c Academy of Management Journal

2002, Vol. 45, No. 2, 315-330.

INDIVIDUALCREATIVITYAND GROUP ABILITYTO UTI'II.ZE

INDIVIDUALCREATIVERESOURCES:
A MULTILEVELMODEL
SIMON TAGGAR
York University
The performance of 94 groups on 13 different open-ended tasks was studied. At the
individual-team-member level, domain knowledge and performance-relevant behavioral measures of the three components of Amabile's (1983, 1996) theory of individual
creativity related in predicted ways to individual differences. Support was found for
new "cross-level"processes, labeled "teamcreativity-relevant processes." At the group
level, these processes moderated the relationship between aggregated individual creativity and group creativity.
Neuman and Wright (1999) argued for the importance of examining relationships at both the individual and group levels. Below, the rationale for a
multilevel model of group creativity on openended tasks that require creativity is developed
(Figure 1), beginning with the individual level of
analysis. Next, we develop a group-level model to
assert the importance of a group's ability to utilize
individual resources effectively.

Companies try numerous strategies to foster creativity, including restructuring work, selecting people on the basis of their attributes, and behavioral
training; however, these strategies are often unsuccessful (Barron & Harrington, 1981; Farr, 1990;
Hocevar & Bachelor, 1989). Some organizations
form autonomous work teams that are tasked with
identifying and solving ill-defined or poorly structured problems that require creative thought (Cannon-Bowers, Oser, & Flanagan, 1992; Goodman,
Ravlin, & Argote, 1986). Given the increasing use of
teams to foster creativity (Mohrman, Cohen, &Mohrman, 1995; Tesluk, Farr, & Klein, 1997), it is surprising that little is known about the social behavior that determines a group's ability to utilize
individual creative resources effectively.
The primary purpose of this study was to allow
me to look simultaneously at individual and group
creativity, their determinants, and their interrelationships. The conceptual framework that forms
the backbone of this study is afforded by Amabile's
(1983, 1996) componential theory of individual
creativity, which allows for the impact of social
influences on individual creativity. According to
the theory, a product or response is creative when
observers independently agree that it is novel and
appropriate, useful, correct, or valuable to the task
at hand, and when that task is open-ended and
appropriately carried out via discovery rather than
via a predetermined step-by-step procedure.
To date, creativity studies have generally focused
at only one level of analysis at a time (Sternberg &
Lubart, 1999; Woodman, Sawyer, & Griffin, 1993).

Factors Influencing Individual-Level

Creative Outputs
Amabile's (1983, 1996) componential theory of
individual creativity predicts that task motivation,
domain-relevant skills, and creativity-relevant processes are important components for individual
creativity and that there are individual differences
in levels of the three components. Mounting empirical evidence demonstrates that individuals are
more creative when they possess higher levels of
these components (Conti, Coon, & Amabile, 1996;
Ruscio, Whitney, & Amabile, 1998). In addition,
according to the theory, the work environment
should affect individual creativity, especially
through the motivational component. The theory
also suggests that group creativity depends on both
the levels of the individual components in members of a group and the group's work environment.
Components of individual creativity. According
to the componential theory of individual creativity,
task motivation is both a state and a relatively stable trait (Amabile, Hill, Hennessey, & Tighe, 1994)
demonstrated by a "general and pervasive orientation toward one's work" (Amabile, 1996: 116). Intrinsic motivation and, recent evidence suggests, a
few very narrow forms of synergistic extrinsic motivators that encourage high levels of task involve-

The author thanks John Usher, Jayne Taggar,and this

journal's editor and three anonymous reviewers for their
insightful criticisms, encouragement,and helpful suggestions, which greatly improved this article.
315

This content downloaded from 130.237.165.40 on Fri, 31 Jan 2014 04:22:55 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

316

Academy of Management Journal

April

FIGURE 1
Multilevel Latent Variable Model of Team Performance on Tasks Requiring Creativitya
Individual
Differences

Individual
Behaviors

H5

Group-Level
Creativity

TCRP

TCRP

H6

Conscientiousness
H1) .37**

General

Group-Level
Process
(Aggregated)

H7

Agreeableness
Extraversion

Individual-Level
Creativity

04)

^4-

(.04)
TM.65***
H2: .60*** (.04) .38** (.04
CRP

H4

(.03)
Individual

Group

55** (.04)

H3: .72*** (.04)

Openness to
Experience
a

The path from team creativity-relevant processes to creativity-relevant processes was added with a coefficient of .36*
path coefficients are standardized.
**p < .01
***p< .001

ment, are important elements of task motivation

(Collins & Amabile,

1999; Sternberg & Lubart,

1999). Task motivation can be indicated by behaviors related to the amount and persistence of effort.
Amabile and colleagues (1994), in their study of
artists, found that intrinsically motivated people
showed greater commitment and devoted more
time to task completion. Ruscio and coauthors
(1998) found that behavior related to "involvement
in the task" was associated with intrinsic motivation. Motivated individuals showed deep levels of
involvement in problems by focusing on solving
them, minimizing distractions, and being absorbed
in work (Ruscio et al., 1998: 261).
The domain-relevant-skills component of creativity represents the ability to learn certain types
of domain-specific knowledge (Amabile, 1996). Domain-relevantskills require familiaritywith the domain in question-memory of factual knowledge,
technical proficiency, opinions about various questions in the domain, knowledge of paradigms, performance scripts for solving problems in the domain, and aesthetic criteria (Ruscio et al., 1998).
Domain-relevant skills may be indicated by measures of an individual's depth and breadth of
knowledge related to the problems to be solved by
a team.
Creativity-relevant processes "determine the
flexibility with which cognitive pathways are explored, the attention given to particular aspects of
the task, and the extent to which a particularpath-

(.04). Reported

way is followed in pursuit of a solution" (Amabile,

1996: 95). Creativity-relevantprocesses are associated with a cognitive style favorable to taking new
perspectives on problems, an application of heuristics for the exploration of new cognitive pathways,
and a working style conducive to persistence (Amabile, 1983, 1996). Ruscio and coauthors (1998)

described possible behavioral indicators of creativity-relevant processes. These behaviors include

goal setting and responses to challenge. In terms of
responses to challenge, one may expect preparation
behavior prior to group meetings and active participation in group problem-solving activities. Appropriate work orientation and cognitive style along
with knowledge of heuristics for generating novel
ideas will likely result in an individual asking relevant questions, offering ideas, and building on
others' contributions.
Antecedents of creativity components. Amabile's (1983, 1996) components of individual cre-

ativity represent the potential for behaviors

and may be indicated by performance-relevant
team member behavior. Similarly, the "five-factor
model" traits (Costa & McCrae,1992) and "general
cognitive ability" (Ree & Carretta,1998), also represent the potential for behavior. The five-factormodel traits-which are conscientiousness, openness to experience, agreeableness, extraversion,
and emotional stability-and general cognitive
ability can be thought of as causing task motivation,
domain-relevant skills, and creativity-relevantpro-

This content downloaded from 130.237.165.40 on Fri, 31 Jan 2014 04:22:55 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

2002

317

Taggar

cesses. One of the benefits of this conceptualization

is that it allows understanding the antecedents to
creativity at the broadest level, using previously
validated constructs.
Although the five-factor model has been used as
a way of viewing the abundant research on personality correlates of creativity, few researchers have
examined the relationships between creativity and
personality variables that are actually measured at
the five-factor-model level (Feist, 1999: 288) or between the model's traits and the components of
creativity. The five-factor model (1) allows for consistency among research efforts and a direct way of
synthesizing results, (2) calls attention to general
personality characteristics that are more strongly
related to job performance than narrow specific
dimensions, (3) can yield significant uncorrected
validity coefficients of .30 or higher, and (4) provides increments in predictive validity over and
above the predictive validity of cognitive ability
tests (Hogan, 1991).
The current indecisiveness about the cognitive
ability-creativity relationship may exist because
most researchershave focused on specific abilities.
There is a growing acceptance of the empirical
finding that cognitive ability is best conceptualized
as a unitary construct. Ability tests largely measure
general cognitive ability, which predicts job performance criteria with greater utility than specific
abilities (Ree & Carretta, 1998; Ree & Earles, 1996).

