November 9, 2011 § Leave a comment
Groups and Teams. Shift from individuals outperform groups towards understanding models of group interaction, motivation, and disposition.
Creative problem solving (Treffinger et al. 2006): performance of individuals is generally superior to that of groups.
Convergent thinking: narrowing possibilities to a workable solution
Brophy (1998a,b) “Tri-level matching theory”: creative problem-solving process entails both considerable convergent and divergent thought in continuing alternation
Workplace Groups. Most creative work done in organizations is accomplished by two or more individuals working closely together (Thompson & Choi 2006)
Work Group Diversity. Detrimental to team satisfaction, affect, members’ impressions of own creative performance (Kurtzberg 2005)
Mannix & Neale (2005) Group diversity creates social divisions, with negative performance consequences.
Positive effects rise from differences such as functional background, education, or personality—only when the group process is managed carefully.
Polzer et al. (2002) Interpersonal congruence, degree which group members see others in group as others see themselves.
Social Psychology. Social environment can significantly influence an individual’s motivation for doing an activity
Intrinsic motivation principle of creativity: enjoyment, interest, and personal challenge is conducive to creativity, extrinsic motivation is generally detrimental
Hydraulic model. As extrinsic motivators and constraints were imposed, intrinsic motivation (and creativity) would decrease.
Additive model. Expectation of reward can sometimes increase extrinsic motivation without having any negative impact on intrinsic motivation or performance
Behaviorist studies: positive effects of instructions, rather than positive effects of expected rewards, on creativity.
Social Environment: Impact on the work environment (created by leaders or managers) on the creativity of individuals, groups, or entire organizations.
Amabile et al (2004) Perceived team leader support positively related to peer-rated creativity; Amabile et al. (1996, 2002) Time pressure detrimental to creativity
Polychronicity: the number of tasks with which an individual prefers to be involved at the same time; Autonomy fosters creativity
Psychological safety: Degree which people believe others in group will respond positively when they speak up about concerns, report mistakes, or propose new ideas
Constraints and pressures in the work environment are detrimental to creativity;
Org-wide supports, psych safety, sufficient time, autonomy, developmental feedback, and creativity goals are facilitative.
Culture. Big problem is using constructs and measures developed in the West in the East.
Lehman et al. (2004) psychological processes influence culture, culture influences psychological processes
Collectivist/ individualistic distinction given most attention. Cumulative multicultural experience fosters creativity.
CONCLUSION: TAKING A SYSTEMS PERSPECTIVE
Campbell’s blind-variation-and-selective-retention theory of creativity,
Simonton (2007) Darwinian model subsumes all other theories of creativity as special case of a larger evolutionary framework.
Cognitive development framework (Piaget Vygotsky) in children could also be fruitfully applied to the creative process.
Kim explored the interrelation between imagination and creativity;
Lindqvist (2003) “zone of proximal development” might help explain how creative ideas or problem solutions take shape.
Guilford’s (1967) structure of intellect model, Mumford (2001) argued to take a broad, comprehensive approach to the study of creativity.
November 8, 2011 § Leave a comment
CREATIVITY: Capacity to generate new ideas, new approaches, and new solutions. Creative process, antecedents, inhibitors need better understanding
One subfield often seem entirely unaware of advances in another. Research at only one level of analysis and within only one discipline at a time.
Systems view of creativityarises through a system of interrelated forces operating at multiple levels, often requiring interdisciplinary investigation.
Definition and Measurement: Development of a novel product, idea, or problem solution that is of value
Difficulty finding consensus of definitional components beyond novelty and appropriateness (value).
Kaufmann (2003b):Called for distinction between novelty on the stimulus and response end and new taxonomy including proactive and reactive creativity
Eminent creativity: Rare displays, major impact; Incremental (everyday) creativity: Daily problem solving and ability to adapt to change
Beghetto & Kaufman (2007): “Mini c” creativity, creative processes in construction of personal knowledge and understanding
Creativity of Products. Experimental paradigms that vary conditions, individual’s creativity is assessed.
Creativity of Persons. Experimental paradigms, case studies, questionnaire-based investigations that operationalize creativity as a enduring and stable personality trait.
Neurological/Biological Basis. Advancement of technology, particularly fMRI, increases in access to equipment, responsible for explosion of info on the “creative brain”
Affect. Positive affect leads to higher levels of creativity, facilitates intrinsic motivation (Isen & Reeve 2005), flexible thinking and problem solving (Isen 2000); When negative affect has an influence, it is generally negative.
