Mapping Core Processes of Creativity to Teams The

Mapping Core Processes of Creativity to Teams: The Development of a Behavioral Coding Scheme Salvatore Leone 1

Overview Creativity Coding and Core Processes Scheme Development Hypotheses Method/Analyses 2

Creativity Production or products Novelty of a novel and useful ideas, solutions, (Mumford & Gustafson, 1988) Unusualness (Jackson & Messick, 1965) Originality (Runco, 2007) Quality Appropriateness (Jackson & Messick, 1965) Effectiveness (Cropley, 2001) Usefulness (Mumford & Gustafson, 1988) 3

Core Processes Examining various cognitive models of creativity, common processes emerge (Basadur, 1994; Guilford, 1967; Mumford et al. 1991; Simon & Newell, 1971) Problem Construction (Mumford, Reiter-Palmon, & Redmond, 1994; Reiter-Palmon, Mumford, O’Connor Boes, et al. , 1997) Idea Generation Idea Evaluation (Brown, Tumeo, Larey, & Paulus, 1998; Osborn, 1953; Paulus & Yang, 2000) (Lonergan, Scott, & Mumford, 2004; Runco & Chand, 1995; Runco & Smith, 1992) 4

Core Processes Examining various cognitive models of creativity, common processes emerge (Basadur, 1994; Guilford, 1967; Mumford et al. 1991; Simon & Newell, 1971) Problem Construction (Mumford, Reiter-Palmon, & Redmond, 1994; Reiter-Palmon, Mumford, O’Connor Boes, et al. , 1997) Idea Generation Idea Evaluation (Brown, Tumeo, Larey, & Paulus, 1998; Osborn, 1953; Paulus & Yang, 2000) (Lonergan, Scott, & Mumford, 2004; Runco & Chand, 1995; Runco & Smith, 1992) 5

Core Processes Examining various cognitive models of creativity, common processes emerge (Basadur, 1994; Guilford, 1967; Mumford et al. 1991; Simon & Newell, 1971) Problem Construction (Mumford, Reiter-Palmon, & Redmond, 1994; Reiter-Palmon, Mumford, O’Connor Boes, et al. , 1997) Idea Generation Idea Evaluation (Brown, Tumeo, Larey, & Paulus, 1998; Osborn, 1953; Paulus & Yang, 2000) (Lonergan, Scott, & Mumford, 2004; Runco & Chand, 1995; Runco & Smith, 1992) 6

Core Processes Examining various cognitive models of creativity, common processes emerge (Basadur, 1994; Guilford, 1967; Mumford et al. 1991; Simon & Newell, 1971) Problem Construction (Mumford, Reiter-Palmon, & Redmond, 1994; Reiter-Palmon, Mumford, O’Connor Boes, et al. , 1997) Idea Generation Idea Evaluation (Brown, Tumeo, Larey, & Paulus, 1998; Osborn, 1953; Paulus & Yang, 2000) (Lonergan, Scott, & Mumford, 2004; Runco & Chand, 1995; Runco & Smith, 1992) 7

Behaviors at Individual and Team Level? 8

Purpose Review literature to uncover behaviors reflecting processes in teams. Develop behavioral coding scheme Examine sequence of cognitive processes at team-level. Determine whether specific sequences are associated with greater creativity. 9

Problem Construction Individual-level Automatic, involuntary Facilitated PC associated with greater creative 1994) outcomes (Mumford, Reiter-Palmon, & Redmond, (Okuda, Runco, & Berger, 1991; Reiter-Palmon, Mumford, O’Connor Boes, et al. , 1997; Reiter-Palmon, Mumford, & Threlfall, 1998) Problem Restatements Team-level, (Redmond, Mumford, & Teach, 1993) some challenges Shared representations Shared mental models – task Todorova, & Cronin, 2008) (Cronin & Weingart, 2005; 2007; Weingart, (Cannon-Bowers, Salas, & Converse, 1993; Klimoski, & Mohammed, 1994) 10

Problem Construction - Behaviors 1) Framing constraints of the problem 2) Sharing past experiences 3) Summaries of the problem 4) Relevant disagreements/discussions on framing 11

Idea Generation More team-level research exists Individuals may outperform teams during brainstorming Production Blocking, evaluation apprehension, free-riding (Collaros & Anderson, 1969; Lamm & Trommsdorff, 1973; Latane, Williams, & Harkins, 1979) Some good news for teams Build-up Idea (Paulus & Young, 2000) sharing Hybrid (Brown, Tumeo, Larey, & Paulus, 1998) structures (Girotra, Terwiesch, & Ulrich, 2010) 12

