciantis, 1986). To boost creativity, team members need to bring up and advance out of the ordinary ideas, even at the risk of confronting other team members (Janssen, 2003). In addition, elevated levels of conformity may limit idea generation because they restrain deviations from standard norms (Goncalo & Staw, 2006), and may lead to premature consensus (De Dreu & West, 2001). All in all, the empathic newcomers will more likely conform to the team norms, which will idle team creativity.

Hypothesis 1a: Newcomer’s empathy is negatively related with team creativity.

Hypothesis 1b: The negative relationship between newcomer’s empathy and team creativity is mediated by conformity.

Norms and Team Creativity

Group conformity entails following certain group norms. Norms might signify what is in a certain situation, or what ought to be - and the presence of either of these descriptive or injunctive norms can determine behavior (O’Reilly & Chatman, 1996). Kalgreen, Reno, and Cialdinini (2000) proved that injunctive norms are more influential, especially when individuals are persuaded to focus on them. Social control, such as norms, does not have the gloomy consequences that formal controls frequently do; that is, when behavior is restricted by social expectations, as a substitute to feeling restricted by others, people often experience a sensation of autonomy. The paradox is that normative control, though not being as invasive as formal control, can in fact have a stronger impact over behaviors and attitudes. Additionally, strong group norms can be used to generate an environment, which socially approves actions, such as trying new working styles, accepting mistakes, taking initiative, and other approaches and behaviors linked to creativity (Caldwell &

O’Reilley, 2003).

Consequently, norms – or social expectations about what are the acceptable viewpoints and

behaviors for team members to embrace – can be an influential means to inspire creativity. This

study will look into the moderating effect of individualistic group norms. When individualism is the

prevailing norm, individuals are inclined to identify themselves as autonomous of groups,

independent, distinctive, and lead by their own aspirations and values (Jetten, Postmes, &

McAuliffe, 2002). On the contrary, when collectivistic norms prevail, there is a powerful emphasis on social aspirations, a sense of interdependence and a concern to preserve harmony within teams (Brewer & Chen, 2007).Organizations tend to favor collectivistic group values, as they reduce social loafing, increase cooperation, group identity, and promote feelings of harmony (Wagner, 1995;

O’Reilley & Chatman, 1996). However, recent research demonstrates that individualistic norms reduce conformity pressures, which contribute to the ability of a group to generate a greater number of ideas that depart from pre-existing solutions, and posing ideas that were judged to be more novel (Goncalo & Staw, 2006). Because creativity demands autonomy of thought and a readiness to deviate from the team to advocate a new idea that might not be eagerly received, individualistic norms are beneficial when creativity is a desired result (Goncalo & Krause, 2010). Furthermore, Goncalo and Staw (2006) argued that individualism encourages creativity in teams exactly because it diminishes conformity pressures in group settings. Thus, whether the newcomer’s empathy will idle or boost creativity will depend on the group norms.

To sum up, empathic newcomers are a significant asset to the organization, as they contribute to the elevated group cohesion and performance, through their high social competency, pro-social behaviors, and altruism. And while organizations seem to gain a lot from empathic newcomers, a considerable setback arises: empathic newcomers tend to adjust to the behavior of old-timers, and conform to the existing group norms and values, which, as a result, hinder creativity.

Group conformity requires adhering to particular group norms. Given that individualistic norms encourage behaviors that fuel creativity, such as the eagerness to deviate from the team and to explicitly put across dissenting viewpoints, encouraging groups to conform to this kind of norm, a norm that is suitable to the task of generating creative ideas should increase team creativity (Goncalo & Duguid, 2012).

Therefore, the hypothesis will be:

Hypothesis 2a: Individualistic group norms will moderate the negative relationship between newcomer’s empathy and team creativity.

Hypothesis 2b: Individualistic group norms will moderate the negative relationship, mediated by conformity, between newcomer’s empathy and team creativity.

The conceptual model is depicted in figure 1; its components and relations are based on the previous

sections.

FIGURE 1

Conceptual Model

METHOD

Participants and Design

Ninety undergraduates (44 males, 46 females, age 18-43) at the Faculty of Economics and Business of the University of Groningen have participated in the study and have been compensated with eight euros or four course credits. Participants were randomly assigned to a group of three people functioning under individualistic versus collectivistic norms. Questionnaires were administered to measure newcomer’s empathy. The research context of this study was a lab setting.

