Improving the creativity of organizational work groups

Academy of Management Executive

Volumn 17, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 96-109

  Thompson, Leigh ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0037309967     PISSN: 10795545     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5465/AME.2003.9474814     Document Type: Review

References (87)

1. See Frank, R. H., & Cook, P. J. 1996. The winner-take-all society: Why the few at the top get so much more than the rest of us (Reprint edition). New York: Penguin.
2. See Brandenburger, A. M., & Nalebuff, B. J. 1996. Co-opetition. New York: Doubleday.
3. See Guilford, J. P. 1950. Creativity. American Psychologist, 5: 444-454.
4. See Finke, R. A. 1995. Creative realism. In S. M. Smith, T. B. Ward, & R. A. Finke (Eds.), The creative cognition approach: 303-326. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
5. Contrary to popular intuition, Edison's idea was not out of the blue. His lighting system was an extension of current lighting systems. For a description of how he developed the ideas, see Basalla, G. 1988. The evolution of technology. New York: Cambridge University Press; also Weisberg, R. W. 1997. Case studies of creative thinking. In S. M. Smith, T. B. Ward, & R. A. Finke (Eds.), The creative cognition approach: 53-72. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
6. Contrary to popular intuition, Edison's idea was not out of the blue. His lighting system was an extension of current lighting systems. For a description of how he developed the ideas, see Basalla, G. 1988. The evolution of technology. New York: Cambridge University Press; also Weisberg, R. W. 1997. Case studies of creative thinking. In S. M. Smith, T. B. Ward, & R. A. Finke (Eds.), The creative cognition approach: 53-72. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
7. See Guilford, J. P. 1959. Personality. New York: McGraw-Hill; also Guilford, J. P., 1967. The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill.
8. See Guilford, J. P. 1959. Personality. New York: McGraw-Hill; also Guilford, J. P., 1967. The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill.
9. I b i d.
10. One of the most often overlooked contributions of Osborn's pioneering work on brainstorming is his intuition about the positive relationship between quantity and quality. Osborn correctly noted that demands for "great ideas" will often stifle the creative process. However, it is easy for people to strive for quantity. The probability of having one truly excellent idea can be directly predicted from the number of ideas generated. Moreover, the likelihood of building and integrating ideas can be facilitated with quantity as well.
11. This example was suggested by Professor Terri Kurtzberg, whose dissertation focuses on creativity; she has extensively used the cardboard box task.
12. See Verberne, T. Creative fitness. Training and Development, 1 August 1997, 68-71.
13. See Camm, M. Learn how to clap with one hand. Sydney Morning Herald (Sydney), 24 March 1994, 15.
14. See Osborn, A. F. 1957. Applied imagination (rev. ed.). New York: Scribner.
15. See Gendron, G. FYI: Growing by design. Inc., May 1998, 9.
16. Meta-analytic reviews of brainstorming provide compelling data on how individuals outperform groups. A strong example is Mullen, B., Johnson, C., & Salas, E. 1991. Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: A meta-analytic integration. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 12(1): 3-23. Other papers that address this apparent enigma include Diehl, M., & Stroebe, W. 1987. Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward a solution of a riddle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(3): 497-509; also Paulus, P. B., & Dzindolet, M. T. 1993. Social influence processes in group brainstorming. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(4): 575-586; Jablin, F. M. 1981. Cultivating imagination: Factors that enhance and inhibit creativity in brainstorming groups. Human Communication Research, 7(3): 245-258; Paulus, P. B., Larey, T. S., & Ortega, A. H. 1995. Performance and perceptions of brainstormers in an organ-izational setting. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 17(1-2): 249-265; and Taylor, D. W., Berry, P. C., & Block, C. H. 1958. Does group participation when using brainstorming facilitate or inhibit creative thinking? Administrative Science Quarterly, 3: 23-47.
17. Meta-analytic reviews of brainstorming provide compelling data on how individuals outperform groups. A strong example is Mullen, B., Johnson, C., & Salas, E. 1991. Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: A meta-analytic integration. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 12(1): 3-23. Other papers that address this apparent enigma include Diehl, M., & Stroebe, W. 1987. Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward a solution of a riddle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(3): 497-509; also Paulus, P. B., & Dzindolet, M. T. 1993. Social influence processes in group brainstorming. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(4): 575-586; Jablin, F. M. 1981. Cultivating imagination: Factors that enhance and inhibit creativity in brainstorming groups. Human Communication Research, 7(3): 245-258; Paulus, P. B., Larey, T. S., & Ortega, A. H. 1995. Performance and perceptions of brainstormers in an organ-izational setting. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 17(1-2): 249-265; and Taylor, D. W., Berry, P. C., & Block, C. H. 1958. Does group participation when using brainstorming facilitate or inhibit creative thinking? Administrative Science Quarterly, 3: 23-47.