Idea Generation - Behaviors 1) Suggestion of solution/idea 2) Changes or modifications to solutions/ideas 13

Idea Evaluation Individual-level Forecasting (Mumford, Lonergan, & Scott, 2002) Inaccuracy 2007) during evaluation Performance Innovation Reducing (Licuana, Dailey, & Mumford, can be improved: standards (Lonergan, Scott, & Mumford, 2004) the number of ideas (Mumford et al. , 2001) Team-level Less research, but similar findings Some differences between group types Nijstad, & Stroebe, 2006) (Rietzschel, 14

Idea Evaluation - Behaviors 1) Pros and cons list for ideas 2) Forecasting regarding implementation 3) Discussion on how well the idea solves the problem 4) Discussion on evaluation criteria 15

General Behaviors 1) Turn-taking 2) Frequency of interruptions 3) Frequency of verbal utterances relevant to problem solving (i. e. , participation) 16

Complete Coding Scheme Problem Construction Idea Generation Idea Evaluation General 1) Framing the problem through discussion 1) Suggestion of solutions/ideas 1) Discussions on pros and cons of ideas 1) Turn-taking 2) Sharing past experiences relevant to the current problem 2) Discussions about modifications to solutions/ideas 2) Forecasting towards implementation concerns 2) Frequency of interruptions 3) Summarizing the problem 3) Debate/disagreement 3) Frequency of relevant on which alternative to verbal utterances select 4) Discussions and disagreements about the framing of problems 4) Discussion on evaluation criteria 17

Method UNO students in 20 teams of 3, N = 60 Participants asked to solve an ambiguous problem Video-recorded team interactions and problem solutions 18

Team Video Coding Procedure 1) Refinement of coding scheme 2) Two trained raters code a random subsample 3) inter-rater reliability must attain 0. 70. Full sample coding 19

Analyses 1) Social Sequence analysis using Inter. ACT software 2) Process scale method Descriptive Analysis 20

Analyses 1) Social Sequence analysis using Inter. ACT software 2) Process scale method Descriptive Analysis 21

Results Class Count (F) Duration in Seconds (T) Appearance Rate (F/K) Duration Rate (T/C) PC 141 1114. 29 53. 41% 52. 56% IG 74 703. 07 28. 03% 33. 16% IE 49 302. 87 18. 56% 14. 28% 22

Results – PC Codes Code Count (f) Overall Code Rate (f Within Class / K) (f / k) Code Duration in seconds (t) Code Duration Within Class Duration (t / C) Code Duration Within Total Duration (t / c) PC Framing any aspect of the problem through discussion 59 22. 35% 41. 84% 469. 64 22. 15% 42. 15% PC Summarizing the problem 55 20. 83% 39. 01% 410. 76 19. 37% 36. 86% PC Sharing past experiences relevant to the current problem 9 3. 41% 6. 38% 58. 16 2. 74% 5. 22% PC Discussions and disagreements about the framing of problems 18 6. 82% 12. 77% 175. 74 8. 29% 15. 77% 23

Results – IG Codes Code Count (f) Overall Code Rate (f / K) Code Rate Within Class (f / k) Code Duration in Within Total Within Class seconds (t) Duration (t / c) (t / C) IG Suggestion of solutions/ideas 62 23. 48% 83. 78% 570. 00 26. 88% 81. 07% IG Discussions about modifications to solutions/ideas 12 4. 55% 16. 22% 133. 07 6. 28% 18. 93% 24

Results – IE Codes Code Count (f) Overall Code Rate (f Within Class / K) (f / k) Code Duration in seconds (t) Code Duration Within Class Duration (t / C) Code Duration Within Total Duration (t / c) IE Discussions on pros and cons of ideas 35 13. 26% 71. 43% 204. 44 9. 64% 67. 50% IE Forecasting towards implementation concerns 3 1. 14% 6. 12% 9. 04 0. 43% 2. 99% IE Debate/disagreement on which alternative to select 9 3. 41% 18. 37% 59. 62 2. 81% 19. 69% IE Discussion on evaluation criteria 2 0. 76% 4. 08% 29. 76 25 1. 40% 9. 83%

Implications/Application No obvious cognitive pattern, more research is necessary PC may become more important at the team-level, teams may struggle to become aligned Potential team interventions 26

Limitations Task redesign Restricted response variance Sample-bias Further coding scheme refinement 27

Thank You! Questions? 28