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 behav-
ioral 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 cre-
ativity and group creativity.

Companies try numerous strategies to foster cre-
ativity, including restructuring work, selecting peo-
ple on the basis of their attributes, and behavioral
training; however, these strategies are often unsuc-
cessful (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 struc-
tured problems that require creative thought (Can-
non-Bowers, Oser, & Flanagan, 1992; Goodman,
Ravlin, & Argote, 1986). Given the increasing use of
teams to foster creativity (Mohrman, Cohen, &Mohr-
man, 1995; Tesluk, Farr, & Klein, 1997), it is sur-
prising that little is known about the social behav-
ior 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 interrela-
tionships. 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).
The author thanks John Usher, Jayne Taggar,and this
journal's editor and three anonymous reviewers for their
insightful criticisms, encouragement,and helpful sugges-
tions, which greatly improved this article.
315
Neuman and Wright (1999) argued for the impor-
tance of examining relationships at both the indi-
vidual and group levels. Below, the rationale for a
multilevel model of group creativity on open-
ended 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.
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 pro-
cesses are important components for individual
creativity and that there are individual differences
in levels of the three components. Mounting empir-
ical 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 mem-
bers 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 sta-
ble trait (Amabile, Hill, Hennessey, & Tighe, 1994)
demonstrated by a "general and pervasive orienta-
tion toward one's work" (Amabile, 1996: 116). In-
trinsic motivation and, recent evidence suggests, a
few very narrow forms of synergistic extrinsic mo-
tivators that encourage high levels of task involve-

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 Individual Individual-Level Group-Level Group-Level
Differences Behaviors Creativity Process Creativity
(Aggregated)
Agreeableness H7

Extraversion - TCRP TCRP

H5
H6
Conscientiousness ^4- 04)
H1) .37**
(.04) TM.65*** (.03) H4
General H2: .60*** (.04) .38** (.04 Individual Group