The experiment took place in the FEB research lab on the first floor of the Duisenberg building.

Procedure

Six people at a time were present during the experimental procedures. Upon entering the

research lab, all participants were randomly assigned to the Blue or Green teams. Then, they were

handed badges with the color corresponding to their team name, with a unique identification code,

containing the team number. Next, team Blue was escorted to a different video room, and both

teams were given instructions on how to further proceed. This experimental design incorporated

three key features intended to induce team identity: categorization of subjects (Blue Team and

Green Team), usage of symbols (colored badges), and cooperation to achieve the same goal when performing the first creativity task (Appendix 2) (Morita & Servatka, 2012).

First, a personality test/questionnaire, related to measures of empathy, was administered. The Toronto Empathy Questionnaire (TEQ) consists of 16 questions, all rated on a five point scale from

“never” to “always”. The TEQ theorizes empathy as a mainly emotional process. The questionnaire has been shown to have high internal consistency, construct validity, and test-retest reliability (Spreng, et al., 2009). Due to insufficient reliability levels obtained during this experiment, several questions have been excluded (questions 4, 7, 11, 12, 14). Please refer to Appendix 1 for a complete scale.

The actual study was divided into four phases, and took about 60 minutes to complete.

Phase 1: Group forming

The first phase was a modified version of a task used in previous research (Choi & Thompson, 2005). Participants were provided with a list with 12 animal names (e.g. rabbit, duck)

and were asked to generate as many criteria as they could to categorize these items into subgroups (e.g., domestic vs. untamed, herbivore vs. carnivore), without listing the animals fitting each subgroup.

This was done in order to further strengthen group identity in each of individual groups. Five minutes were allocated to complete the task.

Upon the task completion, team members were asked to fill in questionnaires to rate their fellow teammates’ creativity and likeability.

Phase 2: Newcomers

Next, one member of each group was asked to switch to a different group, while keeping the badge on. Thus, each group contained a newcomer.

Phase 3: Manipulation of Norms

Sixteen groups were assigned to work under individualistic norms, and fourteen groups under collectivistic norms. Two groups, present in the lab at one time, were assigned to work under the same norms.

1 For exploratory reasons, the Big Five Inventory, and the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (Perspective Taking scale) were administered.

2 Appendix 2

3 Appendix 3

Following the procedures used by Goncalo and Staw (2006), norm content was manipulated by asking each group member to fill out a survey to determine how they view themselves in relation to other people. Participants randomly assigned to the individualistic condition were asked to write three statements in response to each question, and they were given ten minutes to complete the survey. Participants responded to the following three questions:

A. “Write three statements describing yourself.

B. Write three statements about why you think you are not like most other people.

C. Write three statements about why you think it might be advantageous to “stand out” from other people “(Goncalo & Staw, 2006).

Participants randomly assigned to the collectivistic condition were asked to write three statements in response to the following question:

A. Describe the groups to which you belong.

B. Write three statements about why you think you are like most other people.

C. Write three statements about why you think it might be advantageous to “blend in” with other people” (Goncalo & Staw, 2006).

Phase 4: Creativity Task

Next, all of the groups were asked to complete one more task. They were told that this task was a scenario in which they would be asked to generate ideas. The given scenario was as follows:

“After years of successful customer service and great coffee, the campus coffee shop decides to diversify its daily operations. The school administration is trying to decide what new services the coffee shop should provide” (adjusted from Goncalo & Duguit, 2012). Each group was given 15 minutes to come up with as many creative solutions to their dilemma as possible. They were given paper with drawn boxes on it, and asked to write down one idea per box, without elaborating on the presented ideas. They were video recorded during this task. They were told by the experiment coordinator when the time was up.

All groups were asked to complete a survey upon the task completion, consisting of norm manipulation checks, which are described in some detail below. Questionnaires measuring PANAS (Positive and Negative Affect Schedule), Conflict Measure, Conformity, and Creativity, Likeability, and degree of Influence

of the teammates, were administered.

4 Appendix 3

Measures

Dependent Variables

Number of Ideas Generated

The most commonly used measure of brainstorming performance is the total number of ideas a group is capable to generate in a set amount of time. The more ideas the group generates, the more likely it will arrive at a quality solution (Simonton, 1999). Therefore, the total number of non- repetitive ideas each group was able to generate in the allocated time, has been calculated.