Mood-as-input model, Martin et al. (1993) Positive moods signal safety, motivating seek stimulation and think expansively, making more flexible associations.
Negative moods signal problems at hand, motivating to think precisely and analytically.
Dual tuning model, George & Zhou (2007) Experiencing both positive and negative moods over time in a supportive context should enhance creativity.
Positive mood: expansive, playful, divergent thinking and generation of new ideas. Negative mood: careful, systematic information processing.
Cognition. Kaufman & Baer (2002) Domain specific, exception of a general intelligence factor.
Necka (1999) Impaired functioning of “filter of attention”; Groborz & Necka (2003) “Cognitive control” attentional process; Conceptual combination Ward (2001).
Training. Metaanalytic review found creativity training programs typically result in gains in performance (Scott et al. 2004)
Individual Differences/Personality. Uniqueness.
Trait, relatively stable linked to high openness to experience (McCrae 1987); Inability to shut out incoming stimuli (Carson et al. 2003); Intrinsic motivation (Prabhu et al. 2008);
Lower levels of self-confidence (Kaufman 2002).
Individual Differences/Intelligence. Creativity and giftedness (Hennessey 2004) should not be equated.
Sternberg (2001) Dialectical relation of intelligence and wisdom. Intelligence advances existing societal agendas. Creative thinking opposes agendas and proposes new ones.
Wise people strike a balance between intelligence and creativity/the old and the new to achieve both stability and change within a societal context.
Gender Differences. Lee (2002) College students neither gender nor education exerted significant influence on creative thinking abilities
Psychopathology. Whether relation between creativity and mental illness. Nettle (2006) “hybrid” model whereby schizotypal personality traits can have fitness advantages or disadvantages, with mutational load and neurodevelopmental conditions determining which outcome (promotion or hindrance of creativity) is observed.
November 5, 2011 § Leave a comment
Work Motivation: Goal-setting, Social cognitive and Organizational justice dominate(Latham, Pinder 2005).
Cognition inherent in motivation. Sensations are informational. Based on needs, values, and the situational context, people set goals and strategize ways to attain them.
Meyer et al.’s (2004)integrative model of employee commitment and motivation, in which commitment is one of the forces that energize motivated behavior, building on goal setting theory, self-determination theory, and regulatory focus theory.
Steel & Konig’s (2006)temporal theory of motivation combines cumulative prospect theory and hyperbolic discounting from behavioral decision theory with classic expectancy theory and needs theory
DeShon & Gillespie’s (2005)motivated action theory, seeks to unify goal orientation with combined social identity and self-categorization theory perspective offered by Ellemers et al. (2004) that provides an account of how identification with work-place collectives shapes the motivation of individuals and groups.
Dilemma for field of Work Motivation as whole; Proliferation of constructs with the introduction of each new formulation is undermines quest for greater conceptual unity.
Leadership: Lord & Emrich’s (2000)Individual and dyadic cognition and Collective cognition.
Individual, dyadic; social info processing theories such as leadership categorization theory (Lord et al. 1984) and implicit leadership theory (Lord, Maher 1991)followers’ perceptions and evaluations of leaders
Leadership explores traits (Judge et al. 2004a), information processing capabilities, associated knowledge structures (Lord, Hall 2005) underpinning emergence, development of leaders.
Variations in leadership prototypes across organizational (Dickson et al. 2006) and national (Brodbeck et al. 2000) culture studies evidence tension regarding extent prototypes and related mental representationsshould be viewed as relativelystable and enduring or as dynamic and fleeting.
Collective cognition in organizational sensemaking demonstrates successful leaders adopt “sense-breaking” tactics to stimulate “seekership” among followers to increase their identification with organization.
Social identity approach conceptual bridge across the individual/dyadic and collective cognition streams
Individuals are recognized and evaluated as emergent leaders with their degree of fit with the prototype of the salient in-group(Pierro et al. 2005)
Individual Differences: Attributional style (Silvester et al. 2003), Locus of control (Ng et al. 2006), Need for closure (Ellis, Davidi 2005).
Prominent variables: Self-efficacy and Cognitive style
Self-efficacy; driver and outcome of cognitive functioning in organizations; positively influencing learning (Chen et al. 2000), cognitive, affective-motivational and behavioral training outcomes (Colquitt et al. 2000), and responses to organizational change (Wanberg & Banas 2000)
Challenges: 1. High efficacy can impair performance by reducing effort once goals within reach (Vancouver 2005), 2. Effect of self-efficacy in work-related performance is reduced when controlling for distal individual differences (mental ability, Big Five personality traits, and experience)
Self-esteem, self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability grouped into a higher-order construct termed “core self-evaluation” (Judge 2004b).