Conscientious people are intrinsically motivated

and task-involved, innately resourceful, enterprising, thorough, industrious, organized, energetic,
and willing to overcome obstacles, and they feel
well prepared to deal with life (Costa & McCrae,
1992). They can motivate themselves to get a job
done and to do it well and have a greaterdisregard
for social approval and tangible rewards than those
low in conscientiousness (Costa & McCrae, 1992).
Accordingly, conscientiousness may be one antecedent of task motivation (as measured by performance-relevant team member behavior).
Figure 1 shows the multilevel model of team
performance on tasks requiring creativity, which is
outlined in the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1. There is a positive association
between conscientiousness and the specific behavioral measures of task motivation.
One cannot be truly creative unless one knows a
good deal about a particular area and has the skills
necessary to produce in that area. Individuals
higher on general cognitive ability generally perform better on measures of the knowledge, skills,
and techniques required for a job (Ree & Earles,
1996). People high in general cognitive ability are

better at information processing (Schmidt, Hunter,

& Perlman, 1981) and adapting to new situations
through learning quickly and better applying old
learning (Hunter, 1986). A likely standard individual difference antecedent of domain-relevant skills
is innate cognitive ability (Conti et al., 1996; Feist,
1999).

Hypothesis 2. There is a positive association

between general cognitive ability and domainrelevant skills.
Creativity-relevant processes involve breaking
perceptual sets, breaking cognitive sets, and trying
new problem-solving strategies. A germane personality trait antecedent of creativity-relevant processes, as measured by specific behaviors within a
team context, may be openness to experience. People who are open to experience are imaginative,
open to varied perspectives, and tolerant of ambiguity (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Openness to experience is most likely to enhance "generative
thinking," which consists of divergent thinking,
including remote association and pattern switching
(Guilford,1984), by encouraging group members to
apply nontraditional thinking, fantasy, and imagination during problem solving. McCrae (1987)
found that people who were open to experience
were more likely to engage in divergent thinking,
and King, Walker, and Broyles (1996) found they
scored higher on verbal creativity. Feist (1999)
speculated that open people may have an interest
in seeking sensation and more varied experiences,
and this experiential base may serve as the foundation of flexibility and fluency of thinking.
Hypothesis 3. There is a positive association
between openness to experience and creativityrelevant processes, as measured by group
member behavior.
Group-Level Analyses

Both group and individual outcomes may be affected by the intragroupprocess behaviors of group
members. These behaviors, which I refer to as
"team creativity-relevant processes," may include
(1) inspirational motivation: inspiring group members to elevate their goals (Bass & Avolio, 1994;
Brophy, 1998); (2) organization and coordination:

providing feedback, organizing, and coordinating

contributions (Brophy, 1998); and (3) individual-

ized consideration: eliciting and appreciating different ideas, needs, and viewpoints (Bass &Avolio,
1994; Brophy, 1998).

Solution originality and quality should rise when

group members are encouraged to view problems

This content downloaded from 130.237.165.40 on Fri, 31 Jan 2014 04:22:55 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

318

Academy of Management Journal

differently, redefine problems, extend information

searches, and produce high-quality ideas during
preparation for problem solving. Group creative
performanceis likely to be improved with effective
task allocation, task variety, coordination of diverse
efforts, and careful planning (Brophy, 1998). Evaluation or feedback that is informative or constructive can be conducive to creativity (Collins & Amabile, 1999). By encouraging consideration and
recognition of each group member's viewpoint and
ideas, individualized consideration should lead to
an expanded source of knowledge and information
for group members to use in preparation for problem solving and in response validation (cf. Brass,
1995). Further, involving others may improve social facilitation and increase the production pressure coming from other group members (Hackman
& Morris, 1975).

Groups should perform best when they contain

creative group members and effective team creativity-relevant processes. That is, these processes
may act as a moderator(Figure 1). Furthermore,the
presence of highly creative individuals may not
ameliorate the negative effects of a scarcity of inspirational motivation, organization, coordination,
and individualized consideration. I expected to
find that the strength of the relationship between
aggregatedindividual creativity and group creativity improves with effective team creativity-relevant
processes.
Hypothesis 4. Group creativity on open-ended
tasks will be an interactive function of aggregated individual creativity and the specific behaviors within a team that measure team creativity-relevant processes, in such a way that
the relationship between aggregatedindividual
creativity and group creative output will be
stronger when group members collectively exhibit higher amounts of behavior relevant to
team creativity-relevantprocesses.
Individual-Level Antecedents of Team CreativityRelevant Processes
Justas standardindividual differences may cause
task motivation, domain-relevant skills, and creativity-relevant processes, they may also predispose an individual to display effective intragroup
process behavior (team creativity-relevant processes at the individual level). Therefore, the last
purpose of this study was to test whether standard
individual differences predict team creativity-relevant processes at the individual level.
Extraverts are sociable, enthusiastic, energetic,
and optimistic. Their social confidence and social

April

prowess may be important for the organizationand

coordination of team member activity in contexts
that require high amounts of social interaction.
Barry and Stewart (1997) found that extraverts
stimulate discussion and have high performance
expectations. This observation suggests that extraverts may contribute to individualized consideration and inspirational motivation behavior.
Hypothesis 5. There is a positive association
between an individual's extraversion and his
or her intragroup process behavior (team creativity-relevant processes at the individual
level).
Conscientious people tend to be self-motivated
and task-oriented (Costa & McCrae, 1992), characteristics that result in attention to required behaviors and goal accomplishment (LePine,Hollenbeck,
Ilgen, &Hedlund, 1997). Conscientiousness may be
important for several components of intragroup
process behavior, including inspiring group members, encouragingparticipation, and keeping a team
focused on a task (Aronoff &Wilson, 1985; Barrick
& Mount, 1993; Costa & McCrae, 1992). Neuman

and Wright (1999) found that conscientious people

were likely to display organization and coordination behaviors.
Hypothesis 6. There is a positive association
between an individual's conscientiousness and
his or her intragroup process behavior.
Agreeable group members tend to be trusted,
straightforward,altruistic, compliant, and modest
(Costa & McCrae, 1992). Agreeable group members

are likely to cooperate with other team members.