CRP 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* (.04). Reported
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 behav-
iors 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 motiva-
tion. 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 cre-
ativity represents the ability to learn certain types
of domain-specific knowledge (Amabile, 1996). Do-
main-relevantskills require familiaritywith the do-
main in question-memory of factual knowledge,
technical proficiency, opinions about various ques-
tions in the domain, knowledge of paradigms, per-
formance scripts for solving problems in the do-
main, and aesthetic criteria (Ruscio et al., 1998).
Domain-relevant skills may be indicated by mea-
sures 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 ex-
plored, the attention given to particular aspects of
the task, and the extent to which a particularpath-
way is followed in pursuit of a solution" (Amabile,
1996: 95). Creativity-relevantprocesses are associ-
ated with a cognitive style favorable to taking new
perspectives on problems, an application of heuris-
tics for the exploration of new cognitive pathways,
and a working style conducive to persistence (Am-
abile, 1983, 1996). Ruscio and coauthors (1998)
described possible behavioral indicators of crea-
tivity-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 partic-
ipation in group problem-solving activities. Appro-
priate work orientation and cognitive style along
with knowledge of heuristics for generating novel
ideas will likely result in an individual asking rel-
evant questions, offering ideas, and building on
others' contributions.
Antecedents of creativity components. Am-
abile'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 rep-
resent the potential for behavior. The five-factor-
model traits-which are conscientiousness, open-
ness 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
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 person-
ality 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 be-
tween the model's traits and the components of
creativity. The five-factor model (1) allows for con-
sistency 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) pro-
vides 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 perfor-
mance criteria with greater utility than specific
abilities (Ree & Carretta, 1998; Ree & Earles, 1996).
Conscientious people are intrinsically motivated
and task-involved, innately resourceful, enterpris-
ing, 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 ante-
cedent of task motivation (as measured by perfor-
mance-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 be-
havioral 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 per-
form better on measures of the knowledge, skills,
and techniques required for a job (Ree & Earles,
1996). People high in general cognitive ability are
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
Taggar 317
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 individ-
ual 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 domain-
relevant skills.
Creativity-relevant processes involve breaking
perceptual sets, breaking cognitive sets, and trying
new problem-solving strategies. A germane person-
ality trait antecedent of creativity-relevant pro-
cesses, as measured by specific behaviors within a
team context, may be openness to experience. Peo-
ple who are open to experience are imaginative,
open to varied perspectives, and tolerant of ambi-
guity (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Openness to ex-
perience 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 imagi-
nation 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 founda-
tion of flexibility and fluency of thinking.
Hypothesis 3. There is a positive association
between openness to experience and creativity-
relevant processes, as measured by group
member behavior.
Group-Level Analyses
Both group and individual outcomes may be af-
fected 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 mem-
bers 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 dif-
ferent ideas, needs, and viewpoints (Bass &Avolio,
1994; Brophy, 1998).
Solution originality and quality should rise when
group members are encouraged to view problems
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). Eval-
uation or feedback that is informative or construc-
tive can be conducive to creativity (Collins & Am-
abile, 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 prob-
lem solving and in response validation (cf. Brass,
1995). Further, involving others may improve so-
cial facilitation and increase the production pres-
sure coming from other group members (Hackman
& Morris, 1975).
Groups should perform best when they contain
creative group members and effective team crea-
tivity-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 in-
spirational motivation, organization, coordination,
and individualized consideration. I expected to
find that the strength of the relationship between
aggregatedindividual creativity and group creativ-
ity improves with effective team creativity-relevant
processes.
Hypothesis 4. Group creativity on open-ended
tasks will be an interactive function of aggre-
gated individual creativity and the specific be-
haviors within a team that measure team cre-
ativity-relevant processes, in such a way that
the relationship between aggregatedindividual
creativity and group creative output will be
stronger when group members collectively ex-
hibit higher amounts of behavior relevant to
team creativity-relevantprocesses.
Individual-Level Antecedents of Team Creativity-
Relevant Processes
Justas standardindividual differences may cause
task motivation, domain-relevant skills, and cre-
ativity-relevant processes, they may also predis-
pose an individual to display effective intragroup
process behavior (team creativity-relevant pro-
cesses at the individual level). Therefore, the last
purpose of this study was to test whether standard
individual differences predict team creativity-rele-
vant processes at the individual level.
Extraverts are sociable, enthusiastic, energetic,
and optimistic. Their social confidence and social
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
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 extra-
verts may contribute to individualized consider-
ation and inspirational motivation behavior.
Hypothesis 5. There is a positive association
between an individual's extraversion and his
or her intragroup process behavior (team cre-
ativity-relevant processes at the individual
level).
Conscientious people tend to be self-motivated