Cognitive style influences decision-making performance (Levin et al. 2000), perceptions of cognitive biases (Tetlock 2000), nature and quality of leader-member exchange (Allinson et al. 2001)
Two views of cognitive style: Analysis/Intution; Common underlying cognitive system, stable preference for one or other, unidimensional, bipolar continuum (Allinson 2001); Independent cognitive systems, switch back and forth as required (Hodgkinson et al. 2008)
Creativity and cognition: Focuses on cognitive processes underlying creative performance; Kaufman & Baer (2002) Domain specific, with exception of general intelligence factor
Necka (1999) Impaired functioning of “filter of attention”, Groborz & Necka (2003) importance of “cognitive control” in attentional process, Ward (2001) Importance of conceptual combination
Debates: Dialectic ‘Hot’ vs. ‘Cold’ debate. Hot; assumes affect forms attitudes, such as evaluations, moods, emotions; Cold; cognition (i.e. perception) contributes to affects. Alternatively, Both mechanisms act in parallel (Zajonc, 1980).
Dialectic debate: Prospective vs. Retrospective
Conclusions: Attributions have a strong link to research on emotions;
Attitudes central to study of influence and persuasion to interpersonal and group dynamics, stereotyping, prejudice, the self and identity, leadership and motivation
November 4, 2011 § Leave a comment
COGNITION: Human factors and Organizational traditions
Human factors tradition: Engineering psychology; human performance, including psychological aspects of ergonomics.
Human information-processing, skilled performance as a stage-based sequence of functions, sensory, perceptual processes, memory, and decision-making (Broadbent 1958)
Ecological approach; human interaction with the environment, expertise in naturalistic settings
Cognitive engineering; hybrid approach bringing together stage-based and ecological approaches
Organizational tradition; Bounded rationality, decision makers strive for rationality within limits ofcognitive capacities and info availability (March, Simon 1958).
Weick’s (1979)enactment and sensemakingchallenged idea environment an objective entity that can only be partially comprehended due to limited processing capacity.
Decision makers create their own constraints through constructive process, in which rearrange, isolate, demolish seemingly objective features, giving rise to subjective differences in perception.
Hambrick & Masons (1984)upper echelons perspective views strategic choice as function of demographic, psychological composition of org’s TMT
Social identity theory(Tajfel, Turner 1979) related self- and social-categorization
Social cognition; tendency to seek consistency in attitudes and beliefs(Heider 1958); Assumes 1. People think, attributions important; 2. Other people have influence
Heuristics and biasesinfluence judgment and choice in personnel and organizational decision processes (Tversky, Kahneman 1974).
Dual-process theories of cognition in cognitive psychology(Gilovich et al. 2002) and social cognition(Chaiken & Trope 1999)
Cognitive Dissonance Theory: Festinger (1957) “a negative statewheneversimultaneously hold two cognitions (ideas, beliefs, opinions), psychologically inconsistent”
Assumes people know their cognitions, dissonance gives rise to pressures to reduce or eliminate, people actively avoid situations and information which increase dissonance
Normative Attribution Theory: “people’s causal explanations for events in the social world” (Kelley 1967; Fiske & Taylor, 1991).
We know what people intend by considering the differences between what they did and what they didn’t do, and whether others would have done the same.
Fundamental Attribution Error: Actors attribute actions to situational requirements, Observers attribute actions to stable personal dispositions(Jones, Nisbett 1987)
Through decision-making perspective, explores how cognitive decisions are really happening using a descriptive view.
5 major theoretical perspectives of cognitive experimental psychology and social cognition; schema theory, behavioral decision theory, attribution theory, social identity theory, enactment and sensemaking
Lant & Shapira’s (2001)Computational and Interpretive perspectives
Computational approach; information-processing limitations, org decision makers and strategies they employ to overcome limitations
Interpretive approach; sensemaking to extract patterns of meaning in social construction of organizational realities
Work groups and Teams: Differentiated task-specific knowledge from team process knowledge (Lim, Klein 2006).
Shared cognitionoptimal form of sharing is contingent upon the nature of the task and situational variables(Ren et al. 2006)
Austin (2003); Transactive memory construct, knowing where to find particular expertise within team
Mathieu et al. (2001); Multiteam systems comprehend one another’s purposes, resource capabilities, limitations, requirements in order to respond effectively to environmental contingencies.
Burke et al. (2006); Multilevel conceptual model; individual (knowledge, cog ability, team orientation), group (team situation awareness, shared mental models) underpinning team adaptation