The facets of altruism, trust, and tender-mindedness should enhance the interpersonal skills required to elicit and appreciate others' contributions. These facets should convey to others in a
team a genuine concern for their well-being and a
willingness to work with them rather than against
them. In addition, the facets of compliance and
straightforwardness should indicate to others a
willingness to relate in a sincere and open manner
and, consequently, facilitate information-seeking
and conflict resolution behaviors.
Hypothesis 7. There is a positive association
between an individual's agreeableness and his
or her intragroupprocess behavior.
Team creativity-relevantprocesses may also represent a "cross-level" process wherein aggregated
team creativity-relevant processes are social influences affecting individual-level creativity. Amabile
(1996) hypothesized that social influences affect
individual creativity primarily,but not exclusively,

This content downloaded from 130.237.165.40 on Fri, 31 Jan 2014 04:22:55 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

2002

319

Taggar

through task motivation. In support of this assertion, Collins and Amabile (1999), in their review of
the literature,proposed that behaviors that support
a sense of competence, without undermining a person's sense of self-determination, and attune that
individual to outcome requirements, enhance the
motivational component of creativity. Likewise,
team creativity-relevant processes that encourage
and inspire other group members to link their selfconcepts to the collective interests of a group and
its mission may increase others' intrinsic motivation to work collectively (Shamir, House, &Arthur,
1993). Finally, Collins and Amabile (1999) noted
that external motivators help creative production to
the extent that they generate continued attention to
the task at hand. Consequently, to complete the
individual-level model, I added a link between the
group-level variable team creativity-relevant processes (additively defined) and the task motivation
of individual group members (Figure 1).
Hypothesis 8. Team creativity-relevant processes, as measured by specific behaviorswithin
a team context (aggregated),representa contextual variable that will be positively associated
with greaterindividual task motivation.
METHODS
Participants, Procedures, and Tasks

Participants were 480 undergraduate business

students in a Canadian university's organizational
behavior/human resources management course; 58
percent of the participants were women, and participants' average age was 21 (s.d. = 3.55). Each

participant was randomly assigned to one of nine

sections. Within each section, participants selfselected themselves as members of groups of five or
six. In all, there were 94 groups rangingin size from
five (n = 84) to six (n = 10) individuals.

Of a

participant's overall course grade, 20 percent was

allocated to his or her groups' output over a 13week period. There were no missing data.
Participantsremained in the same groups to complete 13 exercises, a different one each week. All
groups did the same exercises. Group creativity
research has generally involved single-part tasks
that require individuals to "ideate names or uses or
consequences of a thing, or ideate ways to achieve
a goal" (Brophy, 1998: 213), in short-lived groups

in contrived laboratorysettings. Tasks in this study

differed from those in previous studies in three
ways: interactive groups completed a variety of
multipart, open-ended tasks, over a 13-week period, under constraints that required the active
management of time and other resources.

As is the case in many organizationalsettings,tasks

were complex and varied; they involved problem
identificationof the sort typical in managementcase
studies; decision making,in activities such as generating options, products, or services or picking evaluation criteriaand applying the criteria;seeking additional information, by, for instance, conducting
library research or seeking subject matter experts;
critical thinking, as in critical evaluation of newspaper articles;building consensus on how best to handle problems;generatingaction plans; implementing
plans; evaluating outcomes and changing decisionmakingand process heuristics in futuresessions; and
generatingreports.Minimumguidance was provided
on how to complete tasks;the basic taskwas unstructuredand often requiredsome improvisation.Groups
were required to complete their tasks within 50minute sessions. The Appendix provides examples of
two criteriontasks. The tasks used in most previous
creative problem solving research (for instance, research on brainstorminggroups) minimize-indeed,
may eliminate-the need for the intervening team
creativity-relevantprocesses,such as challengingothers' assumptions; however, the more realistic tasks
used in this study called for these behaviors.
An external judge scored the weekly reports and
provided weekly feedback on group creativity. The
external judge's ratings constituted the group creativity measure. This evaluator (who had recently
graduatedwith a bachelor of commerce undergraduate degree and was hired by the university as an
instructional assistant) was independent of the research group and blind to study hypotheses. Each
week, groups received feedback on the previous
week's report. For each group, feedback consisted
of a number grade and a written evaluation about
one page long. The written evaluation and the
marking scheme were based equally upon the appropriatenessof the solution, idea, or product; originality; elaboration (amount of detail); and, when
appropriate, fluency (total number of relevant responses). Since this judge did all of the performance scoring and was present in the group problem-solving sessions, a second judge was asked to
score a random sample of 40 reports to assess if the
criteria were robust across judges. The second
judge was a graduate student in psychology who
did not observe group sessions and scored reports
after week 13 of the study. Analyzing the ratings of
the two judges resulted in a interrater reliability
coefficient of .85 (p < .001).

In week 11 of the study, the critical incident technique (CIT;Flanagan,1954) was used to gather specific examples of (in)effective behaviors displayed
by group members. CIT is a useful initial step in
developing performanceassessment tools (Latham&

This content downloaded from 130.237.165.40 on Fri, 31 Jan 2014 04:22:55 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

320

Academy of Management Journal

Wexley, 1994). Each critical incident card asked

group members to think about their group experience
over the weeks that their group had worked together
and recall one example each of effective and ineffective group member behavior that they had personally
observed. Each group member completed at least one
card each for effective and ineffective behavior, and
no group member contributed more than four incidents.
The generation of behavioral observation scales
from the participants' critical incident cards involved
the steps outlined in detail by Latham and Wexley
(1994). An abbreviated overview follows. Two doctoral students (sorters) who were familiar with critical
incident analysis sorted the 1,356 critical incident
cards into meaningful clusters. Clusters were given
descriptive dimension labels by the judges. Next, two
other doctoral students (the judges) received the same
critical incidents in random order and worked together to reclassify the incidents according to the
descriptive dimension labels established by the sorters. The ratio of correctly classified incidents to the
total number of incidents for each cluster was greater
than .80 and was thus deemed adequate. The behavioral observation scale were developed so that the
major dimensions, the most frequently occurring incidents, and the incidents judged by group members
as the most important were represented. The individual team member creativity measures were added to
the behavioral observation scale. All items were in
random order. Peer assessments using these scales
occurred in week 13 (the last week) of the study.
Measures
Individual difference variables. Measures of individual differences were obtained in week 12 of the
study. Five-factor-model traits were measured by the
revised NEO Personality Inventory (Costa & McCrae,
1992). The inventory has sound psychometric properties (Costa & McCrae, 1992; Hogan, 1991) and is
valid and reliable when administered to college students (Costa &McCrae, 1992). Cronbach's alphas, calculated from the six facets composing each fivefactor-model trait, ranged from .84 to .72 in my
sample.
General cognitive ability was measured by the
Wonderlic Personnel Test. The test has sound reliability (test-retest reliabilities range from .82 to
.94; Wonderlic & Associates, 1992) and validity
(Hawkins, Faraone, Pepple, & Seidman, 1990;
McCormick, Mecham, & Jeanneret, 1989).
Specific behaviors within the team context. The
behavioral observation scale contained 14 dimensions composed of 46 behavioral items, of which 16
described ineffective group member behaviors. The