and task-oriented (Costa & McCrae, 1992), charac-
teristics that result in attention to required behav-
iors and goal accomplishment (LePine,Hollenbeck,
Ilgen, &Hedlund, 1997). Conscientiousness may be
important for several components of intragroup
process behavior, including inspiring group mem-
bers, 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 coordina-
tion 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-minded-
ness should enhance the interpersonal skills re-
quired to elicit and appreciate others' contribu-
tions. 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 rep-
resent a "cross-level" process wherein aggregated
team creativity-relevant processes are social influ-
ences affecting individual-level creativity. Amabile
(1996) hypothesized that social influences affect
individual creativity primarily,but not exclusively,
2002
through task motivation. In support of this asser-
tion, Collins and Amabile (1999), in their review of
the literature,proposed that behaviors that support
a sense of competence, without undermining a per-
son'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 self-
concepts to the collective interests of a group and
its mission may increase others' intrinsic motiva-
tion 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 pro-
cesses (additively defined) and the task motivation
of individual group members (Figure 1).
Hypothesis 8. Team creativity-relevant pro-
cesses, as measured by specific behaviorswithin
a team context (aggregated),representa contex-
tual 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 par-
ticipants' average age was 21 (s.d. = 3.55). Each
participant was randomly assigned to one of nine
sections. Within each section, participants self-
selected 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 13-
week period. There were no missing data.
Participantsremained in the same groups to com-
plete 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 pe-
riod, under constraints that required the active
management of time and other resources.
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
Taggar 319
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 gener-
ating options, products, or services or picking evalu-
ation criteriaand applying the criteria;seeking addi-
tional information, by, for instance, conducting
library research or seeking subject matter experts;
critical thinking, as in critical evaluation of newspa-
per articles;building consensus on how best to han-
dle problems;generatingaction plans; implementing
plans; evaluating outcomes and changing decision-
makingand process heuristics in futuresessions; and
generatingreports.Minimumguidance was provided
on how to complete tasks;the basic taskwas unstruc-
turedand often requiredsome improvisation.Groups
were required to complete their tasks within 50-
minute sessions. The Appendix provides examples of
two criteriontasks. The tasks used in most previous
creative problem solving research (for instance, re-
search on brainstorminggroups) minimize-indeed,
may eliminate-the need for the intervening team
creativity-relevantprocesses,such as challengingoth-
ers' 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 cre-
ativity measure. This evaluator (who had recently
graduatedwith a bachelor of commerce undergrad-
uate degree and was hired by the university as an
instructional assistant) was independent of the re-
search 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 ap-
propriatenessof the solution, idea, or product; orig-
inality; elaboration (amount of detail); and, when
appropriate, fluency (total number of relevant re-
sponses). Since this judge did all of the perfor-
mance scoring and was present in the group prob-
lem-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 tech-
nique (CIT;Flanagan,1954) was used to gather spe-
cific examples of (in)effective behaviors displayed
by group members. CIT is a useful initial step in
developing performanceassessment tools (Latham&
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 ineffec-
tive 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 inci-
dents.
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 doc-
toral 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 to-
gether to reclassify the incidents according to the
descriptive dimension labels established by the sort-
ers. 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 behav-
ioral observation scale were developed so that the
major dimensions, the most frequently occurring in-
cidents, and the incidents judged by group members
as the most important were represented. The individ-
ual 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 in-
dividual 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 prop-
erties (Costa & McCrae, 1992; Hogan, 1991) and is
valid and reliable when administered to college stu-
dents (Costa &McCrae, 1992). Cronbach's alphas, cal-
culated from the six facets composing each five-
factor-model trait, ranged from .84 to .72 in my
sample.
General cognitive ability was measured by the
Wonderlic Personnel Test. The test has sound reli-
ability (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 dimen-
sions composed of 46 behavioral items, of which 16
described ineffective group member behaviors. The
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
April
scale was given to each participant to fill out on each
fellow group member. No self-ratings were made. Ta-
ble 1 shows the dimensions and sample items. Each
dimension contained at least two behavioral items.
The behavioral markers are not necessarily exhaus-
tive; rather, they represent critical incidents occur-
ring 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 research-
ers reviewed earlier and with a content validity
test. To support the content validity of the categor-
ical 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 categories-
task motivation, creativity-relevant processes, team
creativity-relevant processes, and "other." Each judge
was provided with a detailed definition of each cat-
egory. 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 do-
main-relevant skills.
In order to claim that a group's team creativity-
relevant 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 Am-
abile'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 rela-
tive to other group members over the 13-week du-
ration 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 combi-
nations 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 interra-
ter agreement statistics (rWG;James, Demaree, &
2002 Taggar 321