Idea Creativity

For an idea to be creative, it has to satisfy the criteria of being both novel and useful (Amabile et al., 1996). To address this definition, two coders, blind to the experimental conditions and the hypothesis of the study, rated each idea for creativity, which is defined at the extent to which an idea is both novel and useful. Each coder will be given a scale of 1-5 (adapted from Goncalo & Duguit, 2012) with the following definitions for specific points on the scale:

1= An Uncreative idea is a simply "another coffee idea" and so the coders would rate it as least creative. (“coffee from all countries that university students come from” “create your own coffee”, etc.)

2= A Relatively Uncreative idea proposes a coffee-related addition (“personalized coffee cups”,

“a wider variety of milk”, etc.)

3= An Average idea is different than the previous “coffee shop additions” but proposes a service that already exists on campus. So, diverges somewhat but not too much (“selling fruits”, “fresh bakery”, etc.)

4= A Relatively Creative idea proposes a variation of a service that already exists on campus (“make your own sandwich”, “make your own yoghurt”, etc.)

5= A Creative idea is both different from the previous business and unlike any business that exists on campus currently. (“bike-through”, “manicure station”, etc.)

The coders were students who use the coffee shop and the restaurant regularly and therefore are familiar with the space. The coders rated the ideas of 15 teams. The inter-rater correlation was

5 Redundant ideas were eliminated (the same idea expressed more than once) by the two coders, who independently identified the repeated ideas in each group. The coders were in perfect agreement. The number of repeated ideas per group ranged from zero to three, with 26 out of 30 groups (87%) presenting zero repeats.

significant, (ICC =.956, p<.01), so their scores were averaged together (M= 3.11, SD=.45).

Furthermore, idea creativity was additionally rated through a second measure: the number of ideas per group, rated with a score of 4 and 5.

Manipulation Checks

The effectiveness of individualism/collectivism manipulation was checked using items drawn from measures that have been validated. “Participants were asked to read the following items and rate the extent to which they precisely describe their behavior during brainstorming session. The scale reliability was (α=.66).

1. I would rather depend on myself to generate ideas than the group 2. I relied on myself to come up with new ideas

3. I was trying to do “my own thing” during the brainstorming session

4. My personal identity in the brainstorming group, independent if others, was very important to me “(Goncalo, Duguit, 2012).

Post-experimental Questionnaires Conformity Measure

The participants completed the questionnaire and ranked themselves on four items measuring the tendency to conform to group choices and procedures, and the tendency to be affected by group norms and ideas. The questions were rated on a five point scale from “strongly disagree”

to “strongly agree”. The four items were:

1. I conformed to the group choices.

2. I was affected by group norms.

3. I was affected by the solutions and the ideas proposed by the group.

4. I proposed alternative procedures during the discussions (reversed item) (adapted from Chirumbolo, et al., 2004).

The scale reliability was unacceptable, thus item four has been excluded, the final reliability resulting in (α=.672).

RESULTS Preliminary Analysis

A preliminary analysis has been performed due to the limited number of teams participating

in the experiment, and the fact that the counting measure was rightly skewed. The outliers have been

examined with Cook’s distance. Two outliers have been identified, the team number 22, and team number 25, with coo_1=0.7, and coo_1=0.2, respectively. Upon examination, it was decided to drop out the most extreme case (coo_1=0.7), but an analysis has been performed with all cases included, and both outliers removed. The differences will be reported in the main analysis.

Manipulation Checks

To examine whether the manipulation of norm content was successful, a T-test was performed on the manipulation check. Although groups in the individualistic condition reported being slightly more individualistic (M=2.63, SD=0.79) than did groups in the collectivistic condition (M=2.84, SD=0.94), this effect was not significant t(88)=0.5. It can be concluded that the manipulation has not been successful.

Descriptive Statistics

Table 1 shows the means, standard deviations, and inter-correlations of all study variables at the group level analysis.