April

scale was given to each participant to fill out on each

fellow group member. No self-ratings were made. Table 1 shows the dimensions and sample items. Each
dimension contained at least two behavioral items.
The behavioral markers are not necessarily exhaustive; rather, they represent critical incidents occurring most frequently and rated by team members as
most important for the tasks in this study.
Behavioral observation scale dimensions were
associated with the components of creativity with
reference to the work of the theorists and researchers reviewed earlier and with a content validity
test. To support the content validity of the categorical assignments, I wrote each dimension of the
scale on a card along with its component items and
distributed the cards to ten faculty peers and 19
graduate students who were asked to classify the
randomly ordered scales into one of four categoriestask motivation, creativity-relevant processes, team
creativity-relevant processes, and "other." Each judge
was provided with a detailed definition of each category. The judges correctly classified the dimensions
to the proper a priori categories more than 80 percent
of the time. This classification procedure is similar to
that used by Mackenzie, Podsakoff, and Fetter (1991).
Participants completed three midterm exams
(each marked out of 12) and a final exam (marked
out of 30) that were designed to assess knowledge
of the course content. These exam marks were
added to form a measure of each participant's domain-relevant skills.
In order to claim that a group's team creativityrelevant processes created the environment for each
individual in the group, I eliminated self-ratings
when aggregating scores on the performance criteria
used to measure team creativity-relevant processes.
Performance criteria. Individual group member
creativity was an average of peer assessments (that
is, for most groups it was the average of four peer
ratings of an individual) obtained in week 13 of the
study. This procedure was consistent with Amabile's (1996). Each group member was informed
that creative participation should be both novel
and useful. Individual group member creativity
was assessed by a global measure that asked how
creative a particular group member had been relative to other group members over the 13-week duration of the study. In addition, they were given
Evan's (1991) definition of individual creativity: (1)
discovers new relationships, (2) looks at subjects
from new perspectives, and (3) forms new combinations from old concepts. Responses were made
on a Likert scale, ranging from "almost never" (1) to
"almost always" (5). For all four items, Cronbach's
alpha was adequate at .76, and the average interrater agreement statistics (rWG;James, Demaree, &

This content downloaded from 130.237.165.40 on Fri, 31 Jan 2014 04:22:55 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

2002

321

Taggar

TABLE 1
Behavioral Observation Scale Measures of the Components of Creativitya
Dimension

Creativity Component

Sample Items

Team commitment

Task motivation

Focus on the task at hand

Preparation

Creativity-relevantprocesses

Synthesis of the team's ideas

Goal setting/strategyto achieve team goals
Participation

Team creativity-relevantprocesses

Team citizenship
Performancemanagement
Effective communication
Involving others

Providing feedback

Reaction to conflict
Addresses conflict

Averts conflict

Misses team meetings (R)/Comesto

team meetings late (R)
Draws team members into off-topic
discussions (R)/Remindsother team
members of the team's goal
Brings the required material to the team
meetings
Builds on the group's by offering
solutions/Summarizes and organizes
the group's ideas
Does not participatein setting goals (R)/
Participatesin developing strategies
to achieve team goals
Offersideas/asks relevant questions/
Accepts team roles and tasks as
required
Volunteers to do things that no one else
wants to do
Assigns tasks and roles to team
members/Sets time deadlines for
achieving tasks
Dominates the discussion (R)/Carefully
listens to what others are saying (e.g.,
maintains eye contact, nods, etc.)
Clarifiesand explains issues when
someone does not understand/Asks
other team members what they think
Criticizes others' contributions
(suggestions, ideas, and behaviour)
without offering alternatives (R)/Says
positive things to team members
regardingtheir performance
Leaves a conflict unresolved by moving
on to another topic (R)
Provides an alternative solution that is
agreeableto other team members
when a conflict occurs
Resorts to personal attacks when a
problem arises (R)

a Items

comprise the behavioral observation scale administered to participants. "R"denotes reverse-scoring.Domain-relevantskills

were measured by tests of domain knowledge.
Wolf, 1991) were .72, .73, .71, and .76, respectively.
The mean evaluation on all four items was 12.81
(s.d. = 1.96), and the range was 7.84 to 14.06.
The group-level
model concerns the link between aggregated individual
creativity and group
individual
creativity was obcreativity. Aggregate
tained by summing the creativity ratings of each
member in the group. Group creativity was the
average score on 13 written reports; that is, the
external judge's ratings constituted the group creativity measure. There was one report for each exercise. Average scores ranged from 9.65 to 19.69,
out of a total possible score of 20 (s.d. = 1.42;

coefficient of variation = .09). For the 13 group

creativity scores, the interrater agreement and intraclass correlation were sufficient (rWG= .81; ICC
[3, 13] = .90; Shrout & Fleiss, 1979).
Data Analysis
The behavioral observation scale factor structure
was developed using the rational method; I assumed that the judges grouped the incidents with
underlying processes in mind. Next, each group
member rated each of his or her peers using the
behavioral observation scale. Using these ratings, I

This content downloaded from 130.237.165.40 on Fri, 31 Jan 2014 04:22:55 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

322

Academy of Management Journal

conducted a LISREL 8 maximum-likelihood confirmatory factor analysis (CFA; Joreskog & S6rbom,
1993) to determine whether the item groupings developed by the judges adequately fitted the data.
At the individual level, Hypotheses 1-3 and 8
were tested by a two-stage maximum-likelihood
LISREL analysis (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). In
stage 1, the measurement model was fitted to the
data. Next, a measurement model specifying perfect correlation among all latent variables was assessed as a means to evaluate overall discriminability. Alternative nested models, which combined
theoretically independent constructs, were then
contrasted with the original model. Model structure linkages were examined in stage 2 of the analysis. The dependent variable was the average rating
of individual creativity as assessed by peers.
Some variables that have been found to affect
creativity were controlled for prior to analyses;
these were age, gender, and group size. The control
variables were modeled into the causal structure by
freeing paths to individual creativity and to team
creativity-relevant processes. Controlling for these
was expected to mitigate some pregroup differences that were created by failing to randomly assign participants to groups.
I tested Hypotheses 6 to 7 (stating that extraversion, conscientiousness, and agreeableness are positively associated with intragroup process behavior) using simultaneous regression analysis, after
first controlling for group size.
At the group level, to test Hypothesis 4, I performed
a four-step hierarchical regression. Control variables
(age, gender, and group size) were entered in step 1.
The groups' creativity scores were entered in step 2,
and collective team creativity-relevant processes, as
measured by the behavioral observation scales, were
entered in step 3. The aggregated interaction of individual creativity and team creativity-relevant processes was entered in step 4. Statistical significance at
each step was assessed by the change in the F-statistic
associated with the incremental increase in variance
in group creativity accounted for by the variable entered at that step. The dependent variable here was
average group creativity on the 13 open-ended tasks,
as assessed by the independent judge.
RESULTS
Individual-Level

Analysis

behaviors.
CFA was
Performance-relevant
used to assess the fit of the 14 behavioral observation scale dimensions to observed behaviors. This
analysis revealed adequate fit (root-mean-square error of approximation [RMSEA] = .06, goodness-of-

fit index [GFI] =

.98, and normed
S6rbom, 1993).1
worse fit to the

April

.97, comparative fit index [CFI] =

fit index [NFI] = .96; Joreskog &
A single-factor solution yielded a
data (ACFI = .05; AX2 = 197.07,

p < .001).