TABLE 1
Behavioral Observation Scale Measures of the Components of Creativitya

Creativity Component Dimension Sample Items

Task motivation Team commitment Misses team meetings (R)/Comesto

Creativity-relevantprocesses
Team creativity-relevantprocesses
a Items
comprise the behavioral observation scale administered to participants. "R"denotes reverse-scoring.Domain-relevantskills
were measured by tests of domain knowledge.
team meetings late (R)
Focus on the task at hand Draws team members into off-topic
discussions (R)/Remindsother team
members of the team's goal
Preparation Brings the required material to the team
meetings
Synthesis of the team's ideas Builds on the group's by offering
solutions/Summarizes and organizes
the group's ideas
Goal setting/strategyto achieve team goals Does not participatein setting goals (R)/
Participatesin developing strategies
to achieve team goals
Participation Offersideas/asks relevant questions/
Accepts team roles and tasks as
required
Team citizenship Volunteers to do things that no one else
wants to do
Performancemanagement Assigns tasks and roles to team
members/Sets time deadlines for
achieving tasks
Effective communication Dominates the discussion (R)/Carefully
listens to what others are saying (e.g.,
maintains eye contact, nods, etc.)
Involving others Clarifiesand explains issues when
someone does not understand/Asks
other team members what they think
Providing feedback Criticizes others' contributions
(suggestions, ideas, and behaviour)
without offering alternatives (R)/Says
positive things to team members
regardingtheir performance
Reaction to conflict Leaves a conflict unresolved by moving
on to another topic (R)
Addresses conflict Provides an alternative solution that is
agreeableto other team members
when a conflict occurs
Averts conflict Resorts to personal attacks when a
problem arises (R)

