Capitalizing on thought diversity for innovation

Research Technology Management

Volumn 52, Issue 6, 2009, Pages 14-25

  Post, Corinne ^a   De Lia, Emilio ^b   DiTomaso, Nancy ^c   Tirpak, Thomas M ^d   Borwankar, Rajendra ^e  

^a LEHIGH UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b RUTGERS BUSINESS SCHOOL   (United States)

^c RUTGERS BUSINESS SCHOOL   (United States)

^d MOTOROLA INC   (United States)

^e Sciences for Kraft Foods and is based   (United States)

Author keywords

Collaborative learning; Innovation; Teams; Thought diversity

Indexed keywords

ENGINEERING RESEARCH;

BREAKTHROUGH INNOVATIONS; COLLABORATIVE LEARNING; FUNCTIONAL DIVERSITY; TEAM DYNAMICS; TEAM MEMBERS; TEAMS; THOUGHT DIVERSITY;

INNOVATION;

EID: 73349120594     PISSN: 08956308     EISSN: 19300166     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/08956308.2009.11657596     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Page, S. E. 2007. The difference: How the power of diversity creates better groups, firms, schools, and societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
2. Sutton, R. I. 2007. Weird ideas that work: How to build a creative company. New York: Free Press.
3. Nemeth, C. J. 1986. Differential contributions of majority and minority influence. Psychological Review 93, pp. 23-32.
4. Stasser, G. and Titus, W. ' 1987. Effects of information load and percentage of shared information on the dissemination of unshared information during group discussion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 53, pp. 81-93.
5. Jabri, M. M. 1991. The Development of Conceptually Independent Subscales in the Measurement of Modes of Problem Solving. Educational and Psychological Measurement 51, pp. 975-983.
6. Kirton, M. 1976. Adaptors and Innovators: A description and measure. Journal of Applied Psychology 61, pp. 622-629.
7. Koestler, A. 1989. The Act of Creation. London: Arkana.
8. Lawrence, P. R. and Lorsch, J. W. 1967. Differentiation and Integration in Complex Organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly 12, pp. 1-17.
9. While the KAI Inventory helps differentiate between sequential thinkers and cross-disciplinary thinkers, one caveat is that it assumes individuals use either the sequential or the cross-disciplinary approach in all situations, even though other research has shown that individuals can be flexible in their problem-solving styles, and use them interchangeably.
10. Payne, R., Lane, D. and Jabri, M. M. 1990. A two-dimensional person-environment fit analysis of the performance, effort, and satisfaction of research scientists. British Journal of Management 1, pp. 45-57.
11. We regressed both innovation variables on team tenure, educational diversity, functional diversity, sequential thinking and connective thinking. Reported effects are all statistically significant, with p ≤ 0.10 and in many cases with p ≤ 0.05.
12. Kurtzberg, T. R. 2005. Feeling creative, being creative: An empirical study of diversity and creativity in teams. Creativity Research Journal 17, pp. 51-65.
13. Nemeth, C., Brown, K. and Rogers, J. 2001. Devil's advocate versus authentic dissent: Stimulating quantity and quality. European Journal of Social Psychology 31, pp. 707-720.
14. Thomke, S. 2001. Enlightened Experimentation: The New Imperative for Innovation. Harvard Business Review 79, pp. 67-75.
15. We regressed both innovation variables on all three team dynamics and controlled for team tenure. Reported effects are statistically significant, with p ≤ 0.10 and in many cases with p ≤ 0.05.
16. Woolley, A. W., et al. 2008. Bringing in the Experts: How Team Composition and Collaborative Planning Jointly Shape Analytic Effectiveness. Small Group Research 39, pp. 352-371.
17. Shrum, W., Chompalov, I. and Genuth, J. 2001. Trust, Conflict and Performance in Scientific Collaborations. Social Studies of Science 31, pp. 681-730.
18. Janz, B. D. and Prasarnphanich, P. 2003. Understanding the antecedents of effective knowledge management: The importance of a knowledge-centered culture. Decision Science 34, pp. 351-384.
19. Ryle, G. 1949. The Concept of Mind. London: Hutch nson.
20. Katzenbach, J. R. and Smith, D. K. 1993. The discipline of teams. Harvard Business Review 71, pp. 111-120.
21. We regressed each team dynamic on team tenure, educational diversity, functional diversity, sequential thinking and connective thinking. Reported effects are statistically significant, with p ≤ 0.10 and in many cases with p ≤ 0.05.
22. Edmondson, A. C. 2002. The local and variegated nature of learning in organizations: A group-level perspective. Organization Science 13, pp. 128-147.
23. Perlow, L. A. 2003. When You Say Yes But Mean No: How Silencing Conflict Wreck Relationships and Companies... and What You Can Do About It. New York: Crown Business.
24. Stasser, G. and Birchmeier, Z. 2003. "Group creativity and collective choice," in Group Creativity: Innovation through Collaboration, edited by P. B. Paulus and B. A. Nijstad. New York: Oxford University Press.
25. Hindo, B. and Grow, B. 2007. Six Sigma: So yesterday? In an innovation economy, it's no longer a cure-all. Business Week, June 11, 2007, p. 11.
26. Richardson, K. 2007. The 'Six Sigma' Factor for Home Depot. Wall Street Journal (Eastern edition), Jan. 4, 2007, p. C3.
27. DiTomaso, N., Cordero, R. and Farris, G. F. 1995. Effects of group diversity on perceptions of group and self among scientists and engineers, in Diversity and work teams: Selected research, edited by, M. N. Ruderman, M. P. Hughes-James and S. E. Jackson. Greensboro, NC: APA and Center for Creative Leadership.
28. Blau, F. 1977. Inequality and heterogeneity. New York: Free Press.
29. Edmonson, A. 1999. Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly 44, pp. 350-383.