Measurement model (stage 1). Fit indexes can

be misleading when the number of common factors
is small relative to the number of observed variables (Schmit & Ryan, 1993). Therefore, unitweighted composites of the scales measuring the
behavioral observation scale dimensions were
formed. Items of the NEO Personality Inventory "R"
scale were combined into six facet-level scales (indicator variables) for each five-factor-model trait
(see Neuman & Wright, 1999). Cognitive ability and
domain-relevant skills were specified as being measured by a single indicator; therefore, their error
variances were fixed at one minus the reliability
multiplied by the item variance (Prussia, Kinicki, &
Bracker, 1993). The alpha for cognitive ability was
set at .82 (Wonderlic & Associates, 1992), and for
domain-relevant skills, it was set at .84. In each
case, the path from the latent factor to the manifest
variable was set equal to cr2i- a.
Forty-four indicator variables were used to estimate the measurement model: six each for conscientiousness, extraversion, openness to experience,
and agreeableness; two for task motivation; one for
domain-relevant skills; four for creativity-relevant
processes; eight for team creativity-relevant processes; four for creativity; and one for cognitive
ability. Therefore, an eight-factor model was tested
with the indicator variables constrained to their
variable groupings.2 All measurement model factor
loadings were greater than .60 (p < .05, mean = .73,
s.d. = .10), indicating adequate convergent validity
(J6reskog & S6rbom, 1993).
A measurement concern may stem from assessing group member behavior and creativity on the
same instrument. Since creativity and behavior
were determined by averaging the ratings of several
assessors, the impact of common method variance
was expected to be minimal. I used Harman's
single-factor procedure (Harris & Mossholder,
1996) to address the common method variance concern. The logic underlying this approach is that if

1 Factor
loadings and a scree plot of eigenvalues from
an oblique exploratoryfactoranalysis supported the confirmatoryresults. This analysis is available from the author upon request.
2
Means, standard deviations, and correlations among
indicator variables are available from the author upon
request, as are indicator variable loadings on latent
factors.

This content downloaded from 130.237.165.40 on Fri, 31 Jan 2014 04:22:55 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

2002

323

Taggar

method variance is largely responsible for covariation-here, the covariation of the behavioral observation scale and creativity measures-a factor analysis should yield a single factor. LISREL8 was used
to conduct confirmatory factor analyses. A 15factor model (14 behaviors and individual creativity) was tested first. Fit indexes suggested that the
15-factor model fitted reasonably well (RMSE =
.07, GFI = .95, CFI = .96, and NFI = .94). In comparison, a 1-factor model did not fit the data well
(RMSE = .11, GFI = .52, CFI = .54, and NFI = .56);
the 15-factor model fitted the data significantly better than did the 1-factor model (ACFI = .42; AX2 =
203.85, p < .001). Taken together, these results
suggest that common method variance does not
pose a serious threat to interpreting the present
findings.
Zero-order correlations, descriptive statistics,
and reliability coefficients for latent constructs are
in Table 2. Although conscientiousness correlated
significantly with individual creativity (r = .19,
p < .001), it achieved a stronger correlation with
task motivation (r = .35, p < .001). Similarly, although general cognitive ability correlated significantly with individual creativity (r = .26, p < .001),
it achieved a stronger correlation with domainrelevant skills (r = .57, p < .001). Openness to
experience had a correlation of .17 (p < .001) with
individual creativity; however, the correlation with
creativity-relevant processes was .34 (p < .001).
Creativity-relevant processes within the team context had the strongest correlation with individual
creativity (r = .62, p < .001). Hence, standard individual differences appear to relate to specific behaviors more strongly than to the overall rated creativity of an individual.
Table 3 reveals that the proposed measurement
model adequately reproduced the correlation matrix (RMSEA = .05, GFI = .94, CFI = .92, and NFI =
.92). In contrast, the single-factor model used to
assess overall discriminability (model 2) poorly accounted for the sample data (RMSEA = .18, GFI =
.63, CFI = .60, NFI = .61, and ACFI = .32). These
results supported the multidimensionality of the
proposed model being tested. Sequential chisquare difference tests showed that constraining
equality between pairs of highly correlated constructs resulted in worse fit. Moreover, decreases in
CFI indicated a material reduction in model fit for
each of the constrained models. Therefore, the
eight-factor measurement model was retained.
Structural model (stage 2). Behavioral observation scale ratings and assessments of creativity
were based on averaging peer assessments; therefore, it was necessary to determine whether peers
agreed in their ratings. Agreement was estimated by

the average interrater agreement statistic and intraclass correlations. These estimates suggested adequate agreement between peers (behavioral: lowest
average rWG= .74 [range = .73-.85], lowest ICC [2,
1] = .31; creativity:

average

rWG= .75 [range =

.70-.78], lowest ICC [2, 1] = .21). Consequently, I

averaged peer judgments for each participant.
In the test of the proposed structural model, the
theoretical model fitted the data without conditional codes or other signs of specification problems. However, fit indexes for the hypothesized
model reported in Table 3 were not within acceptable ranges; the model did not accurately explain
the sample data (RMSEA = .07, GFI = .86, CFI =
.75, and NFI = .73). Performing a post hoc model
modification to see if a better-fitting model existed
(Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996), I added a path predicting creativity-relevant processes from team creativity-relevant processes on the basis of the Legrange
multiplier test. This addition resulted in an improved fit (RMSEA = .05, GFI = .94, CFI = .94,
NFI = .93, ACFI = .21, and Ax2 = 481.95, p < .001).
Because a post hoc model modification had been
performed, a correlation was calculated between
the hypothesized model parameter estimates and
parameter estimates from the modified model; its
value (r = .96, p < .001) indicated that parameter
estimates were hardly changed despite modification of the hypothesized model. I used the modified
model (model 7) to test Hypotheses 1 to 3 and 8.
Figure 1 reveals that all hypothesized structural
model paths were significant at conventional levels
(p < .05) and, therefore, all hypotheses were supported. Control variables had insignificant links
with individual creativity and team creativity-relevant processes; the standardized coefficients for
paths from age, gender, and group size to aggregated individual creativity were .10, .16, and .09,
respectively, and from age, gender, and group size
to team creativity-relevant processes they were .07,
.04, and .06, respectively.
Antecedents of team creativity-relevant processes. Simultaneous regression analysis supported Hypotheses 6, 7, and 8-an individual's
extraversion, conscientiousness, and agreeableness
are positively associated with intragroup process
behavior (team creativity-relevant processes at the
individual level). In the regression equation, about
31 percent (p < .001) of the variation in intragroup
process behavior was explained. Beta weights
showed that conscientiousness (X3= .33, p < .001)
contributed mostly to explaining team creativityrelevant processes at the individual level, followed
by extraversion (f = .22, p < .001) and agreeableness (3 = .20, p < .001).

This content downloaded from 130.237.165.40 on Fri, 31 Jan 2014 04:22:55 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

TABLE 2
Zero-Order Correlations among Latent Factors of the Individual-Level Modela
Variable

Mean

s.d.

1. Neuroticism
2. Extraversion
3. Openness to experience
4. Agreeableness
5. Conscientiousness
6. General cognitive ability
7. Task motivationb
8. Domain-relevant skillsb
9. Creativity-relevant processesb
10. Individual team creativity-relevant processes
11. Individual creativity
12. Group team creativity-relevant processes

79.10
109.40
110.60
124.30
123.10
21.75
8.17
46.13
16.11
30.33
12.81
29.87

21.20
18.40
17.30
15.80
17.60
7.60
0.70
5.66
1.90
2.70
1.96
1.85

1
(.84)
-.06
-.09
-.15**
-.22***
-.18***
-.02
-.02
-.09
-.09
-.10*
-.05

(.79)
.02
.08
-.15**
.04
-.06
.01
.14**
.27***
.13**
.04

(.72)
.06
.16***
.12*
.02
.15**
.34***
.10
.17***
.01

(.79)
-.10
-.17***
.11*
.06
.07
.26***
.08
.07

(.82)
-.03
.35***
.23***
.27***
.26***
.19***
.11*

(.89)
.07
.57***
.42***
.17***
.26***
.03

(.71)
.12*
.32***
.31***
.41***
.37***

an = 480, for all variables except group-level team creativity-relevant processes, where n = 94. Alpha coefficients of reliabilities are display
b Behavioral observation scale measure.
* p < .05