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 be-
tween aggregated individual creativity and group
creativity. Aggregate individual creativity was ob-
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 cre-
ativity measure. There was one report for each ex-
ercise. 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 in-
traclass 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 as-
sumed 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 confir-
matory factor analysis (CFA; Joreskog & S6rbom,
1993) to determine whether the item groupings de-
veloped 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 per-
fect correlation among all latent variables was as-
sessed as a means to evaluate overall discriminabil-
ity. Alternative nested models, which combined
theoretically independent constructs, were then
contrasted with the original model. Model struc-
ture linkages were examined in stage 2 of the anal-
ysis. 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 differ-
ences that were created by failing to randomly as-
sign participants to groups.
I tested Hypotheses 6 to 7 (stating that extraver-
sion, conscientiousness, and agreeableness are pos-
itively associated with intragroup process behav-
ior) 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 indi-
vidual creativity and team creativity-relevant pro-
cesses 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 en-
tered 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
Performance-relevant behaviors. CFA was
used to assess the fit of the 14 behavioral observa-
tion scale dimensions to observed behaviors. This
analysis revealed adequate fit (root-mean-square er-
ror of approximation [RMSEA] = .06, goodness-of-
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
April
fit index [GFI] = .97, comparative fit index [CFI] =
.98, and normed fit index [NFI] = .96; Joreskog &
S6rbom, 1993).1 A single-factor solution yielded a
worse fit to the 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 vari-
ables (Schmit & Ryan, 1993). Therefore, unit-
weighted 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 (in-
dicator variables) for each five-factor-model trait
(see Neuman & Wright, 1999). Cognitive ability and
domain-relevant skills were specified as being mea-
sured 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 esti-
mate the measurement model: six each for consci-
entiousness, 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 pro-
cesses; 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 assess-
ing 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 con-
cern. The logic underlying this approach is that if
1 Factor
loadings and a scree plot of eigenvalues from
an oblique exploratoryfactoranalysis supported the con-
firmatoryresults. This analysis is available from the au-
thor 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.
2002
method variance is largely responsible for covaria-
tion-here, the covariation of the behavioral obser-
vation scale and creativity measures-a factor anal-
ysis should yield a single factor. LISREL8 was used
to conduct confirmatory factor analyses. A 15-
factor model (14 behaviors and individual creativ-
ity) was tested first. Fit indexes suggested that the
15-factor model fitted reasonably well (RMSE =
.07, GFI = .95, CFI = .96, and NFI = .94). In com-
parison, 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 bet-
ter 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, al-
though general cognitive ability correlated signifi-
cantly with individual creativity (r = .26, p < .001),
it achieved a stronger correlation with domain-
relevant 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 con-
text had the strongest correlation with individual
creativity (r = .62, p < .001). Hence, standard in-
dividual differences appear to relate to specific be-
haviors more strongly than to the overall rated cre-
ativity of an individual.
Table 3 reveals that the proposed measurement
model adequately reproduced the correlation ma-
trix (RMSEA = .05, GFI = .94, CFI = .92, and NFI =
.92). In contrast, the single-factor model used to
assess overall discriminability (model 2) poorly ac-
counted 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 chi-
square difference tests showed that constraining
equality between pairs of highly correlated con-
structs 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 observa-
tion scale ratings and assessments of creativity
were based on averaging peer assessments; there-
fore, it was necessary to determine whether peers
agreed in their ratings. Agreement was estimated by
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
Taggar 323
the average interrater agreement statistic and intra-
class correlations. These estimates suggested ade-
quate 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 condi-
tional codes or other signs of specification prob-
lems. However, fit indexes for the hypothesized
model reported in Table 3 were not within accept-
able 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 predict-
ing creativity-relevant processes from team creativ-
ity-relevant processes on the basis of the Legrange
multiplier test. This addition resulted in an im-
proved 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 modifica-
tion 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 sup-
ported. Control variables had insignificant links
with individual creativity and team creativity-rele-
vant processes; the standardized coefficients for
paths from age, gender, and group size to aggre-
gated 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 pro-
cesses. Simultaneous regression analysis sup-
ported 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 creativity-
relevant processes at the individual level, followed
by extraversion (f = .22, p < .001) and agreeable-
ness (3 = .20, p < .001).
 TABLE 2
Zero-Order Correlations among Latent Factors of the Individual-Level Modela