18. Meta-analytic reviews of brainstorming provide compelling data on how individuals outperform groups. A strong example is Mullen, B., Johnson, C., & Salas, E. 1991. Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: A meta-analytic integration. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 12(1): 3-23. Other papers that address this apparent enigma include Diehl, M., & Stroebe, W. 1987. Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward a solution of a riddle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(3): 497-509; also Paulus, P. B., & Dzindolet, M. T. 1993. Social influence processes in group brainstorming. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(4): 575-586; Jablin, F. M. 1981. Cultivating imagination: Factors that enhance and inhibit creativity in brainstorming groups. Human Communication Research, 7(3): 245-258; Paulus, P. B., Larey, T. S., & Ortega, A. H. 1995. Performance and perceptions of brainstormers in an organ-izational setting. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 17(1-2): 249-265; and Taylor, D. W., Berry, P. C., & Block, C. H. 1958. Does group participation when using brainstorming facilitate or inhibit creative thinking? Administrative Science Quarterly, 3: 23-47.
19. Meta-analytic reviews of brainstorming provide compelling data on how individuals outperform groups. A strong example is Mullen, B., Johnson, C., & Salas, E. 1991. Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: A meta-analytic integration. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 12(1): 3-23. Other papers that address this apparent enigma include Diehl, M., & Stroebe, W. 1987. Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward a solution of a riddle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(3): 497-509; also Paulus, P. B., & Dzindolet, M. T. 1993. Social influence processes in group brainstorming. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(4): 575-586; Jablin, F. M. 1981. Cultivating imagination: Factors that enhance and inhibit creativity in brainstorming groups. Human Communication Research, 7(3): 245-258; Paulus, P. B., Larey, T. S., & Ortega, A. H. 1995. Performance and perceptions of brainstormers in an organ-izational setting. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 17(1-2): 249-265; and Taylor, D. W., Berry, P. C., & Block, C. H. 1958. Does group participation when using brainstorming facilitate or inhibit creative thinking? Administrative Science Quarterly, 3: 23-47.
20. Meta-analytic reviews of brainstorming provide compelling data on how individuals outperform groups. A strong example is Mullen, B., Johnson, C., & Salas, E. 1991. Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: A meta-analytic integration. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 12(1): 3-23. Other papers that address this apparent enigma include Diehl, M., & Stroebe, W. 1987. Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward a solution of a riddle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(3): 497-509; also Paulus, P. B., & Dzindolet, M. T. 1993. Social influence processes in group brainstorming. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(4): 575-586; Jablin, F. M. 1981. Cultivating imagination: Factors that enhance and inhibit creativity in brainstorming groups. Human Communication Research, 7(3): 245-258; Paulus, P. B., Larey, T. S., & Ortega, A. H. 1995. Performance and perceptions of brainstormers in an organ-izational setting. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 17(1-2): 249-265; and Taylor, D. W., Berry, P. C., & Block, C. H. 1958. Does group participation when using brainstorming facilitate or inhibit creative thinking? Administrative Science Quarterly, 3: 23-47.
21. Meta-analytic reviews of brainstorming provide compelling data on how individuals outperform groups. A strong example is Mullen, B., Johnson, C., & Salas, E. 1991. Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: A meta-analytic integration. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 12(1): 3-23. Other papers that address this apparent enigma include Diehl, M., & Stroebe, W. 1987. Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward a solution of a riddle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(3): 497-509; also Paulus, P. B., & Dzindolet, M. T. 1993. Social influence processes in group brainstorming. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(4): 575-586; Jablin, F. M. 1981. Cultivating imagination: Factors that enhance and inhibit creativity in brainstorming groups. Human Communication Research, 7(3): 245-258; Paulus, P. B., Larey, T. S., & Ortega, A. H. 1995. Performance and perceptions of brainstormers in an organ-izational setting. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 17(1-2): 249-265; and Taylor, D. W., Berry, P. C., & Block, C. H. 1958. Does group participation when using brainstorming facilitate or inhibit creative thinking? Administrative Science Quarterly, 3: 23-47.