**p < .01

***p < .001
Two-tailed tests.

This content downloaded from 130.237.165.40 on Fri, 31 Jan 2014 04:22:55 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

2002

325

Taggar

TABLE3
Fit Indexes for the Measurement and Structural Modelsa
2 (dfl

Test

RMSEA

GFI

CFI

NFI

2,189.07 (594)
7,694.49 (599)

.05
.18

.94
.63

.92
.60

.92
.61

3. Equating task motivation and

domain-relevant skills

2,437.06 (599)

.09

.87

.86

.85

4. Equating team creativity-relevant

processes and creativity-relevant
processes

2,402.82 (599)

.09

.86

.85

.85

5. Equating team creativity-relevant

processes and domain-relevant
skills

2,373.13 (599)

.09

.87

.86

.85

Measurement model
1. Proposed model
2. Single-factor model

Structural model
6. Hypothesized model
7. Modified model

.07
.05

2,719.29 (754)
2,227.34 (753)

.86
.94

.75
.94

A2 b

df

ACFI

5,505.42***

34

.32

247.99**

.06

213.75**

.07

184.06**

.06

481.95***

.21

.73
.93

a RMSEA =
root-mean-square error of approximation; GFI = goodness-of-fit index; CFI = comparative fit index; NFI = normed fit index.
n = 480.
b
The top four statistics show the difference between the indicated model and the proposed model (model 1); the fifth (last in the
column) AX2 shows the difference between the hypothesized model and the modified model.
** p < .01

**p

< .001

Group-Level Analysis
Zero-order correlations and descriptive statistics
examined at the group level are in Table 4. As
indicated in Table 4, aggregated individual creativity is significantly correlated with both group creativity and team creativity-relevant processes.
Hypothesis 4 suggests that group creativity is an
interactive function of aggregated individual creativity and the amount of team creativity-relevant
processes. After controlling for age, gender, and
group size (none of which contributed significantly
to explaining variance in group creativity), I found
significant main effects for aggregated individual

DISCUSSION

TABLE4
Zero-Order Correlations and Descriptive
Statistics for Additively Aggregated Predictor
and Criterion Measures at the Group Levela
Variable
1. Group creativity
2. Aggregated individual
creativity
3. Team creativity-relevant
processes

Mean

s.d.

14.74
2.72

1.42
0.28

.56***

29.87

1.93

.41***

an = 94.
*** p < .001, two-tailed tests

.63***

creativity (AR2 = .28, p < .001) and team creativityrelevant processes (AR2 = .07, p < .01) through
hierarchical regression analysis. There was also a
statistically significant interaction between aggregated individual creativity and team creativityrelevant processes (AR2 = .05, p < .01). It is evident
that groups with creative members and high levels
of creativity-relevant behaviors yielded high group
creativity. A low incidence of team creativity-relevant processes neutralized the effect of a group
high in creativity.3 Similarly, a group low in creativity neutralized the effects of high levels of team
creativity-relevant processes.

This study examined a multilevel model of group

creativity on open-ended tasks that required creativity. Specific behavioral measures of the components of creativity were found to relate in predicted

3 The
findings reportedin this work arebased on all 13
tasks; however, a task-by-task analysis reveals that the
findings presented here do generalize over the last 10 of
the 13 tasks. That is, team creativity-relevantprocesses
did not play a significant moderating role in the first
three tasks.

This content downloaded from 130.237.165.40 on Fri, 31 Jan 2014 04:22:55 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

326

Academy of Management Journal

ways to standard individual differences. A contribution of this study is to show that although it is
necessary for a group to contain members who are
creative, team creativity-relevant processes that
emerge as part of group interaction are also important. Indeed, without this latter type of behavior,
the benefits of putting together a group of highly
creative individuals are neutralized. In effective
groups, members engage in creativity-supporting
behavior, establishing the right sort of social environment for each other. These behaviors are indicated by eight behavioral observation scale measures, which yield new insights into exactly how
group members can support each other's creativity.
Very little prior research has attempted to so extensively specify behaviors in intact groups working
on open-ended tasks.
Individual Differences
Through incorporating standard individual differences into Amabile's (1983, 1996) componential
model, I hoped that this study would aid in pulling
together relevant personality research and somewhat validate the use of personality as a predictor
of behavior associated with group creativity. This
study goes beyond previous studies in that it utilized the unifying five-factor model, which reduces
terminological confusion and makes personality
testing useful in organizational contexts (Hogan,
1991). By no means do I claim that use of this
model is the most appropriate level at which to
measure individual differences; rather, it seems an
appropriate starting point. Effort should be made to
show that newly developed measures of individual
attributes improve upon the predictiveness of the
now commonly accepted five-factor-model taxonomy, and also that of general cognitive ability, in a
variety of situations.
By incorporating personality and general cognitive ability into the model, I hoped to show that
their associated behaviors are the most appropriate
criterion for validation. One may obtain a consistently modest relationship between standard individual differences and individual creativity while
at the same time obtaining strong relationships
between individual differences and their relevant
behaviors. For instance, it is more appropriate to
validate general cognitive ability against domainrelevant skills than against overall creativity ratings
because global ratings are impacted by an individual's task motivation or by the social environment.
Feist's (1999) review of personality research
in the creativity literature indicates that facets of
to experience
fantasy(especially
openness
oriented imagination) and conscientiousness (espe-

April

cially drive, ambition, perseverance, and need for

achievement) have previously been related to creative outcomes in scientific domains. The findings
of the present study correspond with those reto experience
ported by Feist (1999)-openness
and conscientiousness proved to be predictive of
individual creative behavior on the tasks employed
in this study. However, it should be recognized that
the behavioral observation scale measures of task
motivation tap a narrow aspect of Amabile's (1983,
1996) task motivation conceptualization, and this
limiting condition should be considered when one
interprets the findings presented here. In future
studies, researchers should consider the added
benefits of using the Work Preference Inventory
(Amabile et al., 1994), which was specifically designed to assess trait-intrinsic and -extrinsic motivation.
Neuroticism was the only five-factor-model trait
that was not a variable in the model developed
here. Feist (1999) reviewed conflicting research
that has suggested high neuroticism (especially the
facets of anxiety and hostility) is both positively
and negatively related to creativity. Neuroticism
did not correlate strongly with individual creativity
or with domain-relevant skills, task motivation,
creativity-relevant processes, and team creativityrelevant processes in the present findings. Nevertheless, neuroticism may relate more strongly to
creativity in domains different from the one studied here. Feist (1999) proposed that neuroticism is
related to creativity in artistic endeavours where an
"introspective journey" is involved. However, creativity that is more "externally focused" (for instance, creativity in the science domain) has less of
a connection to neuroticism.
Lastly, this study does not support either the
views that creativity and intelligence are essentially the same or the view that creativity and intelligence are unrelated. Creativity appears to be
the confluence of intelligence, personality, domain
knowledge, and social influences.