Table 1: Means, Standard deviations, Correlations

Mean Standard Deviation

Condition Empathy Conformity Task 2 Creativity - Number of Ideas

Task 2 Creativity - Average of Ideas

Task 2 Creativity -

Number of Creative Ideas Condition

.52 .50 Pearson

C. 1 -.249 -.407* .025 -.003 .204

Empathy

3.19 .33 Pearson

C. 1 .080 -.104 .000 -.249

Conformity

3.3 .89 Pearson

C. 1 .009 .101 -.042

Task 2 Creativity - Number of Ideas

15.4 6.5 Pearson C.

1 .201 .699**

Task 2 Creativity - Average Idea Creativity

3.1 .46 Pearson

C. 1 .644**

Task 2 Creativity - Number of Creative Ideas

4.8 3.9 Pearson

C. 1

*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Test of the Hypotheses

Hypothesis 1a predicted that newcomer empathy would be negatively related to group creativity, and Hypothesis 1b predicted that this negative relationship is mediated by conformity.

Hypothesis 2a predicted that the negative relationship between newcomer’s empathy and group creativity would be moderated by norms, and would only occur in the collectivistic norm condition.

Finally, Hypothesis 2b predicted that the negative relationship between newcomer’s empathy and group creativity, mediated by conformity, will be moderated by norms, and will only occur in the collectivistic norm condition.

To examine these hypotheses, a series of three multiple regression analyses were conducted, in which the three different measures of group creativity (number of ideas, average idea creativity, and number of creative ideas) served as dependent variables. Predictors were newcomer empathy (after z-transformation), the norm manipulation (dummy coded with 0=collectivistic, and 1=individualistic) and the interaction between these variables.

Initially, the log transformation of the dependent variable has been performed to reduce the skew. The first regression, with using the number of ideas as dependent variable, revealed one significant effect (see Table 2). There was no significant effect of norms, β=.003, t=.018, p=.986, no effect of empathy, β=.424, t=1.428, p=.166, but a nearly significant effect of interaction, β=-.581, t=-1.982, p=.059.

Table 2: Regression Analysis

Number of Ideas Average of Ideas Number of Creative Ideas Beta t Sig. Value Beta t Sig. Value Beta t Sig. Value

Condition .003 .018 .986 -.005 -.025 .980 .149 .792 .436

Empathy .424 1.428 .166 .282 .906 .373 .150 .516 .610

Interaction -.581 -1.982 .059 -.366 -1.191 .245 -.468 -1.631 .116

R square .059 .136 .245 .054 .116 .088

A similar regression on average idea creativity revealed no significant effects. Thus, there

was no effect of norms, β=-.005, t=-.025, p=.980, no effect of empathy, β=.282, t=.906, p=.373, and

no interaction, β=-.366, t=-1.191, p=.245.

Finally, the regression with the number of creative ideas showed no significant effects either.

Therefore, there were no effect of norms, β=.149, t=.792, p=.436, no effect of empathy, β=.150, t=.516, p=.610, and no effect of interaction, β=-.468, t=-1.631, p=.116.

Together, these results provide no support for Hypothesis 1a, 1b, and 2b. The results do not confirm Hypothesis 2a, but show that the most creative groups will contain individuals with low empathy levels, working under individualistic norms.

Figure 1: Creativity of Groups by Interaction of Empathy Levels and Norms

DISCUSSION

Empathic newcomers are a significant asset to the organization, as they contribute to the elevated group cohesion and performance (Eisenberg, 2000). While organizations seem to gain a lot from empathic newcomers, a considerable setback arises: empathic newcomers tend to adjust to the behaviour of old-timers, which, as a result, hinders creativity. Given that individualistic

6 All cases included - no effects. Number of ideas: No effects on norms, β=.106, t=.552, p=.586, no effect of empathy, β=.415, t=1.313, p=.201, and no interaction, β=-.394, t=-1.259, p=.219. Average of ideas: No effects on norms, β=.039, t=200, p=.843, no effect of empathy, β=.293, t=.909, p=.372, and no interaction, β=-.310, t=-.974, p=.339. Number of creative ideas: No effects on norms, β=.257, t=1.345, p=.190, no effect of empathy, β=.142, t=.453, p=.654, and no interaction, β=-.229, t=-.739, p=.466.