Variable Mean s.d. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Neuroticism 79.10 21.20 (.84)

2. Extraversion 109.40 18.40 -.06 (.79)
3. Openness to experience 110.60 17.30 -.09 .02 (.72)
4. Agreeableness 124.30 15.80 -.15** .08 .06 (.79)
5. Conscientiousness 123.10 17.60 -.22*** -.15** .16*** -.10 (.82)
6. General cognitive ability 21.75 7.60 -.18*** .04 .12* -.17*** -.03 (.89)
7. Task motivationb 8.17 0.70 -.02 -.06 .02 .11* .35*** .07 (.71)
8. Domain-relevant skillsb 46.13 5.66 -.02 .01 .15** .06 .23*** .57*** .12*
9. Creativity-relevant processesb 16.11 1.90 -.09 .14** .34*** .07 .27*** .42*** .32***
10. Individual team creativity-relevant processes 30.33 2.70 -.09 .27*** .10 .26*** .26*** .17*** .31***
11. Individual creativity 12.81 1.96 -.10* .13** .17*** .08 .19*** .26*** .41***
12. Group team creativity-relevant processes 29.87 1.85 -.05 .04 .01 .07 .11* .03 .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 Taggar 325

TABLE3
Fit Indexes for the Measurement and Structural Modelsa
Test 2 (dfl RMSEA GFI CFI NFI A2 b df ACFI

Measurement model
1. Proposed model 2,189.07 (594) .05 .94 .92 .92
2. Single-factor model 7,694.49 (599) .18 .63 .60 .61
5,505.42*** 34 .32
3. Equating task motivation and 2,437.06 (599) .09 .87 .86 .85
domain-relevant skills
247.99** 5 .06
4. Equating team creativity-relevant 2,402.82 (599) .09 .86 .85 .85
processes and creativity-relevant
processes
213.75** 5 .07
5. Equating team creativity-relevant 2,373.13 (599) .09 .87 .86 .85
processes and domain-relevant
skills
184.06** 5 .06
Structural model
6. Hypothesized model 2,719.29 (754) .07 .86 .75 .73
7. Modified model 2,227.34 (753) .05 .94 .94 .93
481.95*** 1 .21
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 creativ-
ity is significantly correlated with both group cre-
ativity and team creativity-relevant processes.
Hypothesis 4 suggests that group creativity is an
interactive function of aggregated individual cre-
ativity 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
creativity (AR2 = .28, p < .001) and team creativity-
relevant processes (AR2 = .07, p < .01) through
hierarchical regression analysis. There was also a
statistically significant interaction between aggre-
gated individual creativity and team creativity-
relevant 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-rele-
vant processes neutralized the effect of a group
high in creativity.3 Similarly, a group low in cre-
ativity neutralized the effects of high levels of team
creativity-relevant processes.

TABLE4 DISCUSSION
Zero-Order Correlations and Descriptive This study examined a multilevel model of group
Statistics for Additively Aggregated Predictor creativity on open-ended tasks that required cre-
and Criterion Measures at the Group Levela ativity. Specific behavioral measures of the compo-
nents of creativity were found to relate in predicted
Variable Mean s.d. 1 2 3