22. See Mullen, Johnson, & Salas, op. cit., 18.
23. Several scholars who have worked directly with teams in companies report that most companies claim to use brainstorming. However, the question of whether it is used effectively is a matter of debate. For examples of how companies use brainstorming, see Hackman, J. R. 1990. Work teams in organizations: An oriented framework. In J. Hackman (Ed.), Groups that work and those that don't. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; also Button, R. I., & Hargadon, A. 1996. Brainstorming groups in context: Effectiveness in a product design firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(4): 685-718; Swezey, R. W., & Salas, E. (Eds.) 1992. Teams: Their training and performance. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corp.; and Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin, R. W. 1993. Toward a theory of organizational creativity, Academy of Management Review, 18(2): 293-321.
24. Several scholars who have worked directly with teams in companies report that most companies claim to use brainstorming. However, the question of whether it is used effectively is a matter of debate. For examples of how companies use brainstorming, see Hackman, J. R. 1990. Work teams in organizations: An oriented framework. In J. Hackman (Ed.), Groups that work and those that don't. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; also Button, R. I., & Hargadon, A. 1996. Brainstorming groups in context: Effectiveness in a product design firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(4): 685-718; Swezey, R. W., & Salas, E. (Eds.) 1992. Teams: Their training and performance. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corp.; and Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin, R. W. 1993. Toward a theory of organizational creativity, Academy of Management Review, 18(2): 293-321.
25. Several scholars who have worked directly with teams in companies report that most companies claim to use brainstorming. However, the question of whether it is used effectively is a matter of debate. For examples of how companies use brainstorming, see Hackman, J. R. 1990. Work teams in organizations: An oriented framework. In J. Hackman (Ed.), Groups that work and those that don't. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; also Button, R. I., & Hargadon, A. 1996. Brainstorming groups in context: Effectiveness in a product design firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(4): 685-718; Swezey, R. W., & Salas, E. (Eds.) 1992. Teams: Their training and performance. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corp.; and Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin, R. W. 1993. Toward a theory of organizational creativity, Academy of Management Review, 18(2): 293-321.
26. Several scholars who have worked directly with teams in companies report that most companies claim to use brainstorming. However, the question of whether it is used effectively is a matter of debate. For examples of how companies use brainstorming, see Hackman, J. R. 1990. Work teams in organizations: An oriented framework. In J. Hackman (Ed.), Groups that work and those that don't. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; also Button, R. I., & Hargadon, A. 1996. Brainstorming groups in context: Effectiveness in a product design firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(4): 685-718; Swezey, R. W., & Salas, E. (Eds.) 1992. Teams: Their training and performance. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corp.; and Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin, R. W. 1993. Toward a theory of organizational creativity, Academy of Management Review, 18(2): 293-321.
27. A large research literature has examined several factors that might mitigate the powerful social loafing effect. For examples of these methods, see Bouchard, T. J. 1972. Training, motivation, and personality as determinants of the effectiveness of brainstorming groups and individuals. Journal of Applied Psychology, 56(4): 324-331; also Diehl & Stroebe, op. cit.; Harkins, S. G., & Petty, R. E. 1982. Effects of task difficulty and task uniqueness on social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(6): 1214-1229; and Shepperd, J. A. 1993. Productivity loss in performance groups: A motivation analysis, Psychological Bulletin, 113(1): 67-81.
28. A large research literature has examined several factors that might mitigate the powerful social loafing effect. For examples of these methods, see Bouchard, T. J. 1972. Training, motivation, and personality as determinants of the effectiveness of brainstorming groups and individuals. Journal of Applied Psychology, 56(4): 324-331; also Diehl & Stroebe, op. cit.; Harkins, S. G., & Petty, R. E. 1982. Effects of task difficulty and task uniqueness on social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(6): 1214-1229; and Shepperd, J. A. 1993. Productivity loss in performance groups: A motivation analysis, Psychological Bulletin, 113(1): 67-81.