Two outliers excluded – no effects. Number of ideas: No effects on norms, β=.-.014, t=-.073, p=.943, no effect of empathy, β=.404, t=1.424, p=.167, and no interaction, β=-.433, t=-1.545, p=.135. Average of ideas: No effects on norms, β=-.037, t=-.182, p=.857, no effect of empathy, β=.274, t=.935, p=.359, and no interaction, β=-.177, t=-.610, p=.548. Number of creative ideas: No effects on norms, β=.126, t=.619, p=.542, no effect of empathy, β=.170, t=.580, p=.567, and no interaction, β=-.229, t=-.793, p=.436.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Low empathy High empathy

De p en d en t var iab le

collectivi stic individual istic

norms encourage behaviours that fuel creativity (Goncalo & Staw, 2006), such as the eagerness to deviate from the team and to explicitly put across dissenting viewpoints, encouraging groups to conform to this kind of norm, a norm that is suitable to the task of generating creative ideas should increase team creativity. This laboratory study has investigated the relationship between the newcomer’s empathy and team creativity (Hypothesis 1a), whether conformity mediates this relationship (Hypothesis 1b), whether individualistic group norms moderate the negative relationship between newcomer’s empathy and team creativity (Hypothesis 2a), and whether individualistic group norms moderate the conformity mediated relationship between newcomer empathy and team creativity (Hypothesis 2b). Regression analyses have been performed to observe the impact of the interaction between norms and newcomer’s empathy upon team creativity.

Before the actual analysis, a preliminary examination has been conducted, due to the limited number of teams, and the skewedness of the counting measure. As a result, two extreme outliers have been identified, and the most extreme one has been excluded for the purpose of this analysis. That is why, careful consideration has to be given to the interpretation of these results.

If all thirty cases are considered, or if both extreme outliers are excluded, then no significant findings pertaining to the hypothesis could be identified. This could be explained by the fact that only thirty groups were part of the experiment.

From Table 1, it is clear that there is no significant correlation between empathy and conformity, or conformity and team creativity. Thus, hypotheses 1a, 1b, and 2b are not further investigated.

A regression analysis has been conducted to examine hypothesis 2a, and that is, whether individualistic norms will moderate the negative relationship between newcomer empathy and team creativity. The hypothesis has not been confirmed, and a different outcome than predicted, has been obtained. It has been identified that under individualistic norms, the presence of newcomers with low empathy levels will result in the most creative groups. Thus, the less the tendency of a newcomer to adjust to old-timers – that is to their behaviours, working styles – the higher the group creativity will be. Furthermore, the newly discovered outcome, confirms the previous research on individualistic norms, and the fact that they boost creativity (Goncalo &

Staw, 2006).

This study implies that while empathy might be good for companies as a whole, it might be detrimental to creativity. Thus, companies have to give careful consideration to team formations - that is when teams need to be creative - less empathic newcomers should be invited to join in.

Limitations

The study has several limitations. The teams in the experiment consisted of students. Group members did not know each other; they did not receive financial compensation compared to employees in organizational teams, and groups ceased to exist after the experiment. The number of participants in the experiment was insufficient. Also, the manipulation check for groups’

norm orientation did not work. This might have happened due to the fact that participants did not consciously realize they were conforming to group norms. A different situation could arise in organizations, where there are existing policies and procedures, and employees know that they are expected to follow certain rules and norms.

Future Research

Emotional intelligence is a hot topic in the business world, and empathy is one of its building blocks. However, few studies have been done on empathy and its interaction with other factors.

Further research should focus more on empathy effects of employees, the workplace environment and its norms. For a more consistent research, more groups should be part of the experiment. In addition to the questionnaires completed during this study, participants might also be assessed on their creative personalities, for a more objective valuation of their creativity (as opposed to the creativity ratings by teammates). This could be further investigated along with the empathy effects.

Considering that the results showed a different outcome than predicted, more research is needed to strengthen the conclusions obtained in this study.

Conclusion

This is the first study to analyse the relationship between newcomer’s empathy and team

creativity. Empathy is a complex construct, which is still being explored, and which is

unquestionably important. Empathy is being sought after by many employers, however no clear

effects and relationships with other dimensions are known. This study has identified that less

empathic newcomers, under individualistic norms, will increase group creativity. This study

might have given a push to the start of a deeper exploration of empathy and its effects on teams,

newcomers, creativity, and organizations.