1. Group creativity 14.74 1.42

2. Aggregated individual 2.72 0.28 .56*** 3 The
creativity findings reportedin this work arebased on all 13
3. Team creativity-relevant 29.87 1.93 .41*** .63*** tasks; however, a task-by-task analysis reveals that the
processes findings presented here do generalize over the last 10 of
the 13 tasks. That is, team creativity-relevantprocesses
an = 94. did not play a significant moderating role in the first
*** p < .001, two-tailed tests 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 contri-
bution 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 impor-
tant. 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 envi-
ronment for each other. These behaviors are indi-
cated by eight behavioral observation scale mea-
sures, which yield new insights into exactly how
group members can support each other's creativity.
Very little prior research has attempted to so exten-
sively specify behaviors in intact groups working
on open-ended tasks.
Individual Differences
Through incorporating standard individual dif-
ferences into Amabile's (1983, 1996) componential
model, I hoped that this study would aid in pulling
together relevant personality research and some-
what validate the use of personality as a predictor
of behavior associated with group creativity. This
study goes beyond previous studies in that it uti-
lized 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 taxon-
omy, and also that of general cognitive ability, in a
variety of situations.
By incorporating personality and general cogni-
tive ability into the model, I hoped to show that
their associated behaviors are the most appropriate
criterion for validation. One may obtain a consis-
tently modest relationship between standard indi-
vidual 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 domain-
relevant skills than against overall creativity ratings
because global ratings are impacted by an individ-
ual's task motivation or by the social environment.
Feist's (1999) review of personality research
in the creativity literature indicates that facets of
openness to experience (especially fantasy-
oriented imagination) and conscientiousness (espe-
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
April
cially drive, ambition, perseverance, and need for
achievement) have previously been related to cre-
ative outcomes in scientific domains. The findings
of the present study correspond with those re-
ported by Feist (1999)-openness to experience
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 de-
signed to assess trait-intrinsic and -extrinsic moti-
vation.
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 creativity-
relevant processes in the present findings. Never-
theless, neuroticism may relate more strongly to
creativity in domains different from the one stud-
ied here. Feist (1999) proposed that neuroticism is
related to creativity in artistic endeavours where an
"introspective journey" is involved. However, cre-
ativity that is more "externally focused" (for in-
stance, 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 essen-
tially the same or the view that creativity and in-
telligence 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, unan-
swered questions about the specific behaviors
within a team context that are necessary for cre-
ative performance and effective group outcomes.
The behavioral observation scale reports indicated
various performance-relevant behavioral aspects of
creativity. Knowledge of creative behavior can con-
tribute to the design of interventions that improve
creativity (for instance, by outlining the possible
2002
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 motiva-
tion correspond with those of Ruscio et al. and
provide evidence of additional behavioral manifes-
tations of this component of creativity.
Creativity-relevant processes primarily deter-
mine response novelty. Creativity-relevant pro-
cesses involve goal setting, preparation, participa-
tion in group problem solving, and synthesis of
ideas. These behaviors correspond to the goal set-
ting and response-to-challenge types of behaviors
suggested by Ruscio and colleagues (1998) as mea-
sures of creativity-relevantprocesses. They also fit
well with Amabile's (1996) descriptions of work-
style 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 cre-
ativity is enhanced through effective communica-
tion, possibly because it reduces the chances of
process losses resulting from errors in task perfor-
mance strategies. Performance management, pro-
viding feedback, and effective conflict management
possibly improve coordination, resulting in im-
proved 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 creativity-
relevant 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 pro-
cess behavior, or are too large, team creativity-
relevant 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.
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
Taggar 327
Future Research and Limitations
Future research. Modification indexes sug-
gested a link between team creativity-relevant
processes and creativity-relevant processes. By
encouraging consideration and recognition of all
group members' viewpoints and ideas, individu-
alized 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 behav-
ior. Although further research is required, these
preliminary findings support the addition of
team creativity-relevant processes to the compo-
nential model.
In this preliminary study, simple linear relation-
ships between resources for creativity were mod-
eled. 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 interac-
tions may also occur between components. Fur-
thermore, 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 approxi-
mate genuine work environments while benefit-
ing 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 man-
agement, 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 auton-
omous 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 cre-
ativity was based on one item that directly men-
tioned 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
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 refer-
ents. 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 counter-
balance items within the tool; they might, for in-
stance, adjust the positioning of the item mention-
ing creativity so its impact on subsequent item
responses can be determined.
Another limitation pertains to potentially influ-
ential factors not included in our analysis. Subjects
were not randomly assigned to groups, so there was
a concern that their choices about group member-
ship were based on the attributes of others (on, for
instance, how much they liked other group mem-
bers). In addition to statistically controlling for age,
gender, and group size in this study, I conducted an
additional group-level analysis that revealed no ev-
idence of restriction of range or significant skew-
ness or kurtosis on any of the variables in this
study; for instance, there was no evidence that ex-
traverts 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 limi-
tations 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 behav-
iors that strongly predict observable creativity.
Conti and coauthors (1996) expanded on the impor-
tance and relevance of this information. The evi-
dence presented in this article is the first step to
designing behavioral interventions like behavior-
ally 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 in-
trinsic and extrinsic motivation orientations. Jour-
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
April
nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66: 950-
967.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. 1988. Structural equa-
tion modeling in practice: A review and recom-
mended 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. Jour-
nal of Applied Psychology, 78: 111-118.
Barron, F., & Harrington, D. M. 1981. Creativity, intelli-
gence, and personality. In M. R. Rosenzweig & L. W.
Porter (Eds.), Annual review of psychology: 439-
476. 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 organiza-
tional effectiveness through transformational
leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Brass, D. J. 1995. Creativity: It's all in your social net-
work. 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 en-
hancing 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 pro-
posed 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 cre-
ativity: 297-312. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Conti, R., Coon, H., & Amabile, T. M. 1996. Evidence to
support the componential model of creativity: Sec-
ondary analysis of three studies. Creativity Re-
search Journal, 9: 385-389.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. 1992. NEO PI-R profes-
sional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assess-
ment Resources.
Farr, J. L. 1990. Facilitating individual role innovation. In
M. A. West & J. L. Farr (Eds.), Innovation and cre-
ativity 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.), Hand-
book of creativity: 272-296. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
2002
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 Manage-
ment 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 effec-
tiveness: 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 Per-
sonnel Test as a brief intelligence measure in a psy-
chiatric sample. Psychological Assessment, 2: 198-
201.
Hocevar, D., & Bachelor, P. 1989. A taxonomy and cri-
tique of measurements used in the study of creativ-
ity. In J. A. Glover, R. R. Ronning, & C. R. Reynolds
(Eds.), Handbook of creativity: 53-76. New York:
Plenum Press.
Hogan, R. T. 1991. Personality and personality measure-
ment. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Hand-
book of industrial and organizational psychology
(2nd ed.), vol. 2: 873-919. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychologists Press.
Hunter, J. E. 1986. Cognitive ability, cognitive aptitudes,
job knowledge and job performance. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 29: 340-362.
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 Inter-
national.
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 produc-
tivity through performance appraisal. Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesley.
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
Taggar 329
LePine, J. A., Hollenbeck, J. R., Ilgen, D. R., & Hedlund, J.
1997. Effects of individual differences on the perfor-
mance 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 evalua-
tions of salespersons' performance. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50: 123-
150.
McCormick, E. J., Mecham, R. C., & Jeanneret, P. R. 1989.
Technical manual for-the position analysis ques-
tionnaire. 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 Ap-
plied Psychology, 84: 376-389.
Prussia, G. E., Kinicki, A. J., & Bracker, J. S. 1993. Psy-
chological and behavioral consequences of job loss:
A covariance structural analysis using Weiner's
(1985) attribution model. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 78: 382-395.
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.
Ruscio, J., Whitney, D. M., & Amabile, T. M. 1998. The
fishbowl of creativity. Creativity Research Journal,
11: 243-263.
Schmidt, F. L., Hunter, J. E., & Pearlman, K. 1981. Task
differences and the validity of aptitude tests in se-
lection: A red herring. Journal of Applied Psychol-
ogy, 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.
Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. 1979. Intraclass correlations:
Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological
Bulletin, 86: 420-428.
330 Academy of ManagementJournal
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. 1999. The concept of
creativity: Prospects and paradigms. In R. J. Stern-
berg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity: 3-16. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. 1996. Using multivar-
iate 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
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 exer-
cise (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.
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
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 per-
formance 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.
AAA
Simon Taggar (staggar@morgan.ucs.mun.ca) is an assis-
tant professor of human resources management at York
University. He received his Ph.D. from McMaster Univer-
sity. His research interests include team composition,
team creativity, team leadership, and collective efficacy.
M0