29. A large research literature has examined several factors that might mitigate the powerful social loafing effect. For examples of these methods, see Bouchard, T. J. 1972. Training, motivation, and personality as determinants of the effectiveness of brainstorming groups and individuals. Journal of Applied Psychology, 56(4): 324-331; also Diehl & Stroebe, op. cit.; Harkins, S. G., & Petty, R. E. 1982. Effects of task difficulty and task uniqueness on social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(6): 1214-1229; and Shepperd, J. A. 1993. Productivity loss in performance groups: A motivation analysis, Psychological Bulletin, 113(1): 67-81.
30. A large research literature has examined several factors that might mitigate the powerful social loafing effect. For examples of these methods, see Bouchard, T. J. 1972. Training, motivation, and personality as determinants of the effectiveness of brainstorming groups and individuals. Journal of Applied Psychology, 56(4): 324-331; also Diehl & Stroebe, op. cit.; Harkins, S. G., & Petty, R. E. 1982. Effects of task difficulty and task uniqueness on social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(6): 1214-1229; and Shepperd, J. A. 1993. Productivity loss in performance groups: A motivation analysis, Psychological Bulletin, 113(1): 67-81.
31. See Csikszentmihaly, M. 1997. Finding flow: The psychology of engagement with everyday life. New York: Basicbooks.
32. See Tajfel's work on social identity theory; specifically: Tajfel, H. 1978. Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup regions. New York: Academic Press.
33. See Camacho, L. M., & Paulus, P. B. 1995. The role of social anxiousness in group brainstorming. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(6): 1071-1080.
34. See Higgins, J. 1994. Creating creativity. Training and Development, 48(11): 11-15.
35. People pay attention to status cues in a group and, as a general principle, lower-status members conform to what they perceive to be the views of high-status members. For examinations of the conformity effect, see Collaros, P. A., & Anderson, L. R. 1969. Effect of perceived expertness upon creativity of members of brainstorming groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53(2, Pt. 1): 159-163; also Diehl & Stroebe, op. cit.; and Harari, O., & Graham, W. K. 1975. Tasks and task consequences as factors in individual and group brainstorming. Journal of Social Psychology, 95(1): 61-65.
36. People pay attention to status cues in a group and, as a general principle, lower-status members conform to what they perceive to be the views of high-status members. For examinations of the conformity effect, see Collaros, P. A., & Anderson, L. R. 1969. Effect of perceived expertness upon creativity of members of brainstorming groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53(2, Pt. 1): 159-163; also Diehl & Stroebe, op. cit.; and Harari, O., & Graham, W. K. 1975. Tasks and task consequences as factors in individual and group brainstorming. Journal of Social Psychology, 95(1): 61-65.
37. People pay attention to status cues in a group and, as a general principle, lower-status members conform to what they perceive to be the views of high-status members. For examinations of the conformity effect, see Collaros, P. A., & Anderson, L. R. 1969. Effect of perceived expertness upon creativity of members of brainstorming groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53(2, Pt. 1): 159-163; also Diehl & Stroebe, op. cit.; and Harari, O., & Graham, W. K. 1975. Tasks and task consequences as factors in individual and group brainstorming. Journal of Social Psychology, 95(1): 61-65.
38. Production blocking refers to both the difficulty in speaking and processing information simultaneously as well as the difficulty in several people competing for the floor. Diehl & Stroebe, op. cit., offer a direct examination of production blocking; see also Diehl, M., & Stroebe, W. 1991. Productivity loss in idea-generating groups: Tracking down the blocking effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(3): 392-403; and Stroebe, W., & Diehl, M. 1994. Why are groups less effective than their members? On productivity losses in idea generating groups. European Review of Social Psychology, 5: 271-301.
39. Production blocking refers to both the difficulty in speaking and processing information simultaneously as well as the difficulty in several people competing for the floor. Diehl & Stroebe, op. cit., offer a direct examination of production blocking; see also Diehl, M., & Stroebe, W. 1991. Productivity loss in idea-generating groups: Tracking down the blocking effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(3): 392-403; and Stroebe, W., & Diehl, M. 1994. Why are groups less effective than their members? On productivity losses in idea generating groups. European Review of Social Psychology, 5: 271-301.
40. Production blocking refers to both the difficulty in speaking and processing information simultaneously as well as the difficulty in several people competing for the floor. Diehl & Stroebe, op. cit., offer a direct examination of production blocking; see also Diehl, M., & Stroebe, W. 1991. Productivity loss in idea-generating groups: Tracking down the blocking effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(3): 392-403; and Stroebe, W., & Diehl, M. 1994. Why are groups less effective than their members? On productivity losses in idea generating groups. European Review of Social Psychology, 5: 271-301.