Appendix 1

The Toronto Empathy Questionnaire

Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always 1. When someone else is feeling excited, I tend

to get excited too

0 1 2 3 4

2. Other people's misfortunes do not disturb me a great deal

0 1 2 3 4

3. It upsets me to see someone being treated disrespectfully

0 1 2 3 4

4.* I remain unaffected when someone close to me is happy

0 1 2 3 4

5. I enjoy making other people feel better 0 1 2 3 4

6. I have tender, concerned feelings for people less fortunate than me

0 1 2 3 4

7.* When a friend starts to talk about his\her problems, I try to steer the conversation towards

something else

0 1 2 3 4

8. I can tell when others are sad even when they do not say anything

0 1 2 3 4

9. I find that I am "in tune" with other people's moods

0 1 2 3 4

10. I do not feel sympathy for people who cause their own serious illnesses

0 1 2 3 4

11.* I become irritated when someone cries 0 1 2 3 4

12.* I am not really interested in how other people feel

0 1 2 3 4

13. I get a strong urge to help when I see someone who is upset

0 1 2 3 4

14.* When I see someone being treated unfairly, I do not feel very much pity for them

0 1 2 3 4

15. I find it silly for people to cry out of happiness

0 1 2 3 4

16. When I see someone being taken advantage of, I feel kind of protective towards him\her

0 1 2 3 4

Note: Questions marked with an “*” have been excluded from the questionnaire

Appendix 2 Task 1

Please find below a list of 12 animals. Please generate as many criteria as you can think of, to categorize them into subgroups (e.g. domestic vs. wild; birds vs. non-birds, etc.). You do not need to list the animals fitting each subgroup. You have 5 minutes.

1. Rabbit

2. Duck

3. Dog

4. Salmon

5. Owl

6. Sheep

7. Lion

8. Squirrel

9. Cow

10. Octopus

11. Hamster

12. Giraffe

Appendix 3

Creativity, Likeability, Degree of Influence Questionnaires

Please indicate your level of agreement or disagreement with each of the statements listed below using a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 means strongly disagree and 5 means strongly agree. Please choose the answer that best describes your teammates’ creativity.

Teammate #______________________________:

Strongly disagree

Disagree Neither agree or disagree

Agree Strongly agree 1. He/she could go beyond commonly

accepted ideas to the unusual

1 2 3 4 5

2. He/ she has generated many new and applicable ideas

1 2 3 4 5

3. He/she has been open to the ideas of others

1 2 3 4 5

4. He/she has contributed substantively to the overall team creativity

1 2 3 4 5

5. He/she was a good source of creative ideas

1 2 3 4 5

Teammate #______________________________:

Strongly disagree

Disagree Neither agree or disagree

Agree Strongly agree 1. He/she could go beyond commonly

accepted ideas to the unusual

1 2 3 4 5

2. He/ she has generated many new and applicable ideas

1 2 3 4 5

3. He/she has been open to the ideas of others

1 2 3 4 5

4. He/she has contributed substantively to the overall team creativity

1 2 3 4 5

5. He/she was a good source of creative ideas

1 2 3 4 5

7 Adapted from Davis, G. A. (1992). Creativity is forever (3rd ed.). Dubuque. IA: Kendall/Hunts, 96, 56–71.

Please answer the following question:

Not at all likeable

Slightly likeable

Moderately likeable

Quite a bit likeable

Extremely likeable 1. How likeable was

teammate _____

during the discussions?

1 2 3 4 5

2. How likeable was teammate _____

during the discussions?

1 2 3 4 5

Please rate the answer to the following question:

Not at all influential

Slightly Influential

Moderately Influential

Quite a bit Influential

Extremely Influential 1. How influential was

teammate

______during the discussions?

1 2 3 4 5

2. How influential was teammate

______during the discussions?

1 2 3 4 5

REFERENCES

1. Amabile, T. M. , Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. The Academy of Management Journal, 39, (5), 1154-1184.

2. Batson, C. D., & Ahmad, N. (2001). Empathy-induced altruism in a prisoner’s dilemma II: What if the target of empathy has defected? European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 25–36.

3. Bechtoldt, M. N., Choi, H. S., & Nijstad, B. A. (2012). Individuals in mind, mates by heart:

Individualistic self-construal and collective value orientation as predictors of group creativity.

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 838-844.

4. Brewer, M., & Chen, Y. (2007). Where (Who) Are Collectives in Collectivism? Toward Conceptual Clarification of Individualism and Collectivism. Psychological Review, 114(1), 133–151.