Specific Behaviors within the Team Context for

Individual Creativity
This study begins to address important, unanswered questions about the specific behaviors
within a team context that are necessary for creative performance and effective group outcomes.
The behavioral observation scale reports indicated
various performance-relevant behavioral aspects of
creativity. Knowledge of creative behavior can contribute to the design of interventions that improve
creativity (for instance, by outlining the possible

This content downloaded from 130.237.165.40 on Fri, 31 Jan 2014 04:22:55 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

2002

327

Taggar

role of training in creativity-supporting behaviors

for group members).
Team commitment and focus on the task at hand
index one aspect of task motivation and therefore
gauge readiness for creative activity. Ruscio and
colleagues (1998) found "involvement"was related
to task motivation. They also noted the need for
research directed toward replicating their findings
in other task domains and uncovering additional
behavioral manifestations of intrinsic motivation.
This study's findings with respect to task motivation correspond with those of Ruscio et al. and
provide evidence of additional behavioral manifestations of this component of creativity.
Creativity-relevant processes primarily determine response novelty. Creativity-relevant processes involve goal setting, preparation, participation in group problem solving, and synthesis of
ideas. These behaviors correspond to the goal setting and response-to-challenge types of behaviors
suggested by Ruscio and colleagues (1998) as measures of creativity-relevantprocesses. They also fit
well with Amabile's (1996) descriptions of workstyle factors associated with creativity-relevant
processes.

A Group's Ability to Utilize Individual

Resources Effectively

Groups are a unique social setting in which, it is

believed, the interaction among group members
may be a major contributor to the quality of group
creativity. A group's process skills are necessary to
leverage individual creative resources. Group creativity is enhanced through effective communication, possibly because it reduces the chances of
process losses resulting from errors in task performance strategies. Performance management, providing feedback, and effective conflict management
possibly improve coordination, resulting in improved group creativity. Poor integration of group
members' efforts can result in motivational losses,
as previously suggested by Hackman and Morris
(1975). The findings regarding team creativityrelevant processes (particularly "involving others"
behavior) support Woodman and colleagues' (1993)
proposition that individual creative performance
will be increased by group behavior that facilitates
the open sharing of information. It follows that
when groups are inadequately trained in team process behavior, or are too large, team creativityrelevant processes can stifle creativity. Further,it is
important to note that these processes, usually
thought of as important for group leaders, can also
be important for all members of a group.

Future Research and Limitations

Future research. Modification indexes suggested a link between team creativity-relevant

processes and creativity-relevant processes. By
encouraging consideration and recognition of all
group members' viewpoints and ideas, individualized consideration may foster a social climate
that results in expanded sources of knowledge
and encourages thinking along new lines. These
behaviors should facilitate (but not guarantee)
group members offering solutions that build
on their group's ideas, thereby increasing the
creativity-relevant processes of the individual
engaged in individualized consideration behavior. Although further research is required, these
preliminary findings support the addition of
team creativity-relevant processes to the componential model.
In this preliminary study, simple linear relationships between resources for creativity were modeled. However, Sternberg and Lubart (1999: 11)
noted that creativity may be more than the simple
sum of a person's attained level of functioning on
each component. Partial compensation may occur,
in which a strength on one component counteracts
a weakness on another component, and interactions may also occur between components. Furthermore, individual resource requirements may
differ with the type of task performed (Forgas,
1995). Study of these relationships is a potentially
fruitful avenue for future research.
Limitations. This study attempted to approximate genuine work environments while benefiting from a large sample with equivalent group
work experiences and resource constraints. The
groups appeared similar to "real"work groups in
task interdependence; this real-life quality was
supported by the emergence of several behavioral
observation scale dimensions: performance management, participation in team problem solving,
synthesis of the team's ideas, and involvement of
others. Although there is some support for using
students as research participants (Greenberg,
1987), future studies of functioning intact autonomous work groups within firms are needed to
establish generalizability.
A potential limitation is the issue of priming:
items presented earlier in the BOS may influence
responses to subsequent items. Assessment of creativity was based on one item that directly mentioned creativity (question 19 on the performance
assessment tool) and three items (questions 35, 39,
and 40 on the performance assessment tool) that
did not contain the term "creativity." The item
directly mentioning creativity is likely to be of most

This content downloaded from 130.237.165.40 on Fri, 31 Jan 2014 04:22:55 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

328

Academy of ManagementJournal

concern when considering priming (Kervin, 1992).

In this study, the items that followed the global
measure of creativity contained very specific referents. Kervin (1992: 330) suggested that the impact
of priming is not substantial when subsequent
questions are specific. Nevertheless, future studies
that use a similar assessment tool should counterbalance items within the tool; they might, for instance, adjust the positioning of the item mentioning creativity so its impact on subsequent item
responses can be determined.
Another limitation pertains to potentially influential factors not included in our analysis. Subjects
were not randomly assigned to groups, so there was
a concern that their choices about group membership were based on the attributes of others (on, for
instance, how much they liked other group members). In addition to statistically controlling for age,
gender, and group size in this study, I conducted an
additional group-level analysis that revealed no evidence of restriction of range or significant skewness or kurtosis on any of the variables in this
study; for instance, there was no evidence that extraverts chose other extraverts as group members.
Nevertheless, future studies need to address the
possibility of a selection bias based on variables not
measured here.
Lastly, Ruscio and colleagues (1998) noted limitations with respect to posttask measurement of
behavior, including forgetting and knowledge of
outcomes. These concerns should be mitigated in
future studies by assessing behavior as it occurs;
Ruscio and his coauthors (1998) offer a procedure
for doing this.
This is the first study to specify particular behaviors that strongly predict observable creativity.
Conti and coauthors (1996) expanded on the importance and relevance of this information. The evidence presented in this article is the first step to
designing behavioral interventions like behaviorally based structured interviews and training in
team creativity-relevant processes. The importance
of team creativity-relevant processes underscores
the need to ensure groups maintain a facilitating
social setting.
REFERENCES
Amabile, T. M. 1983. The social psychology of creativity:
A componential conceptualization. Journal of Per-

sonality and Social Psychology, 45: 357-376.

Amabile, T. M. 1996. Creativity in context. Boulder, CO:
Westview Press.
Amabile, T. M., Hill, K. G., Hennessey, B. A., & Tighe, E.
1994. The Work Preference Inventory: Assessing intrinsic and extrinsic motivation orientations. Jour-

April

nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66: 950967.

Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. 1988. Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin,
103: 411-423.
Aronoff, J., & Wilson, J. P. 1985. Personality in the social
process. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. 1993. Autonomy as a
moderator of the relationship between the Big Five
personality dimensions and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78: 111-118.
Barron, F., & Harrington, D. M. 1981. Creativity, intelligence, and personality. In M. R. Rosenzweig & L. W.
Porter (Eds.), Annual review of psychology: 439476. Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.
Barry, B., & Stewart, G. L. 1997. Composition, process,
and performance in self-managed groups: The role of
personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82:
62-78.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. 1994. Improving organizational effectiveness
through transformational
leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Brass, D. J. 1995. Creativity: It's all in your social network. In C. M. Ford & D. A. Gioia (Eds.), Creative
action in organizations: Ivory tower visions and
real world voices: 94-99. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Brophy, D. R. 1998. Understanding, measuring, and enhancing collective creative problem-solving efforts.
Creativity Research Journal, 11: 199-229.
Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Oser, R., & Flanagan, D. C. 1992.
Work teams in industry: A selected review and proposed framework. In R. W. Swezey & E. Salas (Eds.),
Teams: Their training and performance: 355-377.
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Collins, M. A., & Amabile, T. M. 1999. Motivation and
creativity. In R. J. Sternber (Ed.), Handbook of creativity: 297-312. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Conti, R., Coon, H., & Amabile, T. M. 1996. Evidence to
support the componential model of creativity: Secondary analysis of three studies. Creativity Research Journal, 9: 385-389.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. 1992. NEO PI-R professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Farr, J. L. 1990. Facilitating individual role innovation. In
M. A. West & J. L. Farr (Eds.), Innovation and creativity at work: Psychological and organizational
strategies: 207-230. Chichester, England: Wiley.
Feist, G. J. 1999. Influence of personality on artistic and
scientific creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity: 272-296. New York: Cambridge
University Press.