41. This observation was shared by a high-level manager in the company.
42. See Camacho & Paulus, op. cit.; and Paulus & Dzindolet, op. cit.
43. See Shepperd, op. cit.
44. See Camacho & Paulus, op. cit.; Paulus & Dzindolet, op. cit.
45. See Stroebe, W., Diehl, M., & Abakoumkin, G. 1992. The illusion of group effectivity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18(5): 643-650.
46. See Jackson, S. E. 1992. Team composition in organizational settings: Issues in managing an increasingly diverse work force. In S. Worchel, W. Wood, & J. A. Simpson (Eds.), Group process and productivity: 138-173. Newbury Park: Sage.
47. See Dunbar, K. 1997. How scientists think: Online creativity and conceptual change in science. In T. B. Ward, S. M. Smith, and J. Vaid (Eds.), Creative thought: An investigation of conceptual structures and processes: 461-493. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
48. See Gentner, D., Brem, S., Ferguson, R., & Wolff, P. 1997. Analogy and creativity in the works of Johannes Kepler. In T. B. Ward & S. M. Smith (Eds.), Creative thought: An investigation of conceptual structures and processes: 403-459. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
49. This example, first experimentally used by Gick and Holyoak in 1980, points to the vexing problem concerning the general inability of people to transfer knowledge learned in one domain to another.
50. See Thompson, L., Loewenstein, J., & Gentner, D. 2000. Avoiding missed opportunities in managerial life: Analogical training more powerful than individual case training. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1): 60-75. This paper provides data from managers indicating that analogical reasoning is more powerful than the simple case method. Another article by Loewenstein and Thompson provides our view on how managers should be taught; see Loewenstein, J., & Thompson, L. 2000. The challenge of learning. Negotiation Journal October: 399-408.
51. See Thompson, L., Loewenstein, J., & Gentner, D. 2000. Avoiding missed opportunities in managerial life: Analogical training more powerful than individual case training. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1): 60-75. This paper provides data from managers indicating that analogical reasoning is more powerful than the simple case method. Another article by Loewenstein and Thompson provides our view on how managers should be taught; see Loewenstein, J., & Thompson, L. 2000. The challenge of learning. Negotiation Journal October: 399-408.
52. See Cox, A. Where there's muck there's brass: Can a few days on the farm really improve your performance at work? The Guardian (London), 2 August 2000.
53. See Jaffe, A. Chamber gleans words of wisdom from novel's plot. The Sunday Patriot News (Harrisburg, PA), November 2000, D01.
54. See Higgins, op. cit.
55. I b i d.
56. See The Economic Times. The human touch. 7 November 2000.
57. See Radcliff, D. Marriott: Want to see the benefits of IT and business alignment? Computer World, 10 April 2000, 58.
58. See Lee, T. Get those creative juices flowing. Business Plus section. St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 7 January 2002, 8B.
59. Brainwriting has proved to be an effective technique in enhancing the performance of real groups. For direct, empirical examinations, see Geschka, H., Schaude, G. R., & Schlicksupp, H. 1973. Modern techniques for solving problems. Chemical Engineering, August: 91-97; also Paulus, P. B., & Yang, H. 2000. Idea generation in groups: A basis for creativity in organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1): 76-87.
60. Brainwriting has proved to be an effective technique in enhancing the performance of real groups. For direct, empirical examinations, see Geschka, H., Schaude, G. R., & Schlicksupp, H. 1973. Modern techniques for solving problems. Chemical Engineering, August: 91-97; also Paulus, P. B., & Yang, H. 2000. Idea generation in groups: A basis for creativity in organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1): 76-87.
61. See Paulus & Yang, op. cit.
62. See Horn, E. M. 1993. The influence of modality order and break period on a brainstorming task. Honors thesis. University of Texas at Arlington.
63. See Van de Ven, A. H., & Delbecq, A. L. 1974. The effectiveness of nominal, Delphi, and interacting group decision making processes. Academy of Management Journal, 17(4): 605-621.
64. For a clear demonstration of how NGT is more effective than traditional brainstorming, see Gustafson, D. H., Shukla, R., Delbecq, A., & Walster, W. 1973. A comparative study in subjective likelihood estimates made by individuals, interacting groups, Delphi groups, and nominal groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 9(2): 280-291.
65. See Mullen, Johnson, & Salas, op. cit.
66. See Wah, L. Making knowledge stick. Management Review, 1 May 1999, 24-29.
67. I b i d.
68. Trained facilitators are able to address many of the process-loss problems encountered by brainstorming groups. For studies that have empirically examined the effectiveness of trained facilitators, see Offner, A. K., Kramer, T. J., & Winter, J. P. 1996. The effects of facilitation, recording, and pauses on group brainstorming. Small Group Research, 27(2): 283-298; also Oxley, N. L., Dzindolet, M. T., & Paulus, P. B. 1996. The effects of facilitators on the performance of brainstorming groups. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 11(4): 633-646.
69. Trained facilitators are able to address many of the process-loss problems encountered by brainstorming groups. For studies that have empirically examined the effectiveness of trained facilitators, see Offner, A. K., Kramer, T. J., & Winter, J. P. 1996. The effects of facilitation, recording, and pauses on group brainstorming. Small Group Research, 27(2): 283-298; also Oxley, N. L., Dzindolet, M. T., & Paulus, P. B. 1996. The effects of facilitators on the performance of brainstorming groups. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 11(4): 633-646.
70. See Paulus, P. B., Putman, V. L., Coskun, H., Leggett, K. L., & Roland, E. J. 1996. Training groups for effective brainstorming. Paper presented at the Fourth Annual Advanced Concepts Conference on Work Teams - Team Implementation Issues, Dallas, TX.
71. See Seta, J. J. 1982. The impact of comparison processes on coactors' task performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(2): 281-291.
72. See Paulus & Dzindolet, op. cit.
73. See Paulus, P. B., Larey, T. S., Putman, V. L., Leggett, K. L., & Roland, E. J. 1996. Social influence processes in computer brainstorming. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 18(1): 3-14.
74. See Shepherd, M. M., Briggs, R. O., Reinig, B. A., Yen, J., & Nunamaker, J. F. Jr. 1995-1996. Invoking social comparison to improve electronic brainstorming: Beyond anonymity. Journal of Management Information Systems, 12(3): 155-170.
75. See Roy, M. C., Gauvin, S., & Limayem, M. 1996. Electronic group brainstorming: The role of feedback on productivity. Small Group Research, 27(2): 215-247.
76. This is based on research by Hoon-Seok Choi and myself conducted over the past year. A paper that reviews our research can be obtained from either myself or Professor Hoon-Seok Choi, Management & Organizations Department, Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL 60208.
77. See Sutton, R. L., & Louis, M. R. 1987. How selecting and socializing newcomers influences insiders. Human Resource Management, 26(3): 347-361.
78. See Ziller, R. C. 1965. Toward a theory of open and closed groups. Psychological Bulletin, 64(3): 164-182.
79. See Rogelberg, S. G., Barnes-Farrell, J. L., & Lowe, C. A. 1992. The stepladder technique: An alternative group structure facilitating effective group decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(5): 730-737.
80. See Rogelberg, S. G., & O'Connor, M. S. 1998. Extending the stepladder technique: An examination of self-paced stepladder groups. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 2(2): 82-91.
81. See Grossmann, J. We've got to start meeting like this. Inc., 1 April 1998.
82. See Long, S. This CEO handles complaints himself. The Straits Times, 12 April 2002.
83. See P. R. Newswire. Surfboards in the boardroom and bocce ball out back. 25 September 2001.
84. See Lee, op. cit.
85. For an extensive review of the effects of positive affect on creativity, see Isen, A. M., Daubman, K. A., & Nowicki, G. P. 1987. Positive affect facilitates creative problem solving. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(6): 1122-1131.
86. For a look at how the fashion company Prada is rethinking creativity, see Brown, J. Prada gets personal. BusinessWeek, 18 March 2002, EB8. For an in-depth treatment of how BP is searching for oil in the depths of the sea, see Verrengia, J. B. Finding footprints under Arctic ice. Associated Press, 8 April 2002, via www.msnbc.com.
87. For a look at how the fashion company Prada is rethinking creativity, see Brown, J. Prada gets personal. BusinessWeek, 18 March 2002, EB8. For an in-depth treatment of how BP is searching for oil in the depths of the sea, see Verrengia, J. B. Finding footprints under Arctic ice. Associated Press, 8 April 2002, via www.msnbc.com.