5. Brown, V. R., & Paulus, P. B. (2002).Making group brainstorming more effective:

Recommendations from an associative memory perspective. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 208–212.

6. Caldwell, D. F., & O’Reilly, C. A. (2003). The determinants of team based innovation in organizations: The role of social influence. Small Group Research, 34(4).

7. Casserly, M. (2012). Top 10 skills that will get you hired in 2013. Forbes Magazine.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/meghancasserly/2012/12/10/the-10-skills-that-will-get-you-a-job-in- 2013/

8. Chen, G. & Klimoski, R. J. (2003). The impact of expectations on newcomer performance in teams as mediated by work characteristics, social exchanges, and empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 591-607.

9. Chirumbolo, A., Livi, S., Mannetti, L., Pierro, A., Kruglanski, A. (2004) Effects of Need for Closure on Creativity in Small Group Interactions. European Journal of Personality, 18, 265-278.

10. Choi, H.S., & Levine, J. M. (2004). Minority influence in work teams: Impact of newcomers.

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 273–280.

11. Choi, H.S., & Thompson, L. (2005). Old wine in a new bottle: Impact of membership change on group creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 98, 121-32.

12. Daniels, D., & Duell, B. (2006). Good citizens to the end? It depends: empathy and concern with

future consequences moderate the impact of a short-term time horizon on OCBs. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 91 (6), 1307-1320.

13. De Dreu, Carsten K.W., &. West, M. (2001). Minority dissent and team innovation: The importance of participation in decision making", Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1191-1201.

14. Decety, J., & Jackson, P.L. (2004). The functional architecture of human empathy. Behavioral and Cognitive Neuroscience Reviews, 3, 71–100.

15. Eisenberg, N. (2000). Emotion, regulation, and moral development. Annual Review Psychology, 51, 665-697.

16. Goleman, D. (1998). Working with Emotional Intelligence. Bantam Books, New York.

17. Goncalo, J. A. & Duguid, M. M. (2012). Follow the crowd in a new direction: When conformity pressure facilitates group creativity (and when it does not). Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 118, 14-23.

18. Goncalo, J. A., & Staw, B. M. (2006). Individualism–collectivism and group creativity in organizations: The role of social influence. Small Group Research, 34(4), 497–517.

19. Goncalo, J.A. & Krause, V. (2010). Being different or being better?: Disentangling the effects of independence and competition on group creativity. In: S. Thye & E.J. Lawler (Eds) Advances in Group Processes (Vol. 27), 129-157.

20. Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of groupthink: A psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and fiascoes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

21. Janssen, O. (2003). Innovative behavior and job involvement at the price of conflict and less satisfactory relations with co-workers. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76, 347-364.

22. Jetten, J., Postmes, T., & McAuliffe, B. J. (2002). We're all individuals: Group norms of individualism and collectivism, levels of identification, and identity threat. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 189–207.

23. Kallgren, C., R., & Cialdini, R. (2000). A focus theory of normative conduct: When norms do and do not affect behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1002-1012.

24. Kane, A., Argote, L., & Levine, J. M. (2005). Knowledge transfer between groups via personnel rotation: Effects of social identity and knowledge quality. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes.

25. Kim, P. H. (1997). When what you know can hurt you: A study of experiential effects on group discussion and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 69, 165–

177.

26. Kirton, M. J., & De Ciantis, S.M. (1986). Cognitive style and personality: The Kirton adaptation- innovation and Cattel’s sixteen personality factor inventories. Personality and Individual Difference, 7(2), 141-146.

27. Levine, J. M., & Moreland, R. L. (1998). Culture and socialization in work groups. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition, 257–279.

28. Mehrabian, A., & Epstein, N. (1972). A measure of emotional empathy. Journal of Personality, 40(4), 525-543.

29. Miron-Spektor, E., Erez, M., & Naveh, E. (2011). The effect of conformists and attentive-to-detail members on team innovation: Reconciling the innovation paradox. Academy of Management Journal, 54(4), 740–760.

30. Moreland, R., Argote, L., & Krishnan, R. (1998). Training people to work in groups. In L. H. R.S.

Tindale, J. Edwards, E. J. Posvac, F. B. Byant, Y. Sharez-Balcazar, E. Henderson-King, & R. Myers (Ed.), Theory and Research on Small Groups, 37-60. New York: Plenum.

31. Morita, H., Servatka, M. (2012). Group identity and relation-specific investment: An experimental investigation. European Economic Review. 58, 95-109.

32. Nemeth, C., & Ormiston, M. (2007). Creative Idea Generation: Harmony versus Stimulation." European Journal of Social Psychology 37, 524-35.

33. Nemeth, C.J. and Nemeth-Brown, B. (2003) Better than Individuals? The potential benefits of dissent and diversity for group creativity. In P. Paulus and B. Nijstad (eds) Group Creativity.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

34. Nijstad, B., Stroebe, W. & Lodewijkx, H.F.M. (1999). Persistence of brainstorm groups:

How do people know when to stop? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 165-185.

35. O’Reilly, C., & Caldwell, D. (1985). The impact of normative social influence on task perceptions and attitudes: A social information processing approach. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 58, 1- 14.

36. O’Reilly, C., & Chatman, J. (1996). Culture as social control: Corporations, cults, and commitment.

Research in Organizational Behavior, 17, 157-200.

37. Ostroff, C., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (1992). Organizational socialization as a learning process: The role of information acquisition. Personnel Psychology, 45, 849–874.

38. Oswald, P. (1996). The effects of cognitive and affective perspective taking on empathic concern

and altruistic helping. The Journal of Social Psychology, 136(5), 613-623.

39. Paulus, P. (2013). Interview: Paul Paulus on Group Creativity. Creativity and Innovation Management, 22(1), 96-99.

40. Paulus, P.B. and Coskun, H. (2012) Group Creativity. In Levine, J.M. (ed.), Group Processes.

Elsevier, Amsterdam, 215–39.

41. Paulus, P.B. and Nijstad, B.A. (2003) Group Creativity: Innovation through Collaboration. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

42. Rietzschel, E., Stroebe, W., de Dreu, C., & Nijstad, B.A. (2005). From quantity to quality:

Cognitive, motivational and social aspects of creative idea generation and selection. Appendix 1, 145.

43. Rink, F., & Ellemers, N. (2008). Diversity, newcomers, and team innovation: The importance of a common identity, in Katherine W. Phillips (ed.) Diversity and Groups (Research on Managing Groups and Teams, Volume 11), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 221-243.

44. Salovey, P. and Mayer, J.D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 9, 185–211.

45. Schutte, N. S. , Malouff, J. M., Hall, L. E., Haggerty, D., Cooper, J. T., Golden, C., & Dornheim, L.

(1998). Development and validation of a measure of emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 25, 167-177.

46. Schutte, N. S., Schuettpelz, E, & Malouff, J. M. (2001). Emotional intelligence and task performance. Imagination, Cognition, and Personality, 20, 347-354.

47. Shroder, H.M. (1989). Managerial competence and style. In M.J. Kirton (Ed.). Adaptors and innovators: Styles of creativity and problem solving, 97-124, New York: Routledge.

48. Simonton, D. K. (1999). Creativity as blind variation and selective retention: Is the creative process Darwinian? Psychological Inquiry, 10, 309-328.

49. Spreng, R. N., McKinnon, M. C., Mar, R. A., & Levine, B. (2009). The Toronto empathy questionnaire: Scale development and initial validation of a factor-analytic solution to multiple empathy measures. Journal of Personality Assessment, 91, 62-71.

50. Sternberg, R., & Lubart, T. (1999). The concept of creativity: Prospects and paradigms. Handbook of Creativity: Cambridge University Press.

51. Wagner, J. A., (1995). Studies of individualism-collectivism: Effects on cooperation in groups.

Academy of Management Journal, 38, 152-172.

52. West, M. A. (2003). Innovation implementation in work teams. In P. B. Paulus & B. A. Nijstad (Eds.), Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration. New York: Oxford University Press, 245–276.

53. West, M., & Anderson, N. (1996). Innovation in top management teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 680-693.

54. West, M.A. (1990). The social psychology of innovation in groups. In M.A. West and J.L. Farr (Eds). Innovation and creativity at work: Psychological and Organizational Strategies. Chichester, England: John Wiley, 309–333.

55. Ziller, R. C. (1965). Toward a theory of open and closed groups. Psychological Bulletin, 65, 164–

182.