This content downloaded from 130.237.165.40 on Fri, 31 Jan 2014 04:22:55 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

2002

329

Taggar

Flanagan, J. C. 1954. The critical incident technique.

Psychological Bulletin, 51: 327-358.
Forgas, J. 1995. Mood and judgment: The affect infusion
model (AIM). Psychological Bulletin, 117: 39-66.
Goodman, P. S., Ravlin, E. C., & Argote, L. 1986. Current
thinking about groups: Setting the stage for new
ideas. In P. S. Goodman (Ed.), Designing effective
work groups: 1-34. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Greenberg, J. 1987. The college sophomore as guinea pig:
Setting the record straight. Academy of Management Review, 12: 157-159.
Guilford, J. P. 1984. Varieties of divergent production.
Journal of Creative Behavior, 18: 1-10.
Hackman, J. R., & Morris, C. G. 1975. Group tasks, group
interaction processes, and group performance effectiveness: A review and proposed integration. In L.
Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social
psychology, vol. 8: 47-99. New York: Academic
Press.
Harris, S. G., & Mossholder, K. W. 1996. The affective
implications of perceived congruence with culture
dimensions during organizational transformation.
Journal of Management, 22: 527-547.
Hawkins, K. A., Faraone, S. V., Pepple, J. R., & Seidman,
L. J. 1990. WAIS-R validation of the Wonderlic Personnel Test as a brief intelligence measure in a psychiatric sample. Psychological Assessment, 2: 198201.
Hocevar, D., & Bachelor, P. 1989. A taxonomy and critique of measurements used in the study of creativity. In J. A. Glover, R. R. Ronning, & C. R. Reynolds
(Eds.), Handbook of creativity: 53-76. New York:
Plenum Press.

LePine, J. A., Hollenbeck, J. R., Ilgen, D. R., & Hedlund, J.

1997. Effects of individual differences on the performance of hierarchical decision-making teams: Much
more than g. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82:
803-811.
Mackenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Fetter, R. 1991.
Organizational citizenship behavior and objective
productivity as determinants of managerial evaluations of salespersons' performance. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50: 123150.
McCormick, E. J., Mecham, R. C., & Jeanneret, P. R. 1989.
Technical manual for-the position analysis questionnaire. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue Research
Foundation.
McCrae, R. R. 1987. Creativity, divergent thinking, and
openness to experience. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 52: 1258-1265.
Mohrman, S. A. M., Cohen, S. G., & Mohrman, A. M.
1995. Designing team based organizations. New
York: Jossey-Bass.
Neuman, G. A., & Wright, J. 1999. Team effectiveness:
Beyond skills and cognitive ability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84: 376-389.
Prussia, G. E., Kinicki, A. J., & Bracker, J. S. 1993. Psychological and behavioral consequences of job loss:
A covariance structural analysis using Weiner's
(1985) attribution model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78: 382-395.

Hogan, R. T. 1991. Personality and personality measurement. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology
(2nd ed.), vol. 2: 873-919. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychologists Press.

Ree, M. J., & Carretta, T. R. 1998. General cognitive ability

and occupational performance. In C. L. Cooper &I. T.
Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial
and organizational psychology, vol. 13: 159-184.
New York: Wiley.
Ree, M. J., & Earles, J. A. 1996. Predicting occupational
criteria: Not much more than g. In I. Dennis & P.
Tapsfield (Eds.), Human abilities: Their nature and
measurement: 151-165. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hunter, J. E. 1986. Cognitive ability, cognitive aptitudes,

job knowledge and job performance. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 29: 340-362.

Ruscio, J., Whitney, D. M., & Amabile, T. M. 1998. The

fishbowl of creativity. Creativity Research Journal,
11: 243-263.

James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. 1993. rwg: An

assessment of within-group interrater agreement.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 78: 306-309.
Joreskog, K. G., & S6rbom, D. 1993. LISREL 8: User's
reference guide. Chicago: Scientific Software International.

Schmidt, F. L., Hunter, J. E., & Pearlman, K. 1981. Task

differences and the validity of aptitude tests in selection: A red herring. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66: 166-185.
Schmit, M. J., & Ryan, A. M. 1993. The Big Five in
personnel selection: Factor structure in applicant
and nonapplicant populations. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 78: 966-974.
Shamir, B., House, R., & Arthur, M. 1993. The motivational
effects of chrismatic leadership: A self-concept based
theory. Organization Science, 4: 1-17.

King, L. A., Walker, L., & Broyles, S. J. 1996. Creativity

and the five-factor model. Journal of Research in
Personality, 30: 189-203.
Kervin, J. B. 1992. Methods in business research. New
York: HarperCollins.
Latham, G. P., & Wexley, K. N. 1994. Increasing productivity through performance appraisal. Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesley.

Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. 1979. Intraclass correlations:

Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological
Bulletin, 86: 420-428.

This content downloaded from 130.237.165.40 on Fri, 31 Jan 2014 04:22:55 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

330

Academy of ManagementJournal

Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. 1999. The concept of

creativity: Prospects and paradigms. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity: 3-16. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. 1996. Using multivariate statistics (3rd ed.). New York: HarperCollins.
Tesluk, P. E., Farr, J. L., & Klein, S. R. 1997. Influences of
organizational culture and climate on individual cre-

ativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 31: 27-41.

Wonderlic, E. L., & Associates 1992. Wonderlic person-

nel test and scholastic level exam. Libertyville, IL:

Wonderlic Personnel Test, Inc.
Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin, R. W. 1993.
Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Acad-

emy of Management, 18: 293-321.

APPENDIX

April

Exercise 1
1. Use the concepts of stereotyping and halo to explain the
contrast between the Golden Boys and the Audit Drones.
2. Are there any aspects to the organization of work at
BH&A that could lead to perceptual problems in performance appraisal?
3. Suppose that you were appointed to a newly created
position at BH&A, Manager of Diversity Assurance.
What would you do to better manage diversity at the
firm?
Exercise 2
1. Which plan (discussed in lectures and the textbook)
does the Levi payment scheme most closely resemble?
2. Is this plan likely to be effective? Why or why not?
Please be specific and substantiate your arguments in
reference to class lectures &/or textbook.
3. If you were the administrator of this payment scheme
what might you do differently to maximize employee
motivation toward the corporate objective? Be creative
and give a full answer.

Sample Tasks Completed by Groups

Each group completed an open-ended, multipart task
consisting of developing answers to sets of questions.
Each set comprised an exercise. Examples of question
sets are given verbatim below. Participants first read
written instructions and a brief introduction to the exercise (the case study), which provided background for the
questions in the exercise. Prior to the exercise, students
were given a lecture on the exercise topic and were
requested to complete assigned readings.

AAA
Simon Taggar (staggar@morgan.ucs.mun.ca) is an assistant professor of human resources management at York
University. He received his Ph.D. from McMaster University. His research interests include team composition,
team creativity, team leadership, and collective efficacy.

M0

This content downloaded from 130.237.165.40 on Fri, 31 Jan 2014 04:22:55 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions