<%BANNER%>

Supporting Creativity in Interdisciplinary Teamwork

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0025102/00001

Material Information

Title: Supporting Creativity in Interdisciplinary Teamwork Examining Relationships among Individual Traits, Group Characteristics, Team Process, and Creative Performance in an Applied Setting
Physical Description: 1 online resource (74 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Chung, Sung
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2009

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: applied, approach, creativity, interdisciplinary, setting, systems, teamwork
Interior Design -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Interior Design thesis, M.I.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Teamwork and creativity are vital components for businesses to stay competitive. Although there has been incessant research on both teamwork and creativity, only a few studies have focused on team creativity and even fewer from a systems approach. The purpose of this study is to understand the individual and group characteristics that form the team composition and the process that enhances the quality of creative outcome through a systemic approach. Creative team processes were examined in forty-two business and interior design students who were participating in a focused five-day competition held at a large university campus. Participants were divided into six teams of seven in a charrette challenge of solving a real-world retail design problem. The participants were profiled on their problem solving styles using the Creative Problem Solving Profile (CPSP) and their personalities through the Adjective Check List (ACL) with Domino s creativity (Cr) scale used to profile creative personalities. To understand the team process during the problem solving task, participating students completed a locally developed team process survey. A panel of expert judges consisting of noted retailers, designers, and the client assessed the teams outcomes to award a winning submission. Teams differed in the distribution of discipline and problem solving styles, with the winning team being the most diverse, yet balanced team. Teams that perceived team processes positively were more successful than those that assessed the processes negatively. The winning team as well as the least preferred team both had the highest score for creativity (ACL-Cr), yet had opposing outcomes. The winning team also perceived the conflicts in their process to be positive, while the least preferred team had not. Results suggest that individual creativity is necessary for creative team performance yet not sufficient. Although team creativity may benefit from the individual contributions, it is not the simple aggregate of individuals that impacts team performances. The findings of this study imply that teams that are diverse, yet well-balanced in problem solving styles, and have the ability to transform conflict in the process to creative abrasion have the potential for creative performance.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Sung Chung.
Thesis: Thesis (M.I.D.)--University of Florida, 2009.
Local: Adviser: Meneely, Jason Matthew.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2009
System ID: UFE0025102:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0025102/00001

Material Information

Title: Supporting Creativity in Interdisciplinary Teamwork Examining Relationships among Individual Traits, Group Characteristics, Team Process, and Creative Performance in an Applied Setting
Physical Description: 1 online resource (74 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Chung, Sung
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2009

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: applied, approach, creativity, interdisciplinary, setting, systems, teamwork
Interior Design -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Interior Design thesis, M.I.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Teamwork and creativity are vital components for businesses to stay competitive. Although there has been incessant research on both teamwork and creativity, only a few studies have focused on team creativity and even fewer from a systems approach. The purpose of this study is to understand the individual and group characteristics that form the team composition and the process that enhances the quality of creative outcome through a systemic approach. Creative team processes were examined in forty-two business and interior design students who were participating in a focused five-day competition held at a large university campus. Participants were divided into six teams of seven in a charrette challenge of solving a real-world retail design problem. The participants were profiled on their problem solving styles using the Creative Problem Solving Profile (CPSP) and their personalities through the Adjective Check List (ACL) with Domino s creativity (Cr) scale used to profile creative personalities. To understand the team process during the problem solving task, participating students completed a locally developed team process survey. A panel of expert judges consisting of noted retailers, designers, and the client assessed the teams outcomes to award a winning submission. Teams differed in the distribution of discipline and problem solving styles, with the winning team being the most diverse, yet balanced team. Teams that perceived team processes positively were more successful than those that assessed the processes negatively. The winning team as well as the least preferred team both had the highest score for creativity (ACL-Cr), yet had opposing outcomes. The winning team also perceived the conflicts in their process to be positive, while the least preferred team had not. Results suggest that individual creativity is necessary for creative team performance yet not sufficient. Although team creativity may benefit from the individual contributions, it is not the simple aggregate of individuals that impacts team performances. The findings of this study imply that teams that are diverse, yet well-balanced in problem solving styles, and have the ability to transform conflict in the process to creative abrasion have the potential for creative performance.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Sung Chung.
Thesis: Thesis (M.I.D.)--University of Florida, 2009.
Local: Adviser: Meneely, Jason Matthew.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2009
System ID: UFE0025102:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

First of its Kind By Global OrangeRon Jon Destin Florida

PAGE 2

Mission StatementBring the surfing lifestyle to anyone who visits Ron Jon. Creating a unique, relevant, and engaging experience for the customer that will entice them to purchase, and that they will tell their friends about

PAGE 3

Key Features in DestinDestin is in the emerald coas t area, known for its beautiful beaches, not for its surfing Huge destination for young families over spring break Dolphins Scuba diving Worlds luckiest fishing village Kids and family will be key

PAGE 4

StrategyStay true to the Ron Jon brand, while adjusting the model to be relevant in the Destin location Target Families Rationalize assortment, making best use of space Create excitement by having a destination store, make people want to stay a while

PAGE 5

Target Market-Customer Influx from surrounding states Clientele mix 18-49 yrs old Family-unity values for vacations

PAGE 6

Consumer Profile & SalesBringing the Surf & Beach lifestyle to all our customers. Ladies, Gentlemen & Young Adults Kids & Tweens The Ron Jon Family

PAGE 12

Consumer Profile: Our Surfer Gal & Surfer MomEnjoys buying exclusive souvenirsSouvenirs for Family & Friends Browsing products Relaxing shopping experience

PAGE 13

Consumer Profile: Our Surfer Dude & Surfer DaddyPrefers finding desired items easily Subconscious shopping flow Fascinated by technologic advances

PAGE 14

Consumer Profile: Our LilSurfer Dude & LilSurfer BettyRon Jons kids are highly energetic Best consumerreferral service Monkey-see, Monkey-do

PAGE 15

Consumer Profile: Our LilSurfer TweensTweensacknowledge that branding is crucial Leverage Cool & Fashionable Brands Aspire to the surfer lifestyle

PAGE 16

Consumer Profile: Our Surfing Generation YStill attracted to brands Interested in the Environment What is hot?

PAGE 17

Assortment Plan

PAGE 18

Apparel AssortmentExpand the sales of Ron Jon apparel Allow Customers to bring home a piece of Destin Mark-up 60%

PAGE 19

Apparel AssortmentWe want Ron Jon apparel to dominate the store while the other branded apparel is sold to compliment your brand

PAGE 20

Womens Brands

PAGE 21

Mens Brands

PAGE 22

Apparel Assortment Plan

PAGE 23

Accessories AssortmentEliminate more expensive accessories Increase inventory of sandals Emphasize our beach accessories Mark-up is 49%

PAGE 24

Accessories Assortment Plan

PAGE 25

Hard goods and Dcor Assortment PlanDecrease inventory of Hard goods and Dcor Items Hard goods and Dcor keep the Ron Jon image original and unique

PAGE 26

Hard goods and Dcor Assortment Plan

PAGE 27

Private LabelExpand sales of Ron Jon apparel Customers can take a part of the beach lifestyle home with them Expand on the souvenir sales

PAGE 28

Private Label

PAGE 30

Destin Florida T-shirt

PAGE 31

Retail Entertainmentcapturing market share is becoming more and more a matter of how well you can engage the customer and turn a shopping chore into an experience of choice. To do that, you have to use the retail environment to evoke an emotional response that engages informs, educates and entertains the consumer."

PAGE 32

Retail Entertainment"When customers have an experience with a brand, 35% are more likely to consider that brand. 57% are more likely to proceed to buy when they have a relevant experience at the retail touch point." Eric Brouillet

PAGE 33

The First of its Kind Experience3 interactive areas:Surfing 101 The Board Zone Picture Yourself on the Beach

PAGE 34

Surfing 101Targeted to children 12 and under To educate and entertain Three interactive stationsStation A: Surfboard Technology Station B: Making Waves Station C: Surf Simulator (Wii)

PAGE 35

Surfing 101Surfboard TechnologyMultimedia showing the construction of surf boards and the science of making a great surfboard Customize a mini surfboard Create your own surf decal

PAGE 37

Surfing 101Surf SimulatorAdapt Nintendo WiisSurf Game for the store Large curved screen Branded Ron Jon

PAGE 38

The Board Zoneinternet kiosk that allows you to browse surfboards & skateboards order at the kiosk email info and pictures to friends scans products

PAGE 39

Picture Yourself Magic Mirror technology in the fitting rooms -1 in mens, 1 in womens Pick a background: the beach, in the water, by the pool Change the color effects, give yourself a tan Email images to friends

PAGE 40

Ron Jon Surf Shop at Destin, Fl. Store Design -Storefront

PAGE 42

Conceptual Arrangement of Spaces

PAGE 44

Reflected Ceiling Panels

PAGE 45

Longitudinal Section Through Building

PAGE 46

Entry Perspective

PAGE 49

Brand Template

PAGE 50

Ron Jon T-Shirt Wall

PAGE 52

Screen View

PAGE 53

Local AdvertisingGrow customer awareness of store location Communicate First of its Kind message Blend of traditional and unexpected advertising mediums

PAGE 54

Traditional AdvertisingBillboardsSet up in same manner as Cocoa Beach Destin specific messaging e.g., you lucky fish, youre just 3 miles from Destin; miles to your Destin-ation

PAGE 55

First of its KindDestin Fl. 100miles

PAGE 56

Traditional AdvertisingRadio92.1 FM, 103.1 FM, 1120 AM Largest advertising expense Local stations, once people are in the area, they will know about Ron Jon

PAGE 57

Traditional AdvertisingPartnering with local hotels/motels/cottage rentals Referrals Key cards Do not disturb signs

PAGE 58

Traditional AdvertisingGroup BookingsPartner with amusement park Buses

PAGE 59

Unexpected AdvertisingThe element of surprise will be usedCustomers will remember it Emotional reactionUnusual locations and methods are planned

PAGE 60

Surfboard Rinsing Shower

PAGE 61

Underwater Advertisements

PAGE 62

Ads on Fisherman's Boats

PAGE 63

Air Advertisng

PAGE 64

Advertising BudgetYearly advertising will be $200,000, 5% of the sales budget Spending will be primarily on traditional (70%), with the rest going to unconventional media

PAGE 65

Advertising BudgetRegular Advertising 70% -radio 40%80,000 $ -billboards 20%40,000 $ -hotels/motels 5%10,000 $ -group sales & airport 5%10,000 $ 140,000 $ Unconventional Advertising 30% -underwater ads 10%20,000 $ -showers 15%30,000 $ -fisherman's boats ads 5%10,000 $ 60,000 $ 200,000 $

PAGE 66

Pre-Opening Advertisingads on radio for 4 weeks prior to opening advertising the grand opening event large posters outside of location advertising "opening soon" as well as "now hiring" and "grand opening" posters in other Ron Jon locations

PAGE 67

Grand OpeningBuilding strong relationships & community goodwill Introducing the community to the experiential brand Coupons to drive traffic

PAGE 68

Grand Opening EventsRibbon Cutting Ceremony Meet & BBQ with the Ron Jon Surfing Team Sand Sculpture Competition with live music

PAGE 69

Peopleemployee team building focus on manager trainingculture of leadership, mentoringempower staff, encourage ideasfront line workers have the best info on the customer and their experiences in the storeAddress turnoverrealistic expectations about hours(seasonality) Increase proportion of part-time for more flexibility



PAGE 1

1 SUPPOR TING CREATIV ITY IN INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAMWORK: EXAMINING RELATIONSHIPS AMONG INDIVIDUAL TRAITS GROUP CHARACTERISTICS, TEAM PROCESS, AND CREATIVE PERFORMANCE IN AN APPLIED SETTING By SUNG EUN CHUNG A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF INTERIOR DESIGN UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2009

PAGE 2

2 2009 Sung Eun Chung

PAGE 3

3 To my family a nd all who have contributed their support and prayers

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This thesis would not have been possible without the dedication and support of many people. First, I would like to thank my supervisory committee chair, Jason Meneely, for all his insight and effort in this work. His guidance, encouragement, and feedback helped me generate this thesis and complete it. Dr. Margaret Portillo, my other committee member, stimulated this thesis by introducing me to the field of creativity in a creativity seminar Her valuable comments and ideas kept the whole process challenging. Dr. Nam kyu Park contributed her research knowledge and thoughtful insight. She is a great mentor and has guided me to explore my research interests and passion. All interior des ign faculty members have challenged me in this profession and helped me to discover my capabilities, potential, and future direction. Also, this thesis could not have existed if not the assistance given by ACRA and Dr. Hyunjoo Oh, the Research Director of University of Florida David F. Miller Center for Retailing Education and Research. Thank you for the opportunity to work alongside the charrette and understand interdisciplinary teamwork in a real -world situation. I have a wider perspective and appreciati on towards other disciplines through the whole experience. Furthermore, I would like to thank all my friends who supported me throughout this process in many ways. Thank you for all your encouragement, advice, and of course, all your prayers. Especially, the love and support of my family has empowered me all through my life. Time and distance is of no matter when it comes to family there are truly no words that can describe how grateful I am for your love, support, and prayers. Above all, I thank God. Ma y you be glorified through not just this thesis, but through the whole process that came before it and through all that will come afterwards. You alone are worthy of praise, for if not of your grace, this thesis would not have existed.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................................................... 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................ 8 LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................................................. 9 ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................................ 10 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 12 Gaps in Previous Research ......................................................................................................... 13 Scope of Study and Research Questions .................................................................................... 15 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................................... 19 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 19 Creativity ..................................................................................................................................... 19 Four Ps in Creativity: Person, Process, Press, Product ..................................................... 19 Person ............................................................................................................................ 20 Process .......................................................................................................................... 21 Press .............................................................................................................................. 22 Product .......................................................................................................................... 23 Fifth P: Persuasion ............................................................................................................... 23 Assessing Creativity ............................................................................................................ 24 Domain ................................................................................................................................. 24 Systems Approach to Creativity ......................................................................................... 25 Teamwork .................................................................................................................................... 27 Systems Approach to Teamwork ........................................................................................ 28 Team Composition (Inputs) ........................................................................................................ 29 Individual Characteristics .................................................................................................... 30 Knowledge, skills, a nd abilities ................................................................................... 30 Problem solving styles or roles ................................................................................... 30 Personality traits ........................................................................................................... 32 Group Characteristics .......................................................................................................... 34 Diversity ........................................................................................................................ 35 Goal specification ......................................................................................................... 36 Team Process ............................................................................................................................... 37 Team Problem Solving ........................................................................................................ 38 Application .................................................................................................................................. 44 Mult idisciplinary RealProblem Approach ........................................................................ 44 3 METHODS .................................................................................................................................. 50

PAGE 6

6 Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 50 Setting for the Study ................................................................................................................... 50 Sample .......................................................................................................................................... 51 Instruments .................................................................................................................................. 53 Assess ing Problem Solving Style: The CPSP .................................................................... 53 Assessing Personality: The ACL ........................................................................................ 56 Assessing Team Process: The Self Constructed Survey ................................................... 59 Assessing Team Outcome: The Judges Scores & Team Self -Evaluation ...................... 59 Procedure ..................................................................................................................................... 60 ACRA Charrette Process ..................................................................................................... 60 Research Steps ..................................................................................................................... 62 4 RESULTS .................................................................................................................................... 66 Sample Characteristics ................................................................................................................ 66 Comparison to Normative Populations .............................................................................. 66 Comparisons within the Sample ......................................................................................... 67 Question 1: What Problem Solving Styles and Personality Traits Characterizes Each Teams Composition? How Do These Vary From Normative Populations? ...................... 68 Problem Solving Style ......................................................................................................... 68 Personality Traits ................................................................................................................. 69 Question 2: How do Teams Differ in their Perception of Team Process? ............................... 70 Question 3: How Do Problem Solving Styles and Personality Traits Relate to Perceptions of the Team Process? .......................................................................................... 72 Question 4: What T eam Composition and Process Characteristics Describe the Winning Team? ....................................................................................................................................... 73 Question 5: What are the Main Factors that Relate to Creative Team Performance? ............ 73 5 DISCUSSION .............................................................................................................................. 86 Individual Creativity vs. Team Creativity ................................................................................. 86 Creative Abrasion ........................................................................................................................ 88 The Holistic Team ....................................................................................................................... 91 Optimization of Team Performance ........................................................................................... 93 Alternative Views of the Findings ............................................................................................. 94 Limitations ................................................................................................................................... 96 Future Study ................................................................................................................................ 98 APPENDIX A UF IRB APPROVAL ................................................................................................................ 101 B COPY OF INSTRUMENTS ..................................................................................................... 103 Creative Problem Solving Profile (CPSP) ............................................................................... 103 Team Process Survey (TPS) ..................................................................................................... 104 Judges Score Sheet Presentation Feedback ......................................................................... 106

PAGE 7

7 C ACRA CHARRETTE SCHEDULE ........................................................................................ 107 D RESIDUAL HISTOGRAMS FOR NORMAL DISTRIBUTION ......................................... 109 Creative Problem Solving Profile (CPSP) ............................................................................... 109 Adjective Check List (ACL) ..................................................................................................... 113 E FIRST PLACE PRESENTATION .......................................................................................... 118 Release Permission .................................................................................................................... 118 First Place Teams Presentation ............................................................................................... 119 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 120 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ........................................................................................................... 131

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF TABLES Table page 3 1 Discipline distribution by teams according to outcome rankings ....................................... 63 4 1 Sample personality variables compared to ACL normative data for males ....................... 75 4 2 Sample personality variables compared to ACL normative data for females .................... 75 4 3 Sample creative personality traits compared to ACL Cr normative data ........................... 75 4 4 Problem solving styles by occupation in CPSP normative data .......................................... 75 4 5 Problem solving styles by discipline ..................................................................................... 76 4 6 Descriptive summary of ACL Cr and problem solving scales by gender .......................... 75 4 7 Descriptive summary of ACL Cr and problem solving scales by discipline ..................... 76 4 8 A NOVA for comparison of problem solving scales by discipline ..................................... 76 4 9 Post -Hoc test in comparing mean differences among problem solving scales .................. 76 4 10 Discipline distribution by team ............................................................................................. 75 4 11 Problem solving style distribution by team .......................................................................... 77 4 12 Composite tea m problem solving style scales ...................................................................... 75 4 13 Team departure from an idealized problem solving style profile ....................................... 75 4 14 ANOVA for compar ison of ACL personality traits by team .............................................. 75 4 15 Post -Hoc test in comparing mean differences among ACL Cr ........................................... 78 4 16 Descriptive su mmary of ACL personality trait scores ......................................................... 78 4 17 Descriptive summary of perception of team processes (TPS) ............................................. 78 4 18 ANOVA for comp arison of perception of team processes (TPS) ....................................... 79 4 19 Post -Hoc test in comparing mean differences among process variables ............................ 79 4 2 0 Coefficient values from linear regression models of CPSP problem solving styles and ACL personality traits in relation to perception of team processes (TPS) ......................... 79

PAGE 9

9 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1 1 An input process output framework for analyzing group behavior and performance ...... 18 1 2 Relationships between variables in the pres ent study .......................................................... 18 2 1 Simplex model ........................................................................................................................ 47 2 2 Interactionist model for organizational creativity ................................................................ 48 2 3 Traditional input -process -output (I -P O) model. ................................................................ 49 2 4 I P O model alternative. ....................................................................................................... 49 2 5 I P O model with synergy. ................................................................................................... 49 3 1 A sample plot of the Creative Problem Solving Profile (CPSP) ......................................... 64 3 2 Summary of present study methodology .............................................................................. 64 3 3 Research steps in relation to the ACRA charrette schedule for the study procedure ........ 65 4 2 Content analysis of challenges in team processes ................................................................ 82 4 3 Composite problem solving profile for the winning team ................................................... 83 4 4 Scatter plot with regression for th inking by team ranking .................................................. 83 4 5 Scatter plot with regression for evaluation by team ranking ............................................... 84 4 6 Scatter plot with regression for degree of variation in problem solving by team ranking .................................................................................................................................... 84 4 7 Plot of canonical analysis by team ranking .......................................................................... 85 5 1 Composite team problem solving profile comparison of 1st place and 6th place ............. 100

PAGE 10

10 Abstract of Thesis Presented to the G r aduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Interior Design SUPPOR TING CREATIVITY IN INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAMWORK: EXAMINING RELATIONSHIPS AMONG INDIVIDUAL TRAITS, GROUP CHARACTERISTICS, TEAM PROCESS, AND CREATIVE PERFORMANCE IN AN APPLIED SETTING By Sung Eun Chung December 2009 C hair: Jason Meneely Major: Interior Design Teamwork and creativity are vital components for businesses to stay competitive. Although there has b een incessant research on both teamwork and creativity, only a few studies have focused on team creativity and even fewer from a systems approach. The purpose of this study is to understand the individual and group characteristics that form the team compos ition and the process that enhances the quality of creative outcome through a systemic approach. Creative team processes were examined in forty -two business and interior design students who were participating in a focused five -day competition held at a la rge university campus. Participants were divided into six teams of seven in a charrette challenge of solving a real -world retail design problem. The participants were profiled on their problem solving styles using the Creative Problem Solving Profile (CPSP ) and their personalities through the Adjective Check List (ACL) with Dominos creativity (Cr) scale used to profile creative personalities. To understand the team process during the problem solving task, participating students completed a locally develope d team process survey. A panel of expert judges consisting of noted retailers, designers, and the client assessed the teams outcomes to award a winning submission

PAGE 11

11 Teams differed in the distribution of discipline and problem solving styles, with the winni ng team being the most diverse, yet balanced team Teams that perceived team processes positively were more successful than those that assessed the processes negatively. The winning team as well as the least preferred team both had the highest score for cr eativity (ACLCr), yet had opposing outcomes. The winning team also perceived the conflicts in their process to be positive, while the least preferred team had not. Results suggest that individual creativity is necessary for creative team performance yet not sufficient. Although team creativity may benefit from the individual contributions, it is not the simple aggregate of individuals that impacts team performances The findings of this study imply that t eams that are diverse, yet well -balanced in proble m solving styles, and have the ability to transform conflict in the process to creative abrasion have the potential for creative performance.

PAGE 12

12 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Today, many businesses are challenged to generate and implement creative ideas to remain competitive. In a time when businesses are trying to keep up with the rapid social and technological change, creativity paves the way for success. Creativity is indeed a ne cessity in a variety of fields, and whether we recognize it or not; we live in a culture that is hungry for creative solutions. Many businesses incorporate teamwork as a fundamental component of creative problem solving. Teamwork is a dynamic that emerges between individuals working cooperatively to accomplish a goal that is beyond th eir individual capabilities (Marks, Mathieu, & Zaccaro, 2001; Osborn & Moran, 2000) Organizations utilize teamwork from the belief that group interaction stimulates others and results in increase d productivity efficiency (Levi, 2001) and even creativity (Hargadon & Bechky, 2006) The potential of teamwork is that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts; the collective work of a team is more than what the individuals could accomplish alone. Consequently, businesses are now focusing on how to optimi ze creative potential in team work Organizations must rely on group creativity for the reason that the problems they face are often too complex and multifaceted for the scope of an individual s expertise The problems that businesses contend with cut acro ss organizational boundaries and demand multidisciplinary perspective s to develop creative solutions (Levi, 2001; Brown & Eisenhardt, 1998; Eisenhardt, 1990). Efficacy is not only achieved through the number of people in the team, but incorporating the rig ht mix of people. Individuals with knowledge, skills, and abilities in a variety of fields and specializations need to come together to fully maximize the problem solving process. Nowadays,

PAGE 13

13 the call for both creativity and teamwork is of the essence as the demands in society rapidly chang e The purpose of this study is to better understand how individual traits, and group characteristics and team processes interact to support creative performance. While prior research has primarily employed unidimensional approaches in controlled experimental settings (e.g., Hambrick, Cho & Chen, 1996; Barrick, Stewart, Neubert, & Mount, 1998; Pegels & Yang, 2000; Schepers & van den Berg, 2007) little to no work has elucidated a systems understanding of creative teamwork in real world settings. In contrast, the current study examines systemic relationships among individual problem solving styles, personality traits, and team process variables in relation to creative performance on a real world business problem. Gaps in Prev ious Research Scholarly r esearch on creativity has primarily focused on individual creativity (Oldham & Cummings, 1996; Woodman & Schoenfeldt, 1989; Barron & Harrington, 1981) with l ittle attention p aid to the creative synergy generated by teams during the collective process (K urtzberg & Amabile, 2001). However, the growing effort to explore creativity in interpersonal settings suggests that teamwork may bring additional synergies to support creative outcomes (Barlow, 2000; Kasl, Marskcik, & Dechant, 1997). As a result, there has been a recent shift in perspective and many researchers are beginning to focus on elucidating te am creativity (Hargadon & Bechky, 2006). The present study addresses th is gap by focusing on the aspects of creativity in teamwork. It acknowledges individual creativity as the basis for creative performance, although, does not perceive it to be the sole contribution. In order to most effectively turn an individual s creativity into a productive team process, it is important to understand how individuals work, think, and interact with each other when working towards a creative outcome (Kurtzberg, 2000). Each

PAGE 14

14 individual can contribute their knowledge, skills, and abilities to the team; however, a team is only successful when teamwork, the i ntra group process, is in play. A basis for creativity in teamwork can be achieved when there is an understanding of individual behaviors and interpersonal relations. Team creativity, is in fact a function of individual creative behavior that looks into th e interaction of the members within the team, team characteristics, team processes, and environmental influences ( Jackson, 2005). When organizations comprehend these elements, they will be able to compose, manage, and train creative teams according to thei r organizational goals. Businesses in particular, must understand the diversity of the components that drive creativ ity in teamwork in order to remain competitive. Today, creative teams are a vital component of a competitive organization. Teams are effecti ve at generating innovation because they bring together far more concepts and bodies of knowledge than any one individual can (Leonard & Swap, 1999). C omposing a team with the appropriate knowledge and skills is essential for team performance (Spreitzer, C ohen, & Ledford, Jr., 1999; Stewar t & Barrick, 2000). In fact, diversity among individual characteristics may influence the very nature of social and cognitive interactions within the team. Most prior research on teamwork have employed unidimensional appr oaches that primarily focused on the inputs to team problem solving (Watson, 2007; Mumford, Campion, & Morgeson, 2006), the process of teamwork ( West, 1994; Simons & Peterson, 2000), or team outputs ( Guzzo & Dickson, 1996; Sundstrom, DeMeuse, & Futrell, 1990) While some researchers examined relationships between team inputs and processes ( Eysenck, 1994; Heckhausen, 1989) and relationships between team processes and outputs ( Forbes & Milliken, 1999; Davis, 1969), few studies have examined systemic relations hips among team inputs, team processes, and team

PAGE 15

15 outcomes simultaneously. Most systemic approaches in this field have theoretically connected the relationship between variables without conducting data collection across them ( McGrath, 1964; Hackman 1987; St einer, 1972; Schweiger & Sandberg, 1989). Another significant gap in the study of creativity and teamwork lies b etween research and practice. Apart from accessibility issues of research findings to the general public the biggest gap between research and p ractice lies in the applicability of the findings to real world settings (Morrison, 1995). The application of knowledge is just as important as the generation of knowledge, yet research has not extended or supplied knowledge applicable to the questions tha t organizations face. Prior research has primarily examined teamwork in experimental settings (e.g., Hambrick, Cho & Chen, 1996; Barrick, Stewart, Neubert, & Mount, 1998; Pegels & Yang, 2000; Schepers & van den Berg, 2007). However, increasingly, researchers are making an effort to put their work in the context of applied business settings (e.g. Ely, 1995). Researchers and practitioners should consistently work hand in hand to break down the barriers to the applied use of research and close the gap between research and applications by becoming more proactive in building partnerships that encourage field research and practical application of the findings (Morrison, 1995). Overall, t here is still insufficient data on creative teamwork especially in applied setting s Although many studies have focused on creativity and teamwork separately little empirical evidence has advanced a system s understanding of creativ e teamwork T herefore, research on creativ e teamwork employing a systems approach in a n applied set ting is in need. Scope of Study and Research Questions Th e current study addresses the need to bridge the gap between research and practice by conducting a field study with interdisciplinary teams challenged to solve a real world business problem While gl obalization challenges many businesses with international issues the current

PAGE 16

16 study examined business issues within a North American context. The current study also employed a systems approach which examines interactions among team inputs, team processes, a nd team outcomes. From a systems approach, c reativity can be examined by focusing on the person, the process, and the product (Amabile, 1996). From these characteristics, creativity can also be observed at the individual, group, or organizational level. E specially in a complex social setting that involves all three levels, creativity is defined as, the creation of a valuable, useful new product, service, idea, procedure, or process by individuals working together in a complex social system (Woodman, Sawye r, & Griffin, 1993, p. 293). Creativity and teamwork are interrelated in the sense that ca n both be underst ood through the connections and interactions between components of a system A systems approach can be defined as the interdependency, interconnecte dness, and interrelatedness of a set of components that represent the whole (Tan, 1998). Teams can be seen as part of a system, or an organization, that is also made up of subsystems of individuals. Particularly in teamwork, teams work in a system that dea ls with the individual s contributions (inputs), the interactions between individuals (processes), and the results (outputs) described through McGrath s (1964) input process output framework for analyzing group behavior and performance (Figure 1 1). Using a systems approach, the current study examined problem solving styles, personality traits and process variables at individual and group levels in relation to creative performance (Figure 1 2 ). Problem solving style relates to preferred modes of thinking during different stages of problem solving (generating, conceptualizing, optimizing, and implementing ideas). P ersonality traits associated with creativity and interpersonal traits essential to teamwork were also assessed to further understand an individua l s contribution to the team Team characteristics

PAGE 17

17 observe the combination of these individual characteristics particularly the diversity of problem solving styles and cohesiveness among team members The team process is investigated on an individual s pe rception of success and resulting cohesions and conflicts during problem solving. Finally, t eam outcomes are evaluated by a panel of expert judges to provide a measure of creative performance. To accomplish these goals this study asks the following researc h questions: Question 1: What problem solving styles and personality traits characterizes each teams composition? How do these vary from normative populations? Question 2: How do teams differ in their perception of team process? Question 3: How do prob lem solving styles and personality traits relate to perceptions of the team process? Question 4: What team composition and process characteristics describe the winning team? Question 5: What are the main factors that relate to creative team performance? Th ese questions require rationales from the literature reviewed in Chapter Two. Chapter Three describes the methodology: the setting of the study, sample, instruments, and procedure, utilized while conducting this thesis study. Chapter Four addresses the res earch questions by presenting the results from both quantitative and qualitative analyses. Finally, Chapter Five interprets and discusses the study, states the research implications, limitations, and future study suggestions.

PAGE 18

18 F igure 1 1. An input -process -output framework for analyzing group behavior and performance Figure 1 2 Relationships between variables in the present study INPUT PROCESS OUTP UT Individual Level Factors (e.g., pattern of member skills, attitudes, personality characteristics) Group Level Factors (e.g., structure, level of cohesiveness, group size ) Environmental Level Factors (e.g., g roup task characteristics, reward structure, level of environmental stress ) Performance Outcomes (e.g., performance quality, speed to solution, number of errors ) Other Outcomes (e.g., member satisfaction, group cohesiveness, attitude change, sociometric structure ) Group Interaction Process Personality Traits Problem Solving Perception of Perception of Creative Cohesion/Conflict Role Clarity Diversity Goal Specification Cohesiveness Team Viability TEAM COMPOSITION PROCESS 1 s t OUTCOME

PAGE 19

19 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Introduction This chapter reviews the m ost relevant literature on creativity and teamwork to develop a theoretical framework for answering the research questions raised in this thesis. This review contains definition s and contemporary theories of creativity and systems approach es for examining creativity in a business context. The relation between creativity and tea mwork is examine d through understanding the c haracteristics of t eam processes within the working environment In particular t he review emphasizes the need for creative multidisciplin ary teamwork in business settings. Creativity A variety of theoretical and methodological perspectives exist in researching creativity ; however, the challenge of empirically defining the term remains. F inding examples of creative people, things, or situati ons seem s to come easier than actually defining the term. Although an exact definition of creativity has not been collectively accepted, a majority of creativity researchers generally support the concept that creati vity involves the creation of novel and y et appropriate solutions (Amabile, 1983, 1996; Davis, 1999). This definition also acknowledges that creative people are those who create new and useful products and that creative cognitive processes occur whenever a new and useful product or idea i s created (Mayer, 1999). Based on this concept of creativity, multiple theoretical approaches are examined to better understand the construct Four Ps in Creativity: Person, Process, Press Product The most widely accepted framework for describing creativity iden tifies the person, process, press and product commonly known as the four Ps in creativity ( Mooney 1963)

PAGE 20

20 Although prior research on creativity employed differe nt approaches, Mooney stated that prior studies tended to employ one or a combination of the se four foci. Because t hese four key elements are expansive and practic al, this framework has be en widely accepted and recognized by many researchers (Davis, 1999; Torrance, 1988). The following sections review each focus in turn Person Creativity begins wi th the person. The majority of prior research has examined the creative person by examin ing the traits, behaviors, and characteristics of individuals. Researchers identify t hree primary characteristics which combine to influence ones creative potential: p ersonality traits, cognitive abilities, and biographical traits (Davis 2004 ). Recurrent creative personality traits identified through research include: aware of creativeness, original, independent, risk taking, high energy, curious, sense of humor, capac ity for fantasy, attracted to complexity and ambiguity, artistic, open minded, thorough, needs alone time, perceptive, emo tional, and ethical (Davis, 2004 ). As many personality traits there are that relate to creativity, there are also many cognitive abilities. In fact, it is difficult to determine certain mental abilities that have no connection with creativity (Davis 2004 ). Nevertheless, long -time creativity expert Barron (1988) lists six important cognitive traits related to creativity: recognizing patt erns, making connections, taking risks, challenging assumptions, taking advantage of chance, and seeing in new ways. As for biographical characteristics, p ast experience in creative involvement seems to be a key indicator of creativity (Torrance, 1962; Renzulli & Reis, 1991) However, n ot all traits will apply to all creative persons for the reason that there are too many forms of creativity and creative people for any specific generalization s to be made ( Davis, 200 4 ; Levi, 2001). T he personoriented approa ch also has limitations in that creativity varies in degrees and is not purely of innate nature but can also be nurtured (Levi, 2001).

PAGE 21

21 Process The process is also used as a means in defining creativity. Torrance s (1988) definition of creativity in partic ular, describes a process that resembles the steps that are used in scientific method s. This approach begins by sensing difficulties, problems, gaps in i nformation, or missing elements. It proceeds in making guesses or formulating hypotheses about these de ficiencies then testing these guesses and possibly revising and retesting them a nd finally communicating the results. This process definition includes the creative person (someone who can do this), the creative product (the successful result), and the cr eative press (the environment that facilitates the process). One of the most freque ntly cited process models is the Creat ive Problem Solving (CPS) model Originally formulated by Osborn (1963) and further developed by Parnes (1981), the model includes fiv e steps: fact -finding, problem -finding, idea -finding, solution -finding (idea evaluation), and acceptance -finding (idea implementation). The CPS steps guide the creative process. A unique feature of this model is that each step involves both divergent and c onvergent thinking. Each step first involves a phase that generates lots of ideas (facts problem definitions, ideas, evaluation criteria, implementation strategies), and then a phase that selects the most promising ideas for further exploration (Davis, 2004). The first step fact -finding, lists the information about the problem or challenge. The list of ideas is then narrowed down to those that might be especially productive. The goal of this step is to explore all the information, impressions, observatio ns, feelings, and questions of the problem. Parnes (1981) recommend ed asking who, what, when, where, why, and how questions for effectiveness at this stage. Problem -finding in volves coming up with alternat e problem definitions. Exploring the real problem a nd asking questions of why the problem is being sought broadens the problem definition. The step of idea -finding is when the idea generation or

PAGE 22

22 brainstorming happens. Ideas are freely proposed for each problem defined in the prior stage It is vital that o ne does not employ criticism or evaluation at this stage to allow ideas to fully surface. During the solution finding stage, criteria for evaluation are listed, ideas are evaluated, and one or more of the best ideas are selected. Discreet evaluation approa ches should be considered to prevent prematurely discarding ideas with good qualities or accepting those with faults (Parnes, 1981). Finally, the a cceptance-finding step is implementing ideas by thinking of ways to get solutions accepted by society (Parnes 1981). Parnes commented that the creative problem solving process can flexibly and iteratively move from one stage to another (Davis 2004 ). Similarly, Basadur (1992) proposed a model developed from CPS, called Simplex that circularly moves through the problem solving process in stages of problem generating, problem formulating, problem solving, and solution implementation (Figure 2 1) Each stage contains two steps, summarizing the Simplex model into an eight -step process identifying the problem, findin g facts, defining the problem finding ideas, evaluating and selecting ideas, planning, gaining acceptance, and taking action. The two steps in each stage is a mini -process of sequential divergent and convergent thinking called ideation-evaluation (Basadur & Head, 2001). This model extended earlier linear process models (Osborn, 1963; Parnes, Noller, & Biondi, 1977) and was developed through real -world organizational field research and application experience (Basadur, 1974, 1979, 1992). The model can be dist inguished by its circular process, developed so that each implemented solution can lead to new and useful problems. Press The creative press (also known as the creative environment), includes both the social and the physical aspects of ones environment. A creative climate encourages creative thinking and innovation. Leonard and Swap (1999) described this as a creative ecology, saying that,

PAGE 23

23 o rganizations need a creativity ecologyan interdependent, interactive, self -sustaining, and reinforcing system th at includes not only people and processes but also settings (p.136) Although prior research has generally avoided the environment, interest is growing as people and organizations are becoming more aware of the influence of climate and culture on creativ ity. A social climate open to ideas, absence of threat, and willing to risk are some of the necessary conditions for supporting creativity (Isaksen, 1987). Physical environmental elements such as, the aesthetics of the space, structure of the building, use of internal space, or even furniture may not individually maneuver individuals or teams toward creativity, however all of these features have the potential to support or block creativity (Leonard & Swap, 1999). Product The creativity of the end product o f a creative process is difficult to generalize or determine for the reason that there are too many different forms of it. The ideas, concrete products, or solutions produced can be assessed differently according to the evaluator or the specific domain. In stead of trying to generalize product creativity, focus should turn towards investigating creative products in order to identify what differentiates them from others (MacKinnon 1978) Basically, novelty is easily identified in that one can depict what is new or different from others whereas, appropriateness is far more difficult to depict contextually Some definitions of creativity have also emphasized that criteria in a domain are essential in assessing creative products. Fifth P: Persuasion In addition to the four Ps in creativity, Simonton (1988) added a fifth P persuasion, t he role of leadership and selling ones ideas to others This emphasizes the importance of the view that individuals become creative only insofar as they impress or persuade oth ers with their creativity. Simonton emphasizes that this concept, along with chance, is a factor in both the

PAGE 24

24 generation of creative ideas and in their social acceptance. The creative idea is only recognized when others perceive it to be creative as well. I t follows that t he persuasion process may be just as important as the generation of idea s Assessing Creativity The complex nature of assessing creativity requires multiple measures of the cognitive processes, motivations, attitudes, and personality trait s associated with the individual, as well as the products, presentations, and performances that result from the creative process (Feldhusen & Goh, 1995 ). Most efforts in creativity assessment have focused on persons and their cognitive abilities, personali ty characteristics, motivations, or background experiences such as, the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT ; Torrance, 1975), Kirton Adaptor Innovator scale (KAI; Kirton, 1987) and the Adjective Check List (ACL; Gough & Heilbrun, 1983) In assessing creative products, s o far, the most accepted method has been the rating of external judges, including educators or experts in a domain ( Amabile, 1990; Feldhusen & Goh, 1995 ; Plucker & Renzulli, 1999). This approach, known as the Consensual Assessment Tech nique (CAT) refined by Amabile (1983) uses appropriate observers in the domain of articulation to independently review product s. The product is claimed creative only upon agreement of the independent responses The multidimensional construct of creativity requires multiple channels of measurement and therefore, theoretical models can provide the best frameworks especially in research (Feldhusen & Goh, 1995 ). Domain The role of a domain is highlighted by many theoretical and empirical studies on creativity as the body of knowledge moves from generality to domain specificity. The strongest evidence for domain specificity is provided by the variety in fields that produce creative performance and that each product is judged by appropriate experts in the field u sing Amabiles CAT (Baer,

PAGE 25

25 1998). In addition, Csikszentmihalyi (1988) proposes a three-part theory of creativity that includes interaction s among the individual, field, and domain. The creative person contributes the necessary ability, talent, and traits w hich have potential for creativity; however, an individual typically receives formal education in a domain, or discipline, which includes exposure to rules, structure, and practices within a specific area of work. This knowledge interacts with and influenc es an individuals personality, cognitive processes, and motivation. Experts in a given field, provide judgment on the creativeness of an individuals products Without the acceptance from the field the person and the product are not recognized as creativ e. Because field experts in different domains employ different criteria to evaluate creative products, creativity becomes a domain -specific construct which has impelled scholars to examine and define creativity in specific disciplines as opposed to more ge neralist perspectives. Systems Approach to Creativity Csikszentmihalyi (1988) conceptualizes creativity as an act, idea, or product that changes an existing domain, or transforms the domain into a new one. His three -part theory of creativity is a systems m odel that incorporates all aspects that lead to creativity. The model considers the individual person and the process that they go through, the press or the domain of work, and the product assessed by gatekeepers in the given field. All of these aspects in tegrate together for creativity to take place Similarly, a systems approach can be defined as the interdependency, interconnectedness, and interrelatedness of a set of components that represent the whole (Tan, 1998). Tan (1998) argues that complexity of organizations in particular, calls for an integrated systems approach in order to manage creativity. His theoretical framework suggests that creativity in organizations can be managed through successful interventions that overcome barriers to innovation and cultivate s creativity, and in turn, encourage s the development of

PAGE 26

26 creative outcomes. Although this total systems approach considers multiple factors impacting creativity, most of his focus is on the organizational context. The systems view of creativity in the workplace emphasizes the three levels of individual, group, and organization (Amabile, 1983; Woodman, Sawyer & Griffin, 1993). This systems approach explains that creative performance involves interactions among in dividual personality traits, cognit ive style a bility, relevant knowledge, motivation, and external environmental factors ( Jackson, 2005). Creativity can take place in the individual as a cognitive process, between individuals as they interact, in teams as a group level event, or in the con text of organizations (Watson, 2007). R esearch suggests that social domain s influence individual creativity, and teams and organizations should be analyzed as the agents in creative process and behaviors (Watson, 2007) Hargadon and Bechky (2006) discovere d that individuals contribute distinct existing ideas within a particular social interaction, and the creative value of those ideas evolves through their confluence with others. At the team -level, the creative teams task is to come up with creative soluti ons that are built from the recombination of these existing ideas (Amabile, 1988; Van de Ven, 1986; Weick, 1979; Hargadon & Sutton, 1997). T he interactionist model of creativ ity, proposed by Woodman, Sawyer, and Griffin (1993) is an extension of Woodman and Schoenfeldt s original model (1990) and includes the individual, group, and organizational levels of creativity ( Figure 2 2 ). Individual components are expanded into group and organizational factors that include person -situation interaction. Individual creativity is perceived as the function of antecedent conditions, cognitive style and ability, personality factors, relevant knowledge, motivation, social influe nces, and contextual influences Antecedent conditions are related to the biographical charact eristics of a creative person such as past experiences and behaviors while c ognitive style and ability include problem

PAGE 27

27 solving styles, divergent thinking, and ideational fluency. These variables with the addition of personality factors, relevant knowledge and motivation are characteristics of the creative person. These i ndividual creative behavior inputs, the interaction of the individuals involved, group characteristics, group processes, and contextual influences are the function of group creativity. In relation to the four Ps in creativity, these elements connect with the creative process and creative press. Finally, organizational creativity is a function of the creative outputs of the group and contextual influences which concern the creative process a nd the creative product Hence, t his model acknowledges the four Ps in creativity as well as the individual and group contributions to creativity. Woodman et al. (1993) describes that overall, the gestalt of creative output for the entire system ste ms from the complex mosaic of individual, group, and organizational characteristics and behaviors occurring within the salient situational influences existing at each level of social organization (p. 296) Creativity comes from the integration of all contributing elements: the person, process, press, product, and persuasion. It should be approached from a holistic view in order to be fully understood and appreciated. Teamwork Teams are a widespread phenomenon in society ; teams operate as a collective committed to generating a common output (Watson, 2007). The definition of a team can be organized as two or more individuals with specific roles interacting adaptively, interdependently, and dynamically toward a common valued goa l (Salas, Sims, & Burke, 2 005). A team possesses the potential of operating beyond the capabilities of an individual. Teams are especially valued when interpersonal interactions produce a far greater quality than an individual wor king alone. Hackman (1987) noted that working in te ams has benefits such as, better quality in decisions, effective execution of those decisions, enhancement in commitment and motivation, and innovative ideas. However, teams may also pose some disadvantages including the

PAGE 28

28 possibility of wasting more time an d energy, making bad decisions, being destructive through conflicts, frustrating other team members, and low productivity. These restraints impede teams in reach ing their full potential and usually occur when conflict develops among members or when time is spent on social interaction rather than the task (VanGundy, 1984). In order for a team to be optimally effective, all members should achieve their highest potential (VanGundy, 1984). Systems Approa ch to Teamwork A frequently cited framework for understan ding team dynamics in business settings is the input process output model (Gladstein, 1984; Guzzo & Shea, 1992; Hackman, 1987; McGrath, 1964). This model examines the factors that individual members bring to the team (input), the interaction (process), and the product (output). At the same time, this model describes how individuals affect intra group processes and outcomes. According to McGraths analysis on team behavior and performance (1964), the inputs in this model can be further grouped into three cat egories: individual level factors, group level factors, and environmental level factors. V arious inputs that are combined from the individual, group, and organizational level (McGrath, 1964), such as team -member attributes, structure and size, task charact eristics, and reward structures. Intra -group processes refer to the interactions that take place among team members and include communication patterns, cohesion and conflict, and efforts toward leadership and other forms of influence. Team output refers to team outcomes associated with productivity, as well as the capability of team members to continue working cooperatively. Figure 2 3 illustrates the basic concept of the input process output model; the team composition affects the outcome exclusively thro ugh the interaction in the team process (Hackman, 1987). This model disregards the direct impact that individuals in the team have on the outcome. Individuals are considered as part of a collective unit, where interaction among members influences team perf ormance. As an alternative, Hackman (1987) suggests that adding

PAGE 29

29 to the traditional model mentioned above, the team also directly affects the outcome (Figure 2 4 ). In this case, both team process and individual influence provides a context which can s ystema tically drive the outcome Hackman (1987) introduces yet another component to this model by introducing the concept of group synergy Synergy results from the members interactions as they carry out the task. When group synergy is achieved, process losses are minimized and synergistic gains are created (Hackman, 1987). This synergy is present when the performance or outcomes of a group go beyond the capacities of individual members (Schweiger & Sandb erg, 1989) as seen in Figure 2 5 This effect can regulate the performance conditions group design and context into a more or less favorable one. While there is some variation among the models, it is important to note that they all comprise the same variables: team composition, team process, and team outcome. Si milarly, these reflect the components of the creativity model: person, process, and product. These variables are all integrated in teamwork and should be examined in detail to better understand how to cultivate a creative team that generates a successful o utcome. Team Composition ( Inputs ) Team composition comprises both individual characteristics and collective group characteristics that both cultivate the unique team composition. Individuals can be first distinguished by many variables such as, knowledge, skills, and abilities, personality traits, roles, and preferences. In addition, individual variables can be combined to explain the characteristics of a team.

PAGE 30

3 0 Individual Characteristics Knowledge, skills, and abilities The knowledge, skills, and abilities of an individual differ among disciplines or fields of interest (Csikszentmihalyi, 1988) Knowledge includes information the individual has acquired and retained, while skills or abilities refer to what an individual can do competently (VanGundy, 1984). T he mixture of an individuals knowledge, skills, and abilities is a complex and unique combination of resources ac cumulated through time. The creativeness of the new combination of existing ideas can only come from the material that has been previously gat hered and deposited in the individuals mind. Therefore, m any studies hypothesize that higher knowledge, skills, and abilities of team members predict higher team performance (e.g., Barrick et al. 1998; Stevens & Campion, 1994; Williams & Sternberg, 1988) Problem solving styles or roles Individuals typically take on different roles within a team to complete a task. Roles are defined as a collection of related and goal -directed behaviors featured within a specific situation (Stewart, Fulmer, & Barrick, 20 05). When individuals understand the problem solving process and concurrently have knowledge of the role that needs to be taken, effective team performance can take place. Many team role typologies exist, however many are similar to one an other. For insta nce, based on the early work by Benne and Sheats (1948), roles within a team can be sorted into task roles, maintenance roles, and individual roles. Task roles support and organize the teams effort in selecting, defining, and solving common problems; main tenance roles orient toward strengthening, regulating, and managing the team; and individual roles take interest in satisfying individual needs that are not related to the teams task. Similarly, Mumford, Campion, and

PAGE 31

31 Morgeson (2006) organized and integrat ed roles into three broad categories: task, social, and boundary -spanning. Along these lines, other typologies identify an individuals primary problem solving role, such as, the collaborator, contributor, challenger, and communicator (Parker, 1996); the coordinator, shaper, planter, specialist, completer, implementer, monitor evaluator, teamworker, and resource investigator (Belbin, 1993); and the contractor, creator, contributor, completer, critic, cooperator, communicator, calibrator, consul, and coordi nator (Mumford et al., 2006). However, problems may occur when specific roles are named despite individual differences (McCrimmon, 1995). McCrimmon (1995) opposed team roles for the reason that they do not allow creative emergence. He finds that individual s with specified roles oftentimes have the sense of a restrictive obligation and rigidity towards the team process. Instead, individuals should have the freedom to be flexible according to the situation or problem, and break out of their defined style and create opportunities for personal development. Identifying the role one plays on a team can be valuable to team performance (Belbin, 2000) Often these are assigned, but are usually recognized during the team adaption process through emerging interaction s (Carnall, 1999; Heckhausen, 1989). Therefore, instead of focusing on the role determined prior to interaction, it is important to determine role s by s ituation. Team role knowledge and situational contingencies governing their use, can affect team member p erformance more than personality because it allows members to review the situation and acclimatize to the needed role (Mumford Morgeson, Van Iddekinge, & Campion, 2008). Team members with adequate knowledge of roles and when they are needed in the problem solving process brings clarity to the situation and allows individuals to work with flexibility. Fulfillment and coordination of team roles are thought to be necessary so the team can perform effectively

PAGE 32

32 and so it can avoid process losses associated with unnecessarily harmful conflict, role ambiguity, and social loafing (Steiner, 1972). The knowledge of an individuals problem solving style makes it possible for that individual to work along the problem solving process by taking advantage of their strengths and yielding to their weaknesses. In particular, t he Creative Problem Solving Profile (CPSP) is a psychometric instrument b ased on the Simplex model which is an extension of the Creative Problem Solving (CPS) process (Basadur & Gelade, 2002). T he CPSP m easures the unique blend of the individuals problem solving style according to their preference for ways of gaining and utilizing knowledge Petersons study (2004) on the success factors for problem -based learning found that t he self awareness of the CPS P provides students with information in not only realizing their own thinking process but also the problem solving process in general Students have commented on learning their strengths and appreciating complementary styles of team members as well. Pers onality traits P ersonality traits are elements that contribute to how well individuals can perform on the given task and relates to what kind of interaction they have with team members. In a meta analysis by Hough (1992), three personality constructs were correlated with teamwork: conscientiousness, related to both achievement and dependability; emotional stability; and agreeableness. Conscientious ness, in particular, found to have consistent and strong relationships with individual performance in work envi ronments (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Mount & Barrick, 1995). Individuals with high conscientiousness tend to support each team member in contributing more to the overall team outcome in spite of role s tasks, or relationships with other team members. At the team level, high motivation for achievement relates to more concern of team success (Zander & Forward, 1968), and results in higher team performance (French, 1958).

PAGE 33

33 Barrick et al. (1998) found that a greeable team members have high potential in cooperation as they are helpful, friendly, warm, trusting, and tolerant This gravitation towards c ooperation within the team also improves long-term team viability Members with similar levels of agreeableness should also have similar styles in managing conflict, which in turn, facilitates effective mediat ion of any differences among the team (Jackson, Stone, & Alvaarez, 1992). Leonard and Swap (1999) state that in businesses, people are motivated to succeed (achievement), to be in charge (dominance), and to have relati onships with others (affiliation), yet vary at the extent. However, creativity is hindered when an individual dominates or over powers, or is not open to others opinions (Sawyer, 2007). Additionally, Oldham and Cummings (1996) summarize some of the stable characteristics which relate consistently and positively to measures of creative performance across a variety of domains: broad interests, attraction to complexity, intuition, aesthetic sensitivity, toleration of ambiguity, and self -confidence. A group of factors that appear in creative individuals mentioned by VanGundy (1984) are: self -esteem and self -confidence, independence of judgment, perseverance, and locus of control. Some factors that stimulate creativity are freedom in carrying out the work; a sense of positive challenge in the work; work teams that are collaborative, diversely skilled, and idea focused; and norms of actively sharing ideas across (e.g. Amabile et al., 1996; Kanter, 1988; West & Anderson, 1996). In addition, a utonomy within work groups greatly increases member motivation and in turn, encourages the innovation process and enhances productivity (Paulus, 2008). Anything that supports the development of expertise, creativity relevant skill, and intrinsic motivation should facilitate crea tivity (Amabile & Mueller, 2008).

PAGE 34

34 The personality characteristics of creative individuals and those that support successful teamwork somewhat interrelate. From the literature reviewed on personality traits, t he creative person and the successful team membe r both have a sense for achievement, self -control, and are open to change. Creative individuals tend to prefer an autonomous atmosphere, whereas team members usually work together according to an order of set plans. Teams generally have a leader, who has d ominant qualities that enables decision making, and members that follow or support the choice made. With regards to interpersonal relationships, successful team members have a strong affiliation with their team The se various personality traits can be mea sured through psychometric instruments. The Adjective Check List (ACL) especially, has been employed in research to investigate a wide range of human behaviors in applied work settings using several standardized scales (McDermid, 1965; Arvey, Dewhirst, & Boling, 1976; Mani, 1995; Oldham & Cummings, 1996). Arvey et al. (1976) found that the need for achievement, autonomy, and affiliation were significantly related to employee satisfaction at a multidisciplinary research center. The study concluded that supe rvisory goal clarifying and planning activities and participation in goal setting were positively associated with subordinate satisfaction ; h owever, this study did not observe any interactions The ACL also incorporates a separate creative personality scal e (ACL Cr) in addition to the one provided in the manual. Research in creativity has used the ACL -Cr scale to examine creativity in specific domains (Davis & Bull, 1978; Domino & Giuliani, 1997; Meneely & Portillo, 2005) rather than using the scale with no rmative results from students, professionals, and randomly selected adults (Gough & Heilbrun, 1983). Group Characteristics Team behavior is partly determined by specific combinations of individuals interacting together (VanGundy, 1984). Although ideas beg in in the minds of individuals they are later

PAGE 35

35 shaped and changed by the members in the team (Kurtzberg, 2000). When individuals form teams, they benefit from one another as each brings their own knowledge, skills, abilities, and perspectives (Bradley & Hebert 1997). Well -composed groups are made up of individual members just large enough to do the given task, have high task relevant expertise, have interpersonal and task skills, and are moderately diverse (Hackman, 1987). A variety of behaviors indicate potential to successful teamwork including interdependence, goal specification, cohesiveness, roles and norms, communication, and trust. Interdependence is the issue of how each members outcomes are determined by the actions of the other members (Roussea u, 2001). Goal specification and cohesiveness refer to the attractiveness of the team member relationships, which moderately relates to social and task cohesiveness (Besser, 1995; Latham, 2001). Each team must also manage its efforts by requir ing members t o hold common or overlapping cognitive account s of the task requirements, goals, procedures, and role responsibilities (Thompson & Fine, 1999). Communication enables team goals to be understood by every member of the team, while receiving thoughtful feedba ck (Clampitt, DeKock, & Cashman, 2000). Along the way, team members need to trust the people and process, and be willing to contribute to constructive conflicts (Bryant & Harvey, 2000). Naturally, t eam members who are low in social anxiety and who enjoy gr oup interaction will perform better. The flow of a team also increases when the members feel autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Sawyer, 2007). Diversity Diverse team members bring a wider range of approaches to problem solving due to the variety of problem solving styles within the team and higher levels of group creativity in finding solutions (Pegels & Yang, 2000; West & Slater, 1995; West, 1994). Research shows that when solving complex, non routine problems, teams are more effective when theyre c omposed of

PAGE 36

36 people who have a variety of skills, knowledge, and perspective (Sawyer, 2007). Diversity also provides an environment which encourages each individual to contribute, which leads to a higher quality team output (Thompson, 2000; Katzenbach & Smit h, 1993). However, a combination of individuals with different personality traits or cognitive styles may encounter difficulty in working in harmony Higher levels of diversity tend to hold a greater conflict potential, which reduces the quality of proble m -solving (Staehle, 1999). In the case of creativity, too much diversity can cause communication problems to arise and conflicts to grow, inhibiting the advantages of teamwork. In Kurtzbergs (2000) investigation on the relationship of diversity, creativit y, and conflict, he showed that a diverse mixture of creative and non -creative people leads to higher levels of creative performance, but at the expense of team member satisfaction. On the other hand, if team members are too similar, the flow of a team beg ins to wither for the reason that the interaction is no longer challenging (Sawyer, 2007). Team diversity is most often perceived as an opportunity for creative team outcomes that are not possible by homogeneous teams (Amabile, 1996; Hambrick, Cho & Chen, 1996). This only enhances the teams performance when there is some degree of shared knowledge, a culture of close listening and open communication, a focus on well -defined goals, autonomy, fairness, and equal participation (Sawyer, 2007). Goal specificat ion Team goals are defined as, a desirable state of affairs members intend to bring about through combined efforts (Zander, 1994, p.15). A clear understanding of a teams objectives through well articulated goals is the most common characteristic of succ essful teams (Larson & LeFasto, 1989) improv ing team performance and internal team processes (McComb, Green, & Compton, 1999). The valu e of team goals is to provide d irection to the team and motivation for the team members (Levi, 2001).

PAGE 37

37 At the team -level, there are constant struggles between the individual perspectives brought into the group and the amalgamation among team members that is required for well -coordinated processes and interactions. Nevertheless, team members must synchronize their plans for accomplishing the given task ; they must come to a common understanding of the problem definition, agree on the evaluation of ideas, and work interpersonally with each other (Kurtzberg, 2000) Team members should develop communication and interaction patterns that aid the team in working together successfully (Al Rawi, 2008). The concept of team employs the properties of s haring goals As long as it is clear and shared, a common mission unites people and gives the members a sense of purpose (Leonard & Swap, 1999). A teams goal is the task recognized by team members as the purpose of the teams existence; the effectiveness of a team depends on the members ability to recognize the goal (Larson & LaFasto, 1989). It is vital for team members to have common goa ls for team achievement, as well as to communicate clearly about the individual goals they may share (Al Rawi, 2008). Clear goals and immediate feedback through a mutual response in communication are the critical elements to the flow within a team (Sawyer, 2007). On the other hand, when objectives are unclear, these become barriers against effective team performance (Sawyer, 2007). Team goal ambiguity and misinterpretation can lead team members to communicate in ways that prevent them from accomplishing the team goal. Clarity in the common goals guide the team members to think about how they can develop this potential and work effectively together to ensure that everyone plays to their strengths and maximize the teams effort. Team Process The process plays an essential role in team performance. A teams process is what pulls together the creative energy from individual min ds into a team level outcome. Individuals impact team problem solving processes by bringing their personality and behavior into the team work

PAGE 38

38 (James & Asmus, 2001 ; Osche, 1990; Amabile, 1981; Barron & Harrington, 1981; Eysenck, 1994; Weisberg, 1993). Team members must be able to combine their efforts successfully. Team members need to communicate well, work cooperatively, and provide suppor t for each other. P rospective measures of interaction include communication patterns, conflict levels, individual inputs, and distribution of team -member assignments (Gladstein, 1984). Hargadon and Bechky (2006) state that creative outcomes are produced th rough the collective effort of a team. From this perspective, creative insights emerge during social interaction as ideas are connected across team members. Collective creativity occurs when interaction enables individuals to come up with new interpretations or discoveries they could not generate alone. The attention and energy that an individual commits in the interaction and the feedback given by that individual triggers a dynamic which transfigures the creative outcome (Hargadon & Bechky, 2006). Team Pro blem Solving In a work environment, teams are given a task or a problem to solve. A problem is identified as a dilemma with no apparent way out, an undesirable situation without a solution, a question that cannot currently be answered, the difference betwe en the current situation and a desired state, or a situation when group members must respond in order to function effectively (Pokras, 1995). In solving a problem, the process of problem definition, generation, implementation, and evaluation of issues is a ddressed, but in general, the most effective way is to define the problem and then decide how to solve it (Levi, 2001). Teams go through the same problem solving process as individuals do; however, interaction among individuals and integration of ideas is added. Brophy (1998) developed a trilevel matching theory of CPS, which is a systemic view that can help identify relationships between individual and social influences, CPS components, and outcomes. He considered i ndividuals, groups, and organizations a s the three levels of this theory and identified the best

PAGE 39

39 type of problem that can be solved in each level. In particular, t he success in group CPS have additional requirements than that of individuals, for instance, a leader should elicit, organize, and coordinate the team members contributions, members should have varied knowledge and thinking styles and have positive and tolerant attitudes for the full use of potential contributions. Brophy (1998) suggested that when the group is comprised of adequate problem solvers, the group is able to solve single -part problems and several -part problems in need of the complete CPS process and in -depth knowledge of multiple subjects. Although this theory thoroughly details each level according to the characteristics of CPS, it does not fully embrace the characteristics of interpersonal interaction during the process. An effective team should include intelligent problem solver s, or observant critical thinkers Researchers have identified a number of characteristics o f effective team problem solving (Beebe & Maste rson, 1994; Janis & Mann, 1977). For example a successful team considers a variety of options or alternative before selecting a particular solution; a successful teams discussion is focused on the problem; s killed problem solvers test alternative solutions relative to established criteria. On the other hand, teams that jump too quickly into the solution stage without doing an adequ ate job of defining the problem and do not discuss their problem -solving strate gies or develop plans to follow typically fail during the problem solving process. Communication Communication is the process by which a person or group sends information to another person or group. This process is comprised by the sender, receiver, and m essage. Understanding the characteristics of these three components is the foundation of successful communication but also creates the opportunity for miscommunication. In order to avoid miscommunications, the communication climate should be open, supporti ve, inclusive, and rewarding (Levi, 2001). Supportive climates in particular, encompass diverse ideas and expressions of both agreement

PAGE 40

40 and disagreement. Th is kind of communication climate affects the willingness of team members to participate offering me mbers the sense of affiliation, commitment, pride, and trust in their teams In addition, s upportive communication behaviors include description, problem orientation, spontaneity, equality, and provisionalism, whereas, defensive behaviors include evaluatio n, control, neutrality, superiority, and certainty (Levi, 2001) The key to good communication within the team is trust. Trust is the expression of the confidence one has that other team members will honor their commitments (Thompson, 2000). Trust has a d irect relationship to interpersonal communication, cooperation, and teamwork. People are more willing to commit to team goals, help others in a variety of situations, and become involved in the teams activities when trust is high (Levi, 2001) Cohesion an d Conflict When the whole team is fully engaged, or cohesive, a flow within the team is more likely to emerge (Sawyer, 2007). Team cohesion refers to the interpersonal bonds that hold a team together (Levi, 2001). Presumably, when cohesion is strong, the t eam is motivated to perform well and is better able to direct activities for successful performance (Cartwright, 1968; Davis, 1969). The more interdependent the members need to be so as to complete the task, the greater the likelihood that they will feel l ike part of a cohesive team (Guzzo & Dick son, 1996). The effects of cohesion are more important when the task requires high levels of interaction, coordination, and interdependence. However, high cohesiveness endangers the process by allowing groupthink to surface. Groupthink results from illusions among team members that everyone is in agreement, censoring any doubts, while pressuring team members that dissenter (Sawyer, 2007; Leonard & Swap, 1999). The emergence of groupthink inhibits the creativity wit hin the team and further influences the quality of the product.

PAGE 41

41 Although researchers agree that the importance of teamwork cohesiveness is in sustaining initiative, empathy, and flexibility; conflict still arises from differences (Al -Rawi, 2008). When ind ividuals come together in teams, their differences naturally contribute to the creation of conflict. Conflict is seen as any disagreement among two or more people, and can be distinguished into task -based, process based, and relationship -based conflict (We st, 1994). The source of conflict can usually be found in disagreements about objectives or working processes, often a result of communication problems and differences in working or thinking methods. Based on this, Staehle (1999) concludes that diverse tea ms have inherently a higher conflict potential than homogenous teams. P erceived similarity in homogenous teams increase s attractiveness and result in high cohesion, which can also hurt creativity due to conformity pressure and domineering members. On the other hand, heterogeneous teams generally demonstrate greater levels of disagreement, including a reduced common understanding of goals and processes and a stronger tendency to undergo process -based and relationship -based conflicts. Process -based and relat ionship -based conflicts create the most severe damage to performance in a team (Heckhausen, 1989). Especially when conflicts turn personal, damage is made in the process as well as the outcome. Teams with frequent personal conflict are relatively ineffecti ve because their interactions are divisive and angry (Leonard & Swap, 1999). Some also argue that if cognitive conflict exceeds a limit, it can lead into unproductive actions, and even take away the trust built within the team (Simons & Peterson, 2000). Cr eative A brasion Conflict is an integral part of group dynamics, and though it is possible to suppress all creativity in group work (Thomas, 1992), lack of disagreements of any kind can hinder both the teams productivity and their creativity (Nemeth, 1995) Research has also shown that some

PAGE 42

42 degree of conflict may be beneficial to group process and outcomes. Conflict can be very productive when competitive and substantive conflict benefit from pushing individuals to higher standards and clarifying individual perspectives (Eisenhardt & Zbaracki, 1992). Cognitive or task based conflict can open thought processes, which then can drive group creativity (Staehle, 1999), and cognitive conflict in particular is essential for effective team performance (Forbes & Mill iken, 1999). In order to make conflict beneficial, team members need to challenge one another and welcome differences (Leonard & Swap, 1999). This process, called creative abrasion enables the team to unleash the creative potential that is hidden in a col lection of unlike -minded individuals (Hirshberg, 1998). Although facilitating creative abrasion in the process may be a challenge, n onetheless, diversity makes teams more creative because of this friction and the diversity and multiplicity in ideas drives the team to more original and more complex work (Sawyer, 2007). Overall, the creativity of a team depends on how the process is managed (Levi, 2001). Team Out come Many factors can be related to measuring the creative team outcome. Hackman (1987) proposed that a comprehensive assessment of team success must capture both current and future team effectiveness. The present performance can be evaluated by the success, overall productivity, or the creativity of the generated idea or product, whereas the viabilit y of the team can be assessed through team process evaluation Performance is defined as realizing the specific outcomes of the people, processes and programs in an organization (Tregaskis, 2003) in other words, the result of inputs. A successful team co mpletes its task, maintains good social relations, and promotes its members personal and professional development. The success of a team depends on four conditions : the right group of

PAGE 43

43 people to perform the task ; a task suitable for teamwork ; resources to complete the task ; and finally, a supportive context for the team (Levi, 2001). Similarly, Hackman (1987) lists five factors as necessary for the successful development and use of teams: clear direction and goals, good leadership, tasks that are suited for teamwork, necessary resources to perform the jobs, and supportive organizational environment. Team performance is most commonly assessed through ratings of team effectiveness. In Barrick et al.s (1998) study on the relationship of member ability and per sonality to team processes and team effectiveness, organizations used eight dimensions that were developed based on the task in measuring team performance. The dimensions were knowledge of tasks, quality of work, quantity of work, initiative, interpersonal skills, planning and allocation, commitment to the team, and an overall evaluation of team performance. Although the task base d assessment of team performance has its merits, most tasks given to teams are multidimensional and therefore, cannot be classifi ed as a single type. Rather, the primary focus of a production team should be on team execution. The final product and the evaluation of team process should also be examined. Team Viability The actual product or the successful result of a team is not the only c onsideration for assessing the outcome of team creativity. Consequently, another important factor of the team outcome is to look at the team viability, the capability of team members to continue working cooperatively (Barrick et al., 1998) Cooperati on is the key to developing a team that is able to work interdependently in the long run (Hackman, 1990). This team viability criterion should be influenced by personality traits associated with positive social interaction, which foster cooperation and tru st (Forsyth, 1990). Most research consistently show that liking and

PAGE 44

44 interpersonal attraction are related to team viability, attraction, and member satisfaction (Berkowitz, 1954; Haythorn, 1953; Terborg, Castore, & DeNinno, 1976; Tjosvold, 1984; Tziner & Va rdi, 1982). Once team performance and team viability are effectively produced, we can assess the creativity of the team overall. From the data on team components (team composition, team process, and team outcome) we may gain insight on the elements that cu ltivate a collaborative and creative team. Application Multidisciplinary RealProblem Approach This literature review demonstrates that extensive research has been conducted on both creativity and teamwork. Although creativity studies have been focused mos tly on the individual level, interest in the team level has been gradually growing particularly in the business sector The importance of creativity in teamwork has also been acknowledged as critical for successfully competing in this society of constant c hange. However, research on creativity and teamwork is still in need for practical application the gap between research and practice remains. Special considerations of m ultidisciplinary teams have typically not been acknowledged in most of the precedent literature The studies that do exist tend to focus on the individual perception s and variables rather than team outcome s A notable exception to this is Schepers and van den Bergs (2007) study that investigated how work -environment creativity is related to social factors by administering questionnaires to individuals that had various work experience with diverse teams. Although results found several factors including adaptable organizational culture perceptions and knowledge sharing to be related to creat ivity in hierarchical regression, it did not have a particular outcome from a team consensus. Another limitation to the research on creativity and teamwork is that only a few are field based. Studies using samples from organizations of businesses exist; however, these assess the

PAGE 45

45 individuals overall perception rather than the actual team dynamic that is in play. The focus of these studies looks at the general picture of the field rather than actual problem solving within teams. Another exception is Ely s (2004) study that examined the impact of diversity on performance by assessing whether employee participation in the organizations diversity education program influenced the relationships. This field study was conducted at the individual level although som e reports connected to team processes and performance. Findings from this study imply that the complexity of the research variables and the organization characteristics make it difficult for any propositions. Boundaries seem to form when research attempts to integrate with the organizational characteristics of the practical setting. T he complexity of the many variables contributing to team creativity has limited the application of research in practical settings. Therefore the teams that are being observed should be working on real problems in order to grasp the practical setting of the study. Hargadon and Bechky (2006) conducted six intensive case studies of organizations that generated creative solutions to novel problems. The field study relied on ethnog raphic research methods in order to understand the individual perspectives and discover the creative moments within the problem solving process. Although this study identifies the social interactions that contribute to team creativity when solving a real p roblem, it does not fully embrace the systems approach for creativity in teamwork. The elements that comprise the systems are not examined in detail due to the limitation of the research environment, and thus, it is difficult to understand the variables that support creativity. The complexity of conducting research in the actual workplace may be overcome through examining t he real -problem approach in student teams working on projects that are provided by real clients. Carrano and Thorn (2005) describes the administration of multidisciplinary student design teams working on a client project for a sustainable product and

PAGE 46

46 process design. Although this study did not conduct research on the actual team dynamics, it did find the sequence of student courses to be s uccessful in supporting student teams with the knowledge and training needed for the design project. Although research in the theoretical and empirical perspective of teamwork and knowledge are rich and add to the body of knowledge; however, im plications in the applied setting are still limited. Research should focus on replicating the contextual background and situation of practical settings in organizations One way to advance the knowledge base in this area is to use a multidisciplinary real problem approach that embraces the systems view of creativity in teamwork This approach will allow social factors to interact with individual factors and for creative synergy to emerge from a collective mind while acknowledging the complexity of creativity as it sp ans t hrough the individual, team, and organizational level Another issue that should be taken into account of future research design is domain specificity Each specific domain has different criteria in determining creativity. As domains change, so do the defining traits of creativity. All in all, research should incorporate a domain -specific systemic view of team creativity through a multidisciplinary approach in an applied setting.

PAGE 47

47 Figure 2 1. Simplex model

PAGE 48

48 Figure 2 2 I nteractionist model for o rganizational creativity

PAGE 49

49 Figure 2 3. Traditional input process output (I P O) model. Figure 2 4. I -P O model alternative. Figure 2 5. I -P O model with synergy. TEAM COMPOSITION TEAM PROCESS TEAM OUTCOME TEAM COMPOSITION TEAM PROCESS TEAM OUTCOME TEAM COMPOSITION TEAM PROCESS TEAM OUTCOME SYNERGY INDIVIDUAL CONTRIBUTIONS INDIVIDUAL CONTRIBUTIONS

PAGE 50

50 CHAPTER 3 METHODS Introduction This study examines the relationship of individual personality traits to teamwork processes and successful performance. The methodology includes the complet ion of two standa rdized psychometric instruments and a locally dev eloped survey to describe the background and process of the participating students The standardized psychometric instruments assessed each participants individual personality traits and problem solving style, while the self constructed survey evaluated t eam process variables A panel of expert judges consisting of noted retailers, designers, and the client evaluated the success of the final team projects. Finally, each team complet e d a self -evaluation of their project Setting for the Study This field st udy was conducted alongside the 3rd Annual ACRA Charrette, where the sample, project problem statement, results, research environment, and conditions were all under a controlled environment. The ACRA Charrette is an event sponsored by the American Collegia te Retailing Association (ACRA) and a client company in the retail field. A real world problem is presented by a retail company for student team s to solve in a competitive environment. Previous ACRA Charrette problem statements include a retail concept for the Toronto International Film Festival Center, and one for the Maple Leaf Square, a sports and entertainment center in Toronto. In both of the previous charrettes, sponsoring organizations provided prizes for the first and second place teams. The 3rd An nual ACRA Charrette, in particular, was sponsored by the client, Ron Jon Surf Shop and hosted by the University of Floridas David F. Miller Center for Retailing Education and Research. The 2009 challenge was to develop a business plan for Ron Jon Surf Sh ops new

PAGE 51

51 store in Destin, Florida. The business plan was to include marketing, communication, merchandising, financial, human resource plans, and a design for the interior of the store. The Ron Jon Surf Shop was looking for a retail environment that embrac ed the companys brand image and would maximize potential of the new location. The Ron Jon Surf Shop provided information about their company by offering a tour of their largest store in Cocoa Beach and through presentations on their corporate strategy, ma rketing programs, and operations. Merchandise/assortments and marketing overview documents based on the Cocoa Beach store, client information from other Ron Jon Surf Shops in Florida, TV and radio spots, and the interior and exterior store drawings of the Panama City store were provided as well. Undergraduate s tudents mostly from the United States with some international representation (Canada and the United Kingdom) were invited to the University of Florida to meet Ron Jon officials and compete in teams for the winning project. Charrette participants work together in an intense environment in order to reach a solution for the challenge. In an academic charrette like this, students are given the opportunity to express their creativity, apply learned skills and knowledge for transferring ideas into appropriate and practical plans, work on real issues with industry experts, and experience the value of interdisciplinary teamworkall in a short period of time. This study chose to utilize the ACRA Charrette fo r the reason that it uses interdisciplinary teams of students who have not worked together before. This charrette also engages a real world problem solving situation judged by a panel of experts, which provides ecological validity to this study. Sample 4 2 college students from multi -disciplines and various institutions were selected to participate in the 3rd Annual ACRA Charrette. These students majored in marketing, retailing,

PAGE 52

52 business administration, finance, merchandising, and interior design. Students came from the following twelve universities: University of Florida (n=19) Indiana University (n=2) University of Arkansas (n=1) University of Alabama at Birmingham (n=2) Georgia Southern University (n=3) Florida State University (n=3) University of Minnesota Twin Cities (n=1) University of Wisconsin Madison (n=2) Albright College (n=3) Michigan State University (n=1) Tampa Art Institute (n=1) Ryerson University in Canada (n=3) and Brunel University in United Kingdom (n=1) These students were p re -selected by faculty from their institutions according to ACRA participant requirements. Applicants attained eligibility through sufficient grades, a recommendation letter from a sponsoring faculty member, a resume, and a letter of interest for participa tion. Due to a limitation on the number of seats (a maximum of 42 students); applicants were selected by ACRA officials (coordinator of the 3rd Annual ACRA Charrette and related faculty members) based on their affiliated institution, discipline, and expres sed interest. Students from various institutions were considered to ensure that participants would be in an environment that was new to them and the team. Interior design students, however, were all supported by the host university to provide a stable work environment that may lessen the intensity of the workload required from the discipline. These interior design students were recommended by faculty members that were in the junior class and similar in knowledge, skills, and abilities in the area of experti se. A ll of these interior design students were educated in the same academic curriculum and thus, had considerable consistency in the level of design ability. Students were selected from business and retailing disciplines to make certain that each team had similar distribution in knowledge from different areas of expertise. The general distribution of disciplines can be divided into three categories: business, merchandising, and interior design. Business students included business administration, marketing, management, and

PAGE 53

53 finance. Merchandising students included: retail merchandise, apparel design, fashion retail management, merchandising, retailing, fashion merchandising, and retail management. The selected students were divided by ACRA officials into si x teams of seven (Table 3 1). Each team was comprised of two interior design students, at least one merchandising student, and at least two business students. Students from the same institution were separated by ACRA officials to ensure that all team members had not met before. All 42 students agreed to participate in this study when approached prior to the event. The sample was 11 males and 31 females with a mean age of 22.4 The expert judges and judging criteria were provided by ACRA. The panel evaluati ng the final presentations consisted of a total of six judges: four from the Ron Jon Surf Shop company and two experts in design. The judges were the president, chief financial officer, director of marketing, and director of merchandise buying of the Ron J on Surf Shop, the designer in charge of the new Destin store, and another designer related to the project. All of the judges were in one way or another related to the Ron Jon Surf Shops new Destin location. Instruments Assessing Problem Solving Style: The CPSP The Creative Problem Solving Profile (CPSP) was used to inventory each individuals problem solving style (see Appendix B) This instrument was designed by Min Basadur in 1981 to help individuals and teams learn how they prefer to think and thereby maximize team effectiveness (Basadur & Gelade, 2003). Through this inventory, individuals, teams, and organizations are able to draw resources from each problem -solving style to enhance team problem solving processes. As individuals learn their problem sol ving preferences from the CPSP inventory, they are able to work according to their strengths in the problem solving process and maximize team performance.

PAGE 54

54 The CPSP was developed to assess the individuals problem solving style according to the problem so lving theories of Osborn and Parnes (Basadur & Gelade, 2002). Osborns creative problem solving model consists of fact finding, idea finding, and solution finding (Osborn, 1953). Fact finding is related to problem definition and preparation, idea finding w ith idea production and idea development, and solution finding with evaluation and adoption. Parnes (1977) adds problem finding and acceptance finding into this model of the creative problem solving process. The CPSP expands this by identifying eight steps in the process: problem finding, fact finding, problem definition, idea finding, evaluating and selecting potential solutions, planning for action, gaining acceptance, and taking action (Basadur & Gelade, 2002). By taking two steps each and grouping them together, t he CPSP perceives creative problem solving as a four stage process. New problems and opportunities are first generated (g eneration), then defined and comprehended in order to c raft potentially useful ideas (c onceptualization). These ideas are th en nurtured i nto practical solutions (o ptimization), and then finally executed (i mplementation). Each stage entails different thinking skills which reflect the individuals preferences. In order to investigate the individuals preference in the problem so lving process, Basadur (1998) found that in problem solving, individuals attain and utilize knowledge interchangeably. Knowledge is gained through concrete experience or through reflective thinking, based on Kolbs (1976) learning process, and utilized thr ough the creation and evaluation of new opportunities, based on the divergent -convergent theory (Farnham -Diggory, 1972). The construct of the CPSP combines these theories by perceiving each problem solving stage to consist a style of gaining knowledge and a style of utilizing knowledge. Combining this with the Simplex model, each stage of the problem solving process consists of a method of

PAGE 55

55 gaining knowledge and utilizing it. The bipolar values of experiencing-thinking and ideation evaluation overlay the eig ht -step creative problem solving process and define each quadrant. The CPSP is a standardized self report instrument composed of 18 rows of four words. Respondents rank order each four item set based on how self -descriptive the word is, for example, a fou r is given to the word that most describes the person whereas a one is given to least descriptive word. When all 18 rows are completely ranked, each column is calculated to indicate the scores for each problem -solving orientation. The first column is talli ed to give the respondent a score for e xperiencing (processing information through observation). The second col umn gives a score for i deation (the generation of ideas without judgment). The third col umn gives a score for thinking (processing information through abstract theorizing). The fourth colum n gives a score for evaluation (the judgment and evaluation of ideas). After all columns are added up, these measures are then plotted onto a two -dimensional graph which illustrates the respondents problem sol ving profile (see Figure 3 1). The vertical axis plots the degree of how the individual gains knowledge by experiencing or thinking. The graphs horizontal axis shows the individuals preference in using their knowledge; through evaluation or ideation. The numeric value of each preference experiencing, thinking, ideation, and evaluation are plotted to form a diamond shape with four quadrants. The four quadrants represent generating, conceptualizing, optimizing, and implementing ideas. The quadrant that is the largest can be seen as the individuals dominant creative problem -solving profile. Generators have strongest preferences in both experiencing and ideation ; Conceptualizers in both ideation and thinking ; Optimizers in both thinking and evaluation ; Imple menters in both evaluation and experiencing

PAGE 56

56 In developing this instrument Basadur (1998) has found that the opposing scales have weak correlation and the opposing quadrants have strong negative correlation. Low correlations exist between adjacent quadrant s which demonstrate satisfactory independence among the four problem solving styles. Basadur (1998) also finds that all subareas are addressed in equal proportions, validating the content. He also finds relation to the Kirton AdaptionInno vation Inventory (KAI; Houtz et a l 2003; Basadur, 1998) and the Myers Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI; Basadur, 1998 ). The CPSP not only assessed individuals, but also groups. In a study assessing groups of MBA students, Basadur and Head (2001) report that although heterogeneous groups outperformed homogeneous groups, the heterogeneous groups were less satisfied. Basadur and Gelade (2002) also conducted a study relating the CPSP with occupat ions (N=3,942). In this study, G enerators were abundant in professions like marketi ng teaching, academia, and art; Conceptualizers in mar ket research, design, and R&D; O ptimizers in engin eering design and finance; and I mplementers in management, sales, and customer relations. In addition to the studies that Basadur has conducted exhibi ting the validity of the CPSP (e.g., Basadur, 1998; Basadur, Graen, & Wakabayashi, 1990), independent reviews also exist (e.g., Isaksen & Geuens, 2006; Higgins, 1996; Houtz & Krug, 1995). The Creative Problem Solving Group, an independent organization offe ring research studies on creativity for application in practice, reviews the construct validity to be sound for the reason that the CPSP is an assessment tool that directly applies to learning and applying Creative Problem Solving (CPS; Isaksen & Geuens, 2 006). Assessing Personality: The ACL The Ad jective Check List (ACL) designed by Harrison Gough at the Berkeley Institute of Personality Assessment and Research in 1949 and further developed by Gough and Heilbrun in

PAGE 57

57 1980 (Gough & Heilbrun, 1983). In this s tudy, the ACL was used to profile personality traits for each participant. ACL respondents self -describe themselves by choosing from a list of 300 alphabetically ordered adjectives commonly describing diverse personality attributes, which is ultimately com piled into a personality profile. A personality profile is assembled first by the total number of adjectives checked. From this number, males and females are separately categorized into groups in order to transfer raw scores into standard scores. Accordi ng to the subscale used for interpretation, the raw number of associated adjectives checked is changed into a standard t -score. The conversion to a standard score removes the influence of the actual number of adjectives selected from any of the measures. A total of 37 subscales can be utilized for interpretation from the adjectives that are checked. Subscales used in this study include: Achievement the need to be excellent when pursuing socially recognized significance; Dominance the need to seek and ma intain the role of a leader; Affiliation the need to seek and maintain personal friendships; Autonomy the need to act independently of others or of social values and expectations; Change the need to seek novelty of experience and avoid routine; and Pers onal adjustment the ability to adapt to situations with interpersonal demands, and a feeling of efficacy. These scales were derived f rom literature that discovered several personality traits related to teamwork and creativity. For instance, achievement, d ominance, and affiliation were personality traits that were especially found in businessmen (Leonard & Swap, 1999). While dominance is a trait that is found in leaders, deference can be seen as the opposing trait that is most commonly found in subordinate roles. Order is a trait that relates to the success in work and the pursuit of a goal through seeking objectivity and rationality (Gough & Heilbrun, 1983). Creative teams are usually given tasks that

PAGE 58

58 need to satisfy the continually changing society, and th erefore, team members need to adapt according to this situation. Autonomy and change are some traits that are essential for teamwork (Sawyer, 2007; Paulus, 2008). Personal adjustment can be seen as an extension of these traits in that a high -scorer feels capable of initiating activities and carrying them through to conclusion, enjoys the company of others, and has a positive attitude towards life (Gough & Heilbrun, 1983). This study chose to utilize the Adjective Check List (ACL) in that it assesses all the mentioned traits in one instrument. Independent reviews by Teeter and Zarske (Buros, 1985) report that the instrument is sound in both reliability and validity. In addition to these traits, c reativity itself is also perceived as an essential personality trait for creative teamwork. In the case of assessing creative personality traits, this study in particular chose to use the Dominos Creativity Scale (ACL Cr) instead of Goughs Creative Personality Scale (ACL -Cps: referred in the ACL manual) for the rea son that the ACL -Cr provides more relevant results to design -based research than the ACL -Cps (Domino, 1970; Davis, 1999; Meneely & Portillo, 2005). This ACL Cr scale was formulated by Domino (1970) from the 59 items that were most frequently reported in cr eative students in a three -year cross -validation study on creative achievement among 800 art, science, and literature students. In an empirical creativity study, Domino and Giuliani ( 1997) employed the ACL -Cr to assess photography students, novice professi onals, and experienced professionals. This study found statistical differences among the three samples in the ACL Cr scale; a progression from students having low scores and experienced professionals having high scores. Davis (1999) also approves this meas ure of creativity and includes the scale and scoring guide in the book, Creativity is Forever (4th ed.).

PAGE 59

59 Assessing Team Process: The Self -Constructed Survey The Team Process Survey (T PS) was constructed for the current study in order to assess team proces s variables and dynamics (see Appendix B). The first section asked respondents to rate the overall success or failure of the whole team experience through quantitative and qualitative items. The second section had several statements related to the respondents preference toward teamwork. These statements relate to the literature found for assessing teams (VanGundy, 1987), and were rated on a 5-point Likert scale. These statements were: I enjoyed interacting with my teammates when working on this project, I appreciated when my teammates challenged or questioned my ideas, I felt more creative when working with my team, and If I had the choice, I would prefer to work with my team instead of by myself. A third section assesse d role clarity and team co hesion and/or conflict. Respondents were asked to explain their role within the team, and to check what their team members roles were during the process. In the case of recognizing cohesion and/or conflict within the team, this section asked individuals t o first list the strengths of the team and then describe the challenges that occurred during the team process. Individuals were then asked to further expand on whether these challenges were seen as helpful or harmful towards the final solution. Assessing Team Outcome: The Judges Scores & Team Self Evaluation The criteria in the judges score sheet were provided by ACRA officials. The scoring criteria included: creativity, overall concept and branding, marketing/communication plan, store design (front and interior), store layout, assortment plan and merchandising strategy, use of technology, human resources, income statements for start up and growth phases, and use of data to support recommendations. Each criterion was evaluated on a ten point scale which summed up to 100 points for the total score. Space for additional written comments was also provided. A panel of expert judges assessed each teams solution by f illing out the evaluation form. Each

PAGE 60

60 team also used this score sheet to fill out a self -evaluat ion of their project in order to understand the teams perception of the final outcome. Procedure Since the present study used the ACRA Charrette and its participants, data collection efforts needed to conform to the competition schedule. This section fi rst explains the ACRA Charrette process and then details the procedure of this study. Figure 3 2 summarizes the methodology of the present study and in particular, Figure 3 3 illustrates the schedule of the ACRA Charrette and when each research instrument was used for the study. Administration of each instrument was particularly planned to adhere to the ACRA Charrettes schedule. ACRA Charrette Process Prior to ACRA: S tudent s received a welcome e -mail from ACRA officials two weeks prior to the event that w as held between March 17th and March 21st, 2009. T his e -mail welcomed students and provided a concise explanation of the charrette challenge. Details of the project client (Ron Jon) were not exposed to the students until the time of the charrette. However, for the reason of time constraints, interior design students were given basic information about Ron Jon in order to conduct some programmatic research on the client. They were also given floor plans of the new retail store to conduct building analysis pri or to the competition. While interior design students had a head start in the design process, other students received the contact information of their other team members (excluding the interior design students to prevent the disclosure of the competition client). These students were also invited to join a group for the 2009 ACRA Charrette on Facebook to communicate with their team. Students were to utilize this virtual communication opportunity to form relationships with their team members and develop a team identity. A copy of the ACRA schedule is included in Appendix C

PAGE 61

61 Day 1: Students arrived at the event site on March 17th for a welcome reception dinner. After registration, students gathered at a welcome reception and Ron Jon was officially announced as the client. The 2009 challenge of developing a business plan and a store design for Ron Jons new retail store in Destin, Florida was presented as well. The reception also offered students the time to get to know their teammates, and discuss the projec t. Teams were asked to come up with a team name and introduce their team branding in a short presentation. In the end, the ACRA officials announced the award for the first place team. Day 2: On t he first official work day of the competition participants were taken on a field trip to the Ron Jon headquarters in Cocoa Beach, Florida. On the bus ride to the destination, a team building exercise directed by ACRA enabled the teams to discuss their goals and expectations as well as the project in general Upon arriving at the field trip destination, Ron Jon officials first took the students on a tour of their largest retail store, explaining each department and sharing the companys expectations in store design and layout. During lunch, Ron Jon formally present ed detailed information on the goals for the project and their current business plans by department. Executive presentations during the Ron Jon store tour included that of the Ron Jon Surf Shops president, chief financial officer, director of marketing, director of merchandise buying, vice president of operations, and director of distribution. Students were given the opportunity to ask questions and elaborate on the presented information. Afterwards, the teams were given time to enjoy the beach or shop at the Ron Jons retail store. Teams continued to discuss their strategies while embracing the Ron Jons brand image through exploration of the store and its surroundings. Day 3: Teams were given the time to conduct research on Ron Jon. A presentation on De sign as a Marketing Tool was given by an expert to help teams generate ideas for the

PAGE 62

62 challenge. Each team made rotations to meet with the industry panel to ask questions based on the preceding sessions. This panel included industry experts from various fi elds, such as, design, communication and advertising, merchandising, finance, retail technology solution, and human resources. Only the merchandising expert was affiliated with Ron Jon, other experts were from outside of the company. Each team was given ap proximately 25 minutes to discuss their plan for the project with the allotted expert and ask questions relevant to their field of expertise. After the teams were through with all of their meetings, they were given the liberty to work on their own for the rest of the day and into the fourth day. Day 4: A presentation skill workshop was offered the next day and feedback was available for one volunteer team. Besides this workshop, teams were allowed to work until an hour before the final projects were due f or submission. Each team was provided a breakout room to work in; however, teams and individuals were allowed to work in any environment of their choice. Day 5: The final day, each team presented their solutions to the panel of judges, consisting of Ron J on owners, the panel of experts that assisted the students on the third day, and to attending faculty members and all the students participating in the ACRA Charrette event. Team presentations were approximately 20 minutes per team with five minutes allott ed for questions and comments. All teams presented their solutions using the PowerPoint. After all teams had presented their projects, the panel of judges left the room to discuss their thoughts and come to a consensus on the winning proposal. Research Ste ps Prior to ACRA : The welcome e -mail sent to the students prior to the event included an invitation to participate in the present study and a link to the online informed consent form. As students visited the link to the IRB approved online informed consen t (Appendix A) they were

PAGE 63

63 introduced to th e study and given information on the procedure s benefits and risks. Upon agreement, the webpage automatically directed participants to the online version of the Creative Problem Solving Profile (CPSP). Day 1 : Al though students were required to complete the CPSP prior to arriving to the event, those who did not have the chance were approached by the researcher upon registration during the first day of the event. These students were introduced to the study once aga in, and were guided to complete the procedure on site. These results were combined with previous data collection for complete team results. Day 2 : On the bus ride to the Ron Jon headquarters in Cocoa Beach, participants received individual and team resul ts from the CPSP. This information reviewed their dominant problem solving styles characteristics and how their team was placed on a scatter diagram. The results offered participants insight into their thinking preferences, as well as what roles individua ls might play during the problem -solving process. The Adjective Checklist (ACL) was administered during the bus trip to the Ron Jons retail store. Students were not given a time limit but completed the instrument within 20 minutes. Day 5 : Research was no t conducted on the third or fourth day. On the final day during presentations, judges evaluated each teams proposal according to the score sheets criteria. When judges left the room to decide on the winning team, the participants of this study were asked to complete the Team Process Survey (TPS) individually, and to self -evaluate their projects on the same judging criteria as a team. Table 3 1. Discipline distribution by teams according to outcome rankings Discipline 1 st 2 nd 3 rd 4 th 5 th 6 th Total Business 2 3 3 3 4 2 18 Merchandise 3 2 2 2 1 3 12 Interior Design 2 2 2 2 2 2 12 Total 7 7 7 7 7 7 42

PAGE 64

64 Figure 3 1. A sample plot of the Creative Problem Solving Profile (CPSP) Figure 3 2. Summa ry of present study methodology 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 Experiencing Ideation Thinking Evaluation Generating Conceptualizing Implementing Optimizing TEAM COMPOSITION PROCESS 1 st OUTCOME Problem Solving Style Personality Profile Task Process Survey Expert Judging ACL CPSP

PAGE 65

65 Figure 3 3 Research steps in relation to the ACRA charrette schedule for the study procedure DAY 1 DAY 2 DAY 3 ACRA RESEARCH Registratio n Welcome Dinner Team Building Exercise: Team Presentations Bus ride to Cocoa Beach (+Team Building Exercise: Team Goals&Expectations) Tour of Client Retail Store Lunch & Client Presentations by Dept. Free time (Beach/Shop) Dinner Bus ride back to Gainesville Project research by team Design as a Marketing Tool presentation Meetings with Industry Experts (team rotation) Project work by team Presentation skill workshop Project work by team Presentations Award reception D AY 4 DAY 5 Welcome Packet (E mail) Team distribution and contact information Prior Creative Problem Solving Profile (CPSP) on line instrument Results for CPSP Team Environment and Process Survey (TEPS) Adjective Checklist (ACL) Judges Sco res Team Self Evaluation

PAGE 66

66 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS All data was evaluated to ensure a normal distribution. Histograms generated from the residuals illustrate normally distributed responses for both the CPSP and the ACL (Appendix D). Any visually skewed distributions were further evaluated with a log transformation, and all residuals were within acceptable limits. Responses to the TPS we re concluded as normal due to its Likert -type scale quality. All 42 students participated in the study so there were no missing data. Problem solving profiles of the sample were based on individual scores from the Creative Problem Solving Profile (CPSP). Personality profiles of the sample were based on scores according to the Adjective Check List (ACL) subscales mentioned in the methodology, with the inclusion of Dominos creativity scale (ACL Cr). Perception of process of the sample was derived from the in dividual scores of the self -constructed Team Process Survey (TPS). Sample Characteristics Comparison to Normative Populations Z -tests were conducted to compare the sample to ACL normative data (Gough & Heilbrun, 1983) by observed personality variables acc ording to gender, shown in Table 4 1 and Table 4 2. Both males and females show leadership characteristics through their significantly higher means in dominance and signific antly lower means in deference This may be due to the fact that charrette particip ants were pre -selected by their institutions and therefore display elite characteristics. The sample is also significantly higher in change which may explain their interest in participating in a dynamic problem solving competition. Females in particular al so had significantly higher scores in achievement and autonomy This sample was also compared in the level of creative personality traits (ACL Cr) using the normative sample of 147 multidisciplinary college students according to their ACL -Cr scores (Davis & Bull, 1978). The Z -test score

PAGE 67

67 demonstrates significantly higher levels of creative personality traits, which confirms the elite characteristics of the sample (Table 4 3). Using the Creative Problem Solving Profile (CPSP) inventory, creative probl em solvi ng process styles for 3 942 adults in 38 different occupations from a wide variety of organizations were studied to understand the occupational proportions for each problem solving style (Basadur & Basadur, in press). The problem solving style proportions for the occupations related to the current study are noted in Table 4 4. Although the occupations of the normative data and the disciplines of the current sample did not match entirely, data from similar occupations were used for comparison. The current st udys sample (Table 4 5) shows that th ere were far more Implementers in th e field of marketing, and more Generators in finance and merchandising than the norm. In the des ign field, the sample had more Generators and less Conceptualizers than the norm. Comp arisons within the Sample Table 4 6 summarizes the means of creative personality traits (ACL Cr) and problem solving scales by gender Based on the difference in mean values, females tend to prefer experiencing than thinking (difference of 6.16) when gaini ng knowledge compared to males (difference of 3.18). When comparing these variables by discipline (Table 4 7), some differences were shown as well. Merchandising and interior design students scored higher on ACL Cr than business students. Merchandising students had a somewhat lower score in ideation compared to the other disciplines; business students had a lower score in thinking an d a higher score in evaluation However, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) test results found significa nt differences in thinki ng only (Table 4 8) and post -hoc tests further details this (Table 49).

PAGE 68

68 Question 1: What Problem Solving Styles and Personality Traits Characterizes Each Teams Composition? How Do These Vary From Normative Populations? Problem Solving Style The data on t eam composition comes from demographics reported by ACRA officials, results from the Creative Problem Solving Profile (CPSP), and Team Process Survey (TPS). Descriptive summary statistics are reported in Table 4 10 and Table 4 11 showing the number of stud ents on each team by discipline and problem solving style. Half of the teams (1st, 2nd, and 4th) had at least one individual in each style, whereas the other half (3rd, 5th, and 6th) were missing one style each. The winning team had the most even distribut ion in problem solving styles with two Generators one Conceptualizer two Optimizers and two Implementers The 5th place team, on the other hand, had the most skewed distribution with four Generators one Conceptualiz er no Optimizer and two Implementer s Overall, the 2nd, 4th, and 6th place teams were dominant in Implementers whereas the 5th place team was dominant in Generators The winning team was triple -d ominant with an even number of Generators Opt imizers and Implementers ; and the 3rd place team was double dominant with three Generators and three Implementers To provide further insight, mean scores for the CPSP scales determining the probl em solving styles experiencing ideation thinking and evaluation are included for each team (Table 4.12). From this summary, all teams preferred thinking the least among the problem solving style scales. The 1st place team had the highest mean for thinking (29) and the 5th place team scored the lowest (24.71). Using the mean scores for each scale from Table 4.12 composite problem solving profiles were generated for each team. Figure 4 1 illustrates each teams problem solving style accordingly. Applying CPSP protocol to determine the dominant style for each team, revealed that the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 6th place teams are most dominant in implementing ideas with strong

PAGE 69

69 preferences in both experiencing and evaluation and the 1st and 5th place teams are most dominant in generating ideas with pr eferences in both experiencing and ideation Departing from the CPSP pro tocol, the researcher assumed that an ideal problem solving profile would comprise an even 25 % for all problem solving styles. Applying this logic, dominance is determined when problem solving styles are greater than or equal to 25%. This departure from n ormal CPSP protocol was conducted to account for simultaneous dominance among styles and is consistent with theoretical foundations which identify the role of paradoxical traits and thinking styles in creative problem solving (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996; Herrm ann, 1989). According to this interpretation, all teams were dominant in both generating and implementing ideas, while the winning team had additional dominance in conceptualizing. Further analysis was conducted to assess a teams departure from an ideali zed problem solving profile. A skew factor for each teams profile was determined by calculating the delta (positive or negative departures from 25%) for each problem solving style. Delta scores for each problem solving style were combined to establish the overall skew factor for each team (Table 4 1 3 ). According to this data, the winning team had the lowest skew factor and was somewhat balanced among delta scores for each problem solving style. On the other hand, the 5th place team had the highest overall skew and the largest difference between delta values for each problem solving style. Personality Traits The ACL was used to measure personality traits with the sample. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was administered to compare means by team. The only si gnificant personality difference among teams was Dominos Creative Personality (ACL Cr) scale (Table 4 1 4 ). Post Hoc tests presented in Table 4 1 5 identified that the 4th place team had a significantly lower mean score for ACL Cr than the 1st, 2nd, and 6th place teams. It is interesting to note that the 1st

PAGE 70

70 and 6th place teams were tied with the highest mean score for ACL Cr. Table 4 1 6 summarizes the ACL mean scores and standard deviations for all of the personality variables that were observed in this stu dy. Question 2: How do Teams Differ in their Perception of Team Process? The Team Process Survey (TPS) asked questions to understand each participants perception towards their teams work. The first section asked how each participant perceived the overa ll success of the team (Success). The second section asked whether the individual enjoyed the interaction with other team members (Interaction); whether the individual appreciated when team members challenged their ideas (Appreciate Challenge); whether the individual felt more creative when working with their team (Creative w/team); and whether they preferred working in their team as opposed to working alone (Preference in Teams). All questions were answered on a 5 point Likert type scale with 1 indicating strong disagreement and 5 indicating strong agreement. Table 4 1 7 summarizes the mean scores and standard deviations of these questions by team. Mean scores indicated that the 1st, 2nd and 3rd place teams seemed to be satisfied with their teams. The 5th a nd 6th place teams, on the other hand, seemed to have had complications within their teams. The 6th place team appeared to enjoy the interaction among the team members, whereas the 5th place team indicated that they did not. ANOVA tests found significant d ifferences in all process variables (Table 4 1 8 ). Post Hoc tests (Table 4 1 9 ) identified a clear delineation between the teams that had positive perceptions of their teams and teamwork (1st, 2nd, and 3rd place teams), and those that had lower responses (4t h, 5th, and 6th place teams).

PAGE 71

71 To further understand perceptions of the team processes, a content analysis was conducted on the qualitative responses from the TPS. Figure 4 2 reports teams successes, challenges, conflicts, and resolutions. The 4th, 5th, a nd 6th place teams appeared to take team conflicts personally. The 6th place team appeared to take their conflicts most personally which surfaced from personality conflicts, insensitivity to issues, and unwilli ngness to share. However, in time, the team me mbers we talked and got over it, and we worked through them and found each others strengths and weaknesses. From these perspectives, problems seemed to have surfaced, and in time were dissolved. Although there were evident conflicts within the team, m ost of the members commented that these conflicts first hindered the team but after working through them, they made the team stronger and helped with the dynamics. The 4th place team also perceived their conflicts as persona l with comments like a gentlema n started picking [on others] and started deleting all the progress because that specific person didnt like it, and a few people, on the last night, became very rude and cruel. They could not take on others opinions and chose to separate themselves and ignore the group. These conflicts caused difficulty within the team and seemed to have delayed the progress. Although one member felt that the time constraint helped the team to focus on their work, another member commented that the problems did not get solved because of the time constraint. The 5th place team also we struggled with collectively working together. Many of the members commented that they had personality conflicts due to the dominance of some members and felt these arguments made the team lose effectiveness. In comparison, the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place teams perceived challenges from external issues such as, decision conflicts, time constraints, and fatigue. Working against time seemed to be the only challenge for the 2nd place team. One member had commented that we didnt fully set team expectations which caused us to fall behind an ideal schedule, and i f we would have stuck to a

PAGE 72

72 concrete schedule we would have had more time to practice presenting Consequently, the lack of a goal in tim e management led to perception towards an underachieved success. However, they turned this challenge around by perceiving the time pressure as a means of motivation towards progress. The winning team perceived challenges in some conflicting decisions and t rying to deal with the exhaustive workload. Although time constraints were perceived to be stressful, these challenges seemed to have helped teams to proceed in completing the work before the given deadline. Additionally, the winning team seemed to agree t hat these challenges were solved because we were on the same page all the time. One member noted, we all balanced each other out very well. The 3rd place team, on the other hand, identified communication and honesty as factors that strengthened the tea m dynamics. In contrast, members in the 3rd place team were particularly displeased with one members constant absence They comment ed o ne of our team members rarely showed up for many of our meeting times or would show up but leave early; however, [ t h is] did not affect us because the six of us became stronger. This situation was dealt by stronger cohesion among the remaining members. Question 3: How Do Problem Solving Styles and Personality Traits R elate to Perceptions of the Team Process? Individua l data from the CPSP, the ACL, and the TPS were analyzed by linear regression to understand how problem solving styles and personality traits related to perception of the process (Table 4 20). Only a few significant relationships were discovered. Individua ls with hi gher mean scores in optimizing thinking, and creative personality traits (ACL Cr) seemed to have a higher perception in success. Individuals with higher creative personality traits also appeared to feel more creative when working with a team. In dividuals with high mean scores in change also appeared to feel less creative with the team.

PAGE 73

73 Question 4: What Team Composition and Process Characteristics Describe the Winning Team? The 1st place teams presentation was judged as most creative (Appendix E ). The winning team had the most balanced team composition among gender, discipline, and problem solving style. The composite team problem solving profile was closest to an idealized profile, approaching 25% in each style (Figure 4.3). The winning team als o displayed the lowest skew factor (refer to Table 4 11). Comparisons in standardized mean scores for personality traits indicate that the winning team had the highest standardized mean scores for personality traits in autonomy, change and creative perso nality traits (ACL Cr) (refer to Table 4 14). The winning team had positive perception towards their team, commenting that their strengths were in strong cohesion, and that they had a great work relationship! They noted that there was minimal conflict and when there was conflict we didnt dwell on [it]. They did not perceive conflicts to be personal rather they recognized conflicts to be part of the decision making process. For example, they commented, w e had a hard time putting together all of our ideas into one presentation and noted that the challenge became a driving force, i t helped because it simplified our ideas One member from the team commented, w e were successful because we were able to get along well and communicated calmly, and w e collaborated throughout the entire process, passing ideas around openly. Question 5: What are the Main Factors that Relate to Creative Team Performance? In addition to the characteristics summarized for the winning team, linear regressions were conducted to further explore factors impacting the outcome. While none of the reported regressions were significant at the p significance are included to further understand relationships. Regressions from scatter plots of

PAGE 74

74 the each variables mean score by team ranking found that t hink i ing (p = .097) had a positive relationship to t eam ranking (Figure 4 4), whereas, e valuation (p = .075) had a negative relationship (Figure 4 5). Rational thinking seemed to have supported the team outcome while untimely evaluation in the process seemed to have hindered the team outcome. Furthermore, the skew or balance of problem solving styles ( p = .139) was found to have a negative relationship (Figure 4 6). Heterogeneity among problem solving styles was a better predictor of creative outcome than homogeneity, with the addition of balance in all problem solving styles. Teams having a larger skew factor seemed to have difficulty in producing a creative outcome in that the differences were greater than what could be apprehended. A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) using canonical coefficient s was conducted on the data generated from team rankings to further understand the factors relating to creative team performance (Figure 4 7). Creative personality traits (ACLCr) and process variables were combined to form two classification factors of te amwork characteristics: performance -based and interpersonal. The horizontal axis explains the process variables related to performance work characteristics, such as perceiving success and appreciating challenge in ideas. The vertical axis on the other hand describes the interpersonal process variables such as, creative personality traits (ACL Cr) and the enjoyment of interaction. Comparing the responses of the top three teams and the bottom three teams, significant differences were found in the performance -based work characteristics. In particular, the 6th place team stands out from the other teams in both performance -based and interpersonal work characteristics.

PAGE 75

75 Table 4 1. Sample personality variables compared to ACL normative data for males Personality Variables Male Population (N=262) Male ( n =11) Z p SD M SD Achievement 48.06 9.89 53.18 7.69 1.72 0.086 Dominance 48.4 10.1 57.36 5.87 2.94 0.003* Order 49.79 10.2 49.64 7.16 0.05 0.960 Affiliation 49.56 8.96 53.82 8.78 1.58 0.115 Autonomy 50.08 10.07 53.91 5.61 1.26 0.207 Change 49.78 10.24 56. 09 10.55 2.04 0.041* Deference 49.95 10.1 41.64 6.33 2.73 0.006* Personal Adjustment 49.26 9.13 52.36 9.10 1.13 0.260 Significant correlation at the 0.05 level (2 -tailed) Table 4 2. Sample personality variables compared to ACL normative data for fe males Personality Variables Female Population (N=261) Female ( n =31) Z p SD M SD Achievement 47.62 9.68 54.00 8.31 3.67 0.000* Dominance 48.01 10.06 57.58 7.83 5.30 0.000* Order 47.9 9.58 48.42 7.68 0.30 0.763 Affiliation 50.62 10.3 51.97 8.26 0.73 0.466 Autonomy 49.15 10.34 57.35 9.75 4.42 0.000* Change 51.05 9.8 56. 00 7.82 2.81 0.005* Deference 51.28 10.14 40.00 11.14 6.19 0.000* Personal Adjustment 49.02 10.42 49.94 8.95 0.49 0.625 Significant correlation at the 0.05 level (2 -tailed) Table 4 3. Sample creative personality traits compared to ACL -Cr normative data Normative Date (Davis & Bull) Present study Z p SD M SD ACL Cr 45.2 11.5 51.40 9.78 3.50 0.000* Significant correlation at the 0.05 level (2 -tailed) Table 4 4. Problem solving styles by occupation in CPSP normative data Problem Solving Style Marketing (n =172) Finance (n =110) Sales (n = 379) Design (n =73) Generator 30.2% 10.0% 23.7% 30.1% Conceptualizer 33.7% 26.4% 14.0% 47.9% Optimizer 19.8% 36.4% 15.6% 12.3% Implementer 16.3% 27.3% 46.7% 9.6%

PAGE 76

76 Table 4 5. Problem solving styles by discipline Problem Solving Style Business ( n =17) Merchandising (n =13) Interior Design (n =12) Marketing (n =12) Finance (n =3) Other (n =2) Generator 2 (16.7%) 1.5* (50%) 0 (0%) 5 (38.5%) 5 (41.7%) Conceptualizer 2 (16.7%) 1 (33.3%) 0 (0%) 1 (7.7%) 2 (16.7%) Optimizer 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0% ) 3 (23.1%) 2.5* (20.8%) Implementer 8 (66.6%) 0.5* (16.7%) 2 (100%) 4 (30.7%) 2.5* (20.8%) Dual profiles were split into halves Table 4 6. Descriptive summary of ACL -Cr and problem solving scales by gender Variables Male ( n =11) Female ( n =31) Total ( n =42) M SD M SD M SD ACL Cr 50.27 8.753 51.81 10.229 53.17 9.666 Experiencing 30.45 7.090 33.10 5.418 32.40 5.927 Ideation 32.00 5.138 29.58 4.241 30.21 4.556 Thinking 27.27 7.682 26.94 4.419 27.02 5.358 Evaluation 30.27 6.310 30.39 4.240 30.36 4. 782 Table 4 7. Descriptive summary of ACL -Cr and problem solving scales by discipline Variables Business ( n =17) Merchandising ( n =13) Interior Design ( n =12) M SD M SD M SD ACL Cr 48.18 9.678 54.00 9.557 53.17 9.666 Experiencing 32.59 4.651 32.54 6. 936 32.00 6.836 Ideation 30.94 3.631 28.92 4.192 30.58 6.007 Thinking 24.00 5.256 29.4 3.406 28.67 5.483 Evaluation 32.47 4.460 29.08 4.030 28.75 5.190 Table 4 8. ANOVA for comparison of problem solving scales by discipline Problem solving scales p Experiencing 0.963 Ideation 0.470 Thinking 0.007* Evaluation 0.057 Significant correlation at the 0.05 level (2 -tailed) Table 4 9. Post Hoc test in comparing mean differences among problem solving scales Thinking Mean Differences p Business ( M = 24 .00; SD =4.460) Merchandising ( M = 29.40; SD =3.406) 5.462 0.004* Interior Design ( M = 28.67; SD =5.483) 4.667 0.014* Significant correlation at the 0.05 level (2 -tailed)

PAGE 77

77 Table 4 10. Discipline distribution by team Discipline 1 st place 2 nd place 3 rd place 4 th place 5 th place 6 th place Total Business 2 3 3 3 4 2 18 Merchandise 3 2 2 2 1 3 12 Interior Design 2 2 2 2 2 2 12 Total 7 7 7 7 7 7 42 Note: n = 42 Table 4 11. Problem solving style distribution by team Problem Solving Style 1 st place 2 nd place 3 rd place 4 th place 5 th place 6 th place Total Generator 2 2.5* 3 2 4 2 15.5 Conceptualizer 1 1 1 1 1 0 5 Optimizer 2 0.5* 0 1 0 2 5.5 Implementer 2 3 3 3 2 3 16 Dual profiles were split into halves Table 4 12. Composite team problem solving style scales Problem Solving Scale 1 st 2 nd 3 rd 4 th 5 th 6 th M M M M M M Experiencing 29.57 33.14 35.00 32.57 32.2 9 31.86 Ideation 32.00 29.43 28.57 28.86 33.14 29.29 Thinking 29.00 27.43 27.57 27.71 24.71 25.71 Evaluation 29.43 30.00 28.86 30. 86 29.86 33.14 Table 4 13. Team departure from an idealized problem solving style profile Problem Solving Style 1 st place 2 nd place 3 rd place 4 th place 5 th place 6 th place Generator 1.0 2.0 2.8 1.4 4.7 0.7 Conceptualizer 0.9 2.4 3.2 2.7 1.9 3.9 Opti mizer 1.5 2.0 2.9 1.8 4.6 1.2 Implementer 0.4 2.4 3.3 3.1 1.8 4.4 Skew Factor ( ) 3.8 8.8 12.2 9.0 13.0 10.2 Table 4 14. ANOVA for comparison of ACL personality traits by team Personality Variables p Achievement 0.071 Dominance 0.304 Order 0.191 A ffiliation 0.967 Autonomy 0.440 Change 0.144 Deference 0.604 Personal Adjustment 0.106 ACL Cr 0.037* Significant correlation at the 0.05 level (2 -tailed)

PAGE 78

78 Table 4 15. Post -Hoc test in comparing mean differences among ACL Cr ACL Cr Mean Differences p 4 th ( M = 42.49; SD =7.41) 1 st ( M = 56.43; SD =10.37) 14.14 0.005* 2 nd ( M = 54.57; SD =9.20) 12.28 0.014* 3 rd ( M = 54.57; SD =9.20) 6.86 0.159 5 th ( M = 54.57; SD =9.20) 7.29 0.135 6 th ( M = 56.43; SD =10.23) 14.14 0.005* Significant correlation at the 0.05 level (2-tailed) Table 4 16. Descriptive summary of ACL personality trait scores 1 st place 2 nd place 3 rd place 4 th place 5 th place 6 th place Total Personality Variables M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD Achievement 49 .00 6.53 57 .86 8.82 48.86 5.27 54.71 7.18 53.43 6.85 58.86 9.62 53.79 8.0 7 Dominance 55.43 7.1 9 59.14 6.20 53.14 8.55 56.43 3.41 59.71 4.3 5 61.29 10.78 57.52 7.30 Order 43.86 6.2 6 49.43 6.16 48.57 6.2 7 52.29 6.1 6 45.86 9.84 52.43 7.89 48.74 7.48 Affiliation 52.71 9.16 55 .00 6.98 52.57 8.8 7 51.14 9.4 6 51.14 6.3 4 52.14 11.0 4 52.45 8.33 Autonomy 60.29 9.59 53.14 6.1 5 53.43 6.50 53.71 4.99 59.29 8.0 4 58.86 14.72 56.45 8.92 Change 62.57 5.65 57 .00 9.47 52.57 5.44 50.86 9.87 56.57 11.1 7 56.57 4.5 8 56.02 8.4 8 Deference 37.86 10.9 8 41.71 7.41 45 .00 8.79 42.86 4.22 38.86 10.64 36.29 15.6 0 40.43 10.05 Personal Adjustment 43.14 9.72 54.86 5.9 9 50.71 8.1 4 55.57 5.8 6 50 9.4 7 49.14 10.4 2 50.57 8.9 5 ACL Cr 56.43 10.37 54.57 9. 20 49.14 7.9 5 42.29 7.41 49.57 7.85 56.43 10.2 3 51 .4 9.78 Table 4 17. Descriptive summary of perception of team processes (TPS) Process Variables 1 st place 2 nd place 3 rd place 4 th place 5 th place 6 th place n M SD n M SD n M SD n M SD n M SD n M SD Success 6 4.75 0.42 6 5.00 0.00 6 5.00 0.00 6 4.00 0.63 6 3.67 0.52 7 3.93 0.45 Interaction 7 4.64 0.48 7 5.00 0.00 7 5.00 0.00 6 3.83 1.17 7 3.43 1.13 7 4.14 1.07 Appreciate Challenge 7 4.57 0.53 7 5.00 0.00 7 5.00 0.00 6 4.33 0.52 7 3.86 1.35 7 3.43 0.79 Creative w/Team 7 4.43 0.53 7 4.86 0.38 7 5.00 0.00 6 3.67 1.21 7 3.71 1.60 7 3.29 1.25 Preference in Teams 7 4.71 0.76 7 4.86 0.38 7 5.00 0.00 6 3.33 3.33 7 3.00 1.30 7 3.64 1.50

PAGE 79

79 Table 4 18. ANOVA for comparison of perception of team processes (TPS) Process Variables p Success 0.000* Interaction 0.003* Appreciate Challenge 0.001* Creative w/Team 0.013* Preference in Teams 0.003* Significant correlation at the 0.05 level (2 -tailed) Table 4 19. Post -Hoc test in comparing mean differences among process variables Process Variables Mean Differen ces p Success 1 st ( M = 4.75) 4 th ( M = 4.00) 0.75 0.004* 5 th ( M = 3.67) 1.08 0.000* 6 th ( M = 3.93) 0.82 0.001* 2 nd ( M = 5.00) 4 th ( M = 4.00) 1.00 0.000* 5 th ( M = 3.67) 1.33 0.000* 6 th ( M = 3.93) 1.07 0.000* 3 rd ( M = 5.00) 4 th ( M = 4.00) 1. 00 0.000* 5 th ( M = 3.67) 1.33 0.000* 6 th ( M = 3.93) 1.07 0.000* Interaction 1 st ( M = 4.64) 5 th ( M = 3.43) 1.21 0.008* 2 nd ( M = 5.00) 4 th ( M = 3.83) 1.17 0.014* 5 th ( M = 3.43) 1.57 0.001* 3 rd ( M = 5.00) 4 th ( M = 3.83) 1.17 0.014* 5 th ( M = 3 .43) 1.57 0.001* Appreciate Challenge 1 st ( M =4.57) 6 th ( M = 3.43) 1.14 0.005* 2 nd ( M = 5.00) 5 th ( M = 3.86) 1.14 0.005* 6 th ( M = 3.43) 1.57 0.000* 3 rd ( M = 5.00) 5 th ( M = 3.86) 1.14 0.005* 6 th ( M = 3.43) 1.57 0.000* Creative w/Team 1 st ( M = 4 .43) 6 th ( M = 3.29) 1.14 0.039* 2 nd ( M = 4.86) 4 th ( M = 3.67) 1.19 0.039* 5 th ( M = 3.71) 1.15 0.039* 6 th ( M = 3.29) 1.57 0.006* 3 rd ( M = 5.00) 4 th ( M = 3.67) 1.33 0.022* 5 th ( M = 3.71) 1.29 0.021* 6 th ( M = 3.29) 1.71 0.003* Preference in T eams 1 st ( M = 4.71) 4 th ( M = 3.33) 1.38 0.028* 5 th ( M = 3.00) 1.71 0.005* 2 nd ( M = 4.86) 4 th ( M = 3.33) 1.53 0.016* 5 th ( M = 3.00) 1.86 0.003* 6 th ( M = 3.64) 1.22 0.043* 3 rd ( M = 5.00) 4 th ( M = 3.33) 1.67 0.009* 5 th ( M = 3.00) 2.00 0.001* 6 th ( M = 3.64) 1.36 0.025* Significant correlation at the 0.05 level (2 -tailed)

PAGE 80

80 Table 4 20. Coefficient values from linear regression models of CPSP problem solving styles and ACL personality traits in relation to perception of team processes (TPS) Pr ocess Variables Problem Solving Style /Personality Trait Beta p Success Optimizer 0.039 0.034* Thinking 5.660 0.008* ACL Cr 0.060 0.010* Creative w/Team ACL Cr 0.072 0.043* Change 0.077 0.043* Significant correlation at the 0.05 level (2 -tailed)

PAGE 81

81 Figure 4 1. Composite problem solving profile by team

PAGE 82

82 1 st place 2 nd place 3 rd place Success /Challenges respect excellent group dynamics common goal collaboration openness did not dwell on conflict time management communication a lot of conflicting ideas respective equal effort team bonding good team chemistry have a good time communication too many ideas fall behind an ideal schedule honesty diversity funny commitment to goals support for each member collaboration c ommunication team leader Conflicts /Resolutions more than one leader differences in ideas and strategy stressful and tiring minimal conflict strong cohesion very open and collaborated someone to drive the process simplified our ideas managed t o solve it well delegated work very well and efficiently always on the same page just went with the flow time tension occurred once due to lack of sleep and overall fatigue one team member rarely showed up constructive debates brainstorming ar guments time did not disrupt the dynamic of our group organized ourselves and assigned tasks the 6 of us became stronger 4 th place 5 th place 6 th place Success /Challenges different methods in research time use not open to constructive criticism arguments different attitudes strong minded natural leaders time management conflict management did not get along well and did not work well together good motives similar ideas and goals equal input honesty communication personality confl icts deadlines technology difficulties Conflicts /Resolutions picking on peoples work and started deleting all the progress from dislike became very rude and cruel did not respect others ideas too critical chose to separate themselves and ignore the group delayed progress and completion time crunch helped people concentrate and focus on the main concept of challenge pushed aside ideas unaccounted for; completely disregarded a lot of arguing struggled with collectively working together pe rsonality conflicts control over everything; dominant everyone wanted to lead different ideas about what is considered creative some were mediated personality clashes insensitivity to issues and people unwillingness to share/collaborate stress leve ls rose and things were taken personally feelings were hurt, then talked and got over it different personalities/ways of handling situations worked through them and found each others strengths and weaknesses Figure 4 2. Content analysis of challenges in team processes

PAGE 83

83 Figure 4 3. Composite problem solving profile for the winning team Figure 4 4. Scatter plo t with regression for thinking by team ranking

PAGE 84

84 Figure 4 5 Scatter plot with regression for evaluation by t eam ranking Figure 4 6. Scatt er plot with regression for degree of variation in problem solving by team ranking

PAGE 85

85 Figure 4 7. Plot of canonical analysis by team ranking

PAGE 86

86 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION Individual Creativity v s Team Creativity Much of the existing research on creativity emphasizes individual creativity ( e. g. Oldham & Cummings, 1996; Pirola -Merlo & Mann, 2004). It is only now when the importance of teams has surfaced that attention has started to steer towards understanding team creativity. In linking the research between creativity and teams, researchers are taking many different directions in explaining this phenomenon. One justification entails the debate between whether team creativity is achieved by individual contributions or from the resultant synergies among collaborat ors (Hargadon & Bechky, 2006). Does individual creativity factor in as a crucial element when achieving a successful outcome as a team? Some theorize that individuals with high creative personality traits usually prefer to work alone and have the tendency for being autonomous (Sawyer, 2007; VanGundy, 1984). When these individuals are comprised into a team, do they reach their highest potential? In relation this study found that individuals with a high personality score in change, the characteristic of seeking novelty in experience and avoiding routine, responded negatively towards feeling creative with a team. These individuals may have felt constrained by the team, which could have suppressed spontaneous idea generation. Following their preference in work ing alone and their spontaneous tendency, would highly creative individuals prefer to ignore the interaction with team members and independently attempt to complete the task? When creative individuals do not collectively come together, what becomes of the outcome? Team members that have lower creative personality traits may benefit from the highly creative member s ideas at the be ginning of process and standby while waiting to implement their own strengths later on in the process When this happens, the tea m process cannot be considered

PAGE 87

87 synergistic; rather individuals are just working independently to complete the task. A creative product can only be claimed to be originated from teamwork when creative collaboration emerges from interpersonal interaction. On the other hand, when all the team members are highly creative individuals, is the team capable of completing the task to their high expectations? Literature suggests that when too many creative individuals with different styles come together, friction can occur (Sawyer, 2007; Staehle, 1999). Success is determined by whether or not individuals can channel this creative abrasion into a positive force to drive a better solution. Although individual creativity is important and should be considered when comp osing a team; it is important to point out that individual creativity alone is not sufficient Regardless of a teams composition they must have a great process to reach new levels of creativity. The focus in cultivating a creative outcome is not solely f ocused on finding the right combination of individuals to make the best team, but equally important to manage the team process for maximum synergy The present study provides insight to the debate between individual creativity and team creativity. For example, the 6th place team had the highest score for Dominos Creative Personality scale (ACL Cr); however, their solution was least preferred by the judges. This team showed high levels of creative personality traits, but appeared to have failed in overcom ing group tensions to synergize their collective creativity. The qualitative responses from the 6th place team members indicated that they had some personal conflict during the process: [ w e had tensions in] personality clashes, some insensitivity to issue s/people, [and] unwillingness to share/collaborate. Although they reported to have resolved these conflicts in the end, they did not note any improvements in team dynamics after resolving these conflicts.

PAGE 88

88 The 1st place team also had high scores for crea tivity personality traits (ACL Cr); in fact mean scores were identical with the 6th place team. Although the members in the winning team reported some conflict, they did not perceive it to be personal. Instead, the conflict appeared to become a force that pushed the teams ideas to new heights. The winning team commented: it [t he tension] helped because it simplified our ideas, [ h aving more than one leader] caused conflict however it was good that there was still someone there to drive the process. From the comparison between the 1st place team and the 6th place team, can it be assumed that team processes has a significant impact on the creative performance? Both teams had individuals with similar levels of creative personality traits, yet their outcomes were radically different. Leonard & Swap (1999) stated that people renowned for their individual creativity have cited and emphasized that interaction is important. The findings from this study also provides data that individuals with high creative personality traits feel more creative when working in a team (refer to Table 4 1 8 ). Hargadon & Bechky (2006) comment that at times, the locus of creative problem solving shifts from the individual to the interactions of a collective team. Although team creativity must benefit from the creativity of individuals, team creativity is not the simple aggregate of all the team members creativity (Woodman, Sawyer, & Griffin, 1993). Creative Abrasion The team process is a huge component towards a successful out come. Many social creativity studies refer to team interaction as a key ingredient in success ( e. g., Hackman, 1987; Steiner, 1972; Hargadon & Bechky, 2006) and identify the team process as the make or break component of successful teamwork (Marks, Mathi eu, & Zaccaro, 2001; Cohen & Bailey, 1997). In short, how people interact during the process can either help or hinder the work.

PAGE 89

89 Successful teams tend to perceive conflicts as creative opportunities. Nemeth (1997) identifie d that dissent is key to promot e group creativity, commenting that it encourages the team to view an issue from multiple perspectives. Team members acknowledge personal differences and respect conflicting views, while using their diverse perspectives as a tool for more creative solution s. When the team is exposed to contradictory ideas, the team s thinking process is stimulated and more creative ideas are produced. Leonard and Straus (1997) call this process creative abrasion where different approaches of team members produce conflict wi thin the group but the result of this tension is a successful output Creative abrasion is what sets free the creative potential that is latent in a collection of individuals, which is summed in the comment, Put enough different individual lenses together and you have a kaleidoscope of ideas (Leonard & Swap, 1999, p. 21). On the other hand, when members take conflicts personally, problems can occur. Personal conflicts are ineffective because their interactions are divisive and angry (Leonard & Swap, 1999). These conflicts do not produce any creativity, but rather bring unnecessary emotions that create process losses. The team not only suffers from the loss in time, but also in interaction, relationships, communication, respect, and even trust. Personal c onflicts lose a lot while gaining nothing. This study presented examples where creative abrasion supported the team process, and personal conflict resulted in failure. The delineation between successful and unsuccessful creative abrasion was apparent when comparing the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place teams to the 4th, 5th, and 6th place teams. While the top three teams perceived team conflict to be a positive force, the bottom three teams took the team conflicts to be personal in nature. Tensions within the top three teams include: we had a little tension for the short time we had left but we did [well] in

PAGE 90

90 organizing ourselves and assigning tasks, and [the conflict] helped because it simplified our ideas. Conflicts within bottom three teams include: stress lev els rose and things were taken personally, they didnt like anything and started arguments within our group, they became very rude and cruel; they could not take on others opinions and chose to separate themselves and ignore the group, an d two members never got along and their personal tension hurt the team dynamic. In addition through extensive research, evaluation has been found to have a negative effect on group creativity when introduced too early in the process (Amabile, 1996). Pe ople in a group often evaluate each other s ideas and the likelihood of negative evaluation makes team members uneasy of their inputs ; in the end, discouraging creativity (Levi, 2001). The present study found that team ranking and CPSP evaluation scores h ad a negative relationship (approaching significance with a p -value of 0.075) teams low in ranking had higher scores for evaluation The 6th place team in particular, had many I mplementers and the highest score for evaluation Their composite team profile shows a distortion towards evaluation compared to the balanced 1st place team (Figure 5 1) Overall, th e 6th place team may have struggled in generating sufficient novel ideas because evaluation was dominant during the process. Conversely, the 6th place te am had a low score in CPSP thinking another variable that was approaching significance (positive correlation with a p -value of 0.097) when compared to team ranking. Although the members of the 6th place team may have been strong in evaluatio n their evalu ations may not have been based in rational thinking processes The MANOVA results correspond with this interpretation and add that the judgments of the 6th place team may have been more personal or intuitive in nature rather than verbally expressed (see Fi gure 4 7). When compiling this information with the composite team profile, the interpersonal work

PAGE 91

91 characteristics of the 6th place team may have been implicit rather than explicit and introduced too early in the process. On the other hand, the 1st place t eam had a low CPSP evaluation score and a high CPSP thinking score. This team may have applied rational logic when thinking t hrough and evaluating their ideas. In these cases, creative performance may be related to different combinations of problem solvin g styles Benefits resulting in creative performance are attainable when a cross -functional team appreciates the positive constructive potential of differences in values and attitudes, personalities and styles, and knowledge and skills, and is more likely to welcome the expression of those diff erences ( Northcraft, Polzer, Neale, & Kramer, 1995 ). In what team climate are these benefits reaped? D o certain combinations of personality traits and problem solving styles support creative abrasion? The Holistic Te am Leonard and Swap (1999) note that creative abrasion can be more successful within heterogeneous teams. While a homogenous team may be productive, many studies have shown that there is more potential for creative solutions in a heterogeneous team compo sition (VanGundy, 1984; Amabile, 1996; Kurtzberg, 2000). Leonard and Straus (1997) explain that the intelligence of the individual team members do not matter as much as finding the right mix of diverse individuals. It is not just about mixing right -brain a nd left -brain individuals, but creating a whole brained team with several different styles that overlap. Diversity in teams not only offer more opportunities for abrasion, but also creates more chances for creativity. In the present study, the 1st place team was the most heterogeneous team in terms of discipline and problem solving styles. They had members representing all problem solving styles on the CPSP, with each of the four styles approaching 25% which resulted in a very balanced profile and the lowes t skew factor (3.8) among teams (refer to Figure 4.3). In addition, the 1st

PAGE 92

92 place team did not report any personal conflicts during the team processes, but described tensions that helped push their thinking, we were successful because we were able to get along well and communicate calmly, [although] at one time there were a lot of conflicting ideas. While the heterogeneity of opposing styles increased problem solving differences, the relative balance between all styles could have prevented unproductive conflicts. The 2nd place team was also heterogeneous in discipline and problem solving styles. Although problem solving styles were not nearly as evenly spread out as the 1st place team, a unique characteristic of the 2nd place team was that two members had dual -style s ( Generator Implementer and Optimizer Implementer ) that added to the teams diversity. The team profile for the 2nd place team was symmetrically balanced (delta values for generating equals that of optimizing, and conceptualizing equals impleme nting), and had the second lowest skew factor of 8.8. The only comments available that the 2nd place team wrote on the tensions during the process were about the time constraint. In contrast, the 6th place team was somewhat homogenous in problem solving styles (refer to Table 4 12). Similarly, the 5th place team had the most uneven distribution of problem solving styles, with over half the team members dominant in idea generation. The 5th and 6th place team both had skewed CPSP profiles, and did not come close to the well -balanced shape of the 1st or 2nd place team. Their skew factors were among the highest (6th place team: 10.2; 5th place team: 13.0). The 6th place tea ms profile was skewed towards evaluation while the 5th place teams profile was skewed toward ideation Some comments on the tensions that occurred on the 5th place team included: everyone wanted to lead, and one of the girls was too dominant which hurt the teams openness. The personal conflicts reported during the team processes by t he 5th and 6th place team were not easily solved; bickering took over hour

PAGE 93

93 sometimes, impact on time management. It is likely that the conflicts of the 5th place team resulted from a lack of Implementers and evaluators to assess the potential of prop osed ideas. Although differences commonly result in conflict, when the diversity is a combination of well -balanced qualities in the team, creative performance may emerge. The whole -brained team may be the key to successful creative abrasion. Individual creativity is important; however, if creative abrasion does not occur in the team process, the out come may not be successful. The creative abrasion phenomenon can be seen as the group synergy effect when teams go beyond the individual capabilities (Schweig er & Sandberg, 1989). More study in this area will give insight to whether creati ve abrasion occurs mostly in a whole -brained team and whether these two elements predict creative success. Optimization of Team Performance While planning for diverse teams m ay not always result in successful outcomes, successful management may optimize team performance Teams should not only be composed of diverse individuals, but also learn to respect and value the individual differences that exist among members. Social iden tity theory indicates that team education is a potential avenue in overcoming barriers to successful collaboration in diverse teams (Northcraft et al., 19 95). Teams should work to the advantage of diversity through respecting differences (Thomas, 1990) and using, rather than merely acknowledging, the ideas and skills of the team members (Morrison, 1992). In order for teams to fully draw on the human resource potential of every member, it is essential that people learn to acknowledge, embrace, and think crit ically about the meaningful, ongoing relationships that can bring such learning (Ely, 1995). Individuals should be able to grasp the situation they are in. The diverse backgrounds of team members potentially bring communication and conflict problems (Levi 2001). Through training programs, team members can be trained to better communicate and appreciate each other

PAGE 94

9 4 (Northcraft et al., 1995). Team members should consistently be aware of the team goal and communicate to keep all members on the same page. Team s should also be familiar with the concept of creative abrasion. Team members often are not good at supporting each other s ideas, so designating times when they are not being critical is important for creativity (Levi, 2001). When all members are aware of the different conflicts and its related factors in the team process, there may be a better chance in avoiding negative conflict and steering it towards a more positive outcome. In the present study, all teams reported neutrally or positively when asked i f by choice, they preferred working with a team or working alone. Although there were some individuals that strongly agreed in preferring to work within their team, the mean scores indicate that a majority of the members were quite satisfied. Although the short time period of the charrette may have brought both advantages and disadvantages to the team s the performance could have been optimized by applying the methods mentioned above. Alternative Interpretation of the Findings Creative performance may only result from a correct understanding of the definition of creativity. Teams must keep in mind that the solution to the given problem must not only be novel, but also appropriate. The current study demonstrates an example of team success that provided a sol ution according to this definition. The judges feedback presents some insight into the creative outcome. One judge commented that the 1st place team had lots of examples of creativity, and the design and business plans were realistic and thoughtful. The 1st and 6th place teams had the highest score for creative personality traits and the 2nd place team closely followed. In contrast, this judge questioned the 4th place team, which had the lowest score for creative personality, stating what makes yours u nique? and remarked that the project could have been more innovative. The comments of this judge appeared to parallel the findings of the ACL -Cr.

PAGE 95

95 The 1st place team in particular, differed from the 2nd and 6th place team in that the judges felt the proj ect was also realistic and thoughtful. Considering that the 1st place team had the highest score in thinking reiterates the importance of rational thinking in combination to the novelty of ideas. The 1st place team appeared to strike a balance between a n ovel and appropriate idea the very definition of creativity. In looking at the social aspects of creativity, Amabile theorizes that creativity lies at the intersection of personal and situational factors (1996). In this componential model for creativity, the main factors are domain relevant skills, creativity relevant processes, and task motivation. Domain -relevant skills imply the knowledge, skills, and abilities in the individual s particular area of application. Creativity relevant processes are the app ropriate cognitive styles and knowledge of the creative techniques needed during the process. Finally, task motivation incorporate s intrinsic motivation of the individual toward the task, and the extrinsic environmental factors that encourage or discourage creativity. Although the present study explored the skills and processes, it did not thoroughly investigate intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. The 3rd Annual ACRA Charrette offered a prize for the winning team. This was disclosed at the welcome reception dinner at the beginning of the competition. For some participants, this reward could have influenced an individuals extrinsic motivation. The participation of this nationally renowned retail competition also gives the opportunity for students to record t his in their resume which could lead to possible job offers in the future. In addition, some participants may have been intrinsically motivated by the pure enjoyment of solving the task problem, working in a team, establishing new relationships, and being in a competitive environment. S ome of the participants had commented that one of their team goals and expectations was to have fun. In contrast, there were also several students that were not

PAGE 96

96 interested in the charrette at all with comments such as, one of the [members] did not want to be here, and I had a lot of other school work which resulted in absence during the team process. These forms of motivation may have impacted the team processes; however, was not formally measured in the present study. Limitations The present study had limitations regarding the method of outcome evaluation, data collection, research conditions, instruments, and the work environment. First, i n the evaluation of the team proposals, the j udges were inconsistent in their use of the score sheet provided for evaluation. None of the judges consistently followed the instructions in assessing the team presentations and only commented qualitatively without any quantitative scores. For this reason, direct quantitative comparisons amo ng teams were impossible. Instead the 1st place team was decided by a verbal consensus among the judges during the time of deliberation Because of the controlled environment of the ACRA Charrette, the researcher did not have the time or the control to emp hasize the importance of quantitative evaluation. The judges may have felt that the judge s score sheet did not adhere to their evaluation criteria and hence, found an alternative method in assessment. During the announcement of the final results, the judg es commented that they were all impressed in the quality of all the projects, but the 1st place team had stood out the most. They did not officially announce the rank ordering of the reaming teams ; however, the ACRA official who observed the judges delibe ration shared these results with the researcher and therefore, the research includes the findings according to the unpublicized rank order that occurred in the closed judging session. This study had a total of 42 participants that were divided into six t eams. For the reason that most of the comparisons of this study were by team the six teams were treated as six individual samples. Consequently statistical power due to the sample size was somewhat

PAGE 97

97 lacking. Nevertheless, the present study contributes in the quality of the sample considering the elite characteristics compared to normative sample, and the pre -selection process. However, the absence of a pre test of domain-specific knowledge does not offer the exact understanding of each participant s domain relevant skills T eams were also composed by ACRA officials according to discipline and associated institutions and t herefore, the researcher had no control over the distribution of gender, problem solving style, or personality traits. Due to the intens e time limitation, the researcher had to adhere to the charrette schedule in collecting data. The data collection environment was not stable or consistent in that the methods of instrument administration were taken online, during bus transit and at the en d of the charrette when participants were most fatigued. Especially in the case of the final instrument, the self -constructed Team Process Survey (TPS) the qualitative questions asked were designed to encourage participants to give detailed descriptions; however, many of the students were tired at the conclusion of the project and did not elaborate in their responses. One student even commented that they were too tired and sleepy to answer the questions in their right mind (described her self as being deli rious). The excitement of being done with the charrette and awaiting the results could have hindered the concentration that was needed in completing the overall qualitative survey. Along with the TPS, the team self -evaluation seemed to have been influenced by the adrenaline for the reason that most teams assessed their projects to have a perfect score. Thus, data collected from the team self -evaluation has been disregarded. Control in providing equal circumstances for all the teams was not possible as well For example, some teams had faculty assistance during the reception dinner to aid them in team building or brainstorming in projects. The accessibility to feedback differed among teams throughout the whole process. There was no control over who gave what kind of guidance.

PAGE 98

98 Communication with people outside of the charrette was not recommended, although not monitored either. Especially, team members from the host university were still within their residency and had many access opportunities during the term of the project. Since the charrette was held during the semester, members could have gotten outside information or stimulation during the process, although probably not direct help. Another influence could have been through the sequence in meetings with th e industry panel. The experts might have been able to give more valuable information towards the end of the rotation since they would have known more of the commonalities that were being questioned for the project. Teams might also have more focused questi ons towards the end of the rotation and have benefitted from that industry in particular. In contrast, both the experts and the teams may have concentrated less at the end of the rotation due to fatigue or the monotony of repeating the same information ove r and over again. Finally, physical work space was not equivalent for all teams. Although teams were given the freedom to choose wherever they wanted to work in, the environments that were provided for the teams were not necessarily equal. For instance, the breakout rooms that were provided for the teams were from a large room that was divided by partitions. Some were larger than others, some had only one division wall while others had two. Some teams had to change rooms while others were able to use the same room during the whole duration of the project. Future Research Many issues were discussed in the present study about cultivating the creative team, process, and outcome. This study offers many opportunities for f uture work to advance research on tea m creativity in an applied setting. Field research conducting a real problem approach in this area is especially important for its implication in practice. Opportunities of this type of research are encouraged to not only add to the growing body of knowledge, but also bridge the

PAGE 99

99 gap between research and practice. A suggestion for specifically studying the ACRA Charrette would be to replicate this study and aggregate the results to build the data into a longitudinal study. Future study where the teams are c omposed fairly equally in creativity and/or problem solving styles may be interesting for research as well. This kind of study will help to further examine if whole -brain ed teams are in fact, more likely to have productive creative abrasion and successful outcomes. Controlling the composition of teams will allow more information on how much diversity and what type of diversity cultivate s innovations Another potential study could explore the element of training before team engagement Do teams react more s uccessfully when they are better informed? Will training on creative abrasion support team processes? Leonard and Straus (1997) believe that whole brained teams do not naturally understand one another, and often are antagonistic toward one another When ma nagers facilitate the team process to enable members to acknowledge differences and potential contributions each type of thinker brings to the table before the actual teamwork, outcomes are more likely to end in success. Along those lines, future work on t eam training on creative abrasion may be able to resolve conflicts better and even utilize those opportunities to creatively arrive at a successful outcome. Additional research of the potential influence of the team s physical environment may be interesti ng to study and add to the growing body of knowledge on the d esign of the physical work environment. Studies that compare teams working in controlled environments may give insight towards what elements are supportive or even synergetic to teamwork, even though variables that are related to the social dynamics may not be controlled. Exploring design elements that inhibit creativity in teams would also be useful.

PAGE 100

100 All in all, more research should be conducted on team creativity. With so many factors and varia bles involved in a systems understanding of creativity, it is important to thoroughly examine all possibilities. These studies on team creativity will add to the body of knowledge so that all levels individuals, teams, and organizations can benefit by insi ghts into optimizing creative teams Figure 5 1. Composite team problem solving profile comparison of 1st place and 6th place

PAGE 101

101 APPENDIX A UF IRB APPROVAL

PAGE 102

102

PAGE 103

103 APPENDIX B COPY OF INSTRUMENTS Creative Problem Solving Profile (CPSP)

PAGE 104

104 Team Process Surve y (T PS) How well d id your team meet the goals and expectations that were agreed upon during the Team Building Exercise ? (Please circle according to the scale: 1= Very poor 2= Poor 3= Neutral 4= Good 5= Very good) What were some aspects tha t led to the success/ challenges of meeting your teams goals and expectations? Teamwork Style The following statements ask about your behavior when working in your team. Please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with these statements by circling the appropriate response. Strongly disagree Slightly d isagree Neutral Slightly agree Strongly agree 1. I enjoyed interacting with my teammates when working on this project. 1 2 3 4 5 2. I appreciated when my teammates challenged or questioned my ideas. 1 2 3 4 5 3. I felt more creative when working with my team. 1 2 3 4 5 4. If I had the choice, I would prefer to work with my team instead of by myself. 1 2 3 4 5 Role Clarity Describe the primary role you took with your team during the problem solving process. How did you fall into that role? Who was most responsible for each role? ( Please check accordingly; m ultiple roles are possible) Cohesion/Conflict What were the stren gths of your team ? 1 3 2 4 5 Generating Ideas Conceptualizing Ideas Optimizing Ideas Implementing Ideas

PAGE 105

105 Did your team have any challenges or tensions during the process ? If so, what were they? Did these challenges help or hinder your solution ? How? Team Dynamics What is your major? Did you find yourself contribu ting ideas and/or inputs into area outside of your major discipline? How? How much time was spent during the team process in proportion (Total of 100%)? % % % working alone working in sub groups working with whole group Work Environment How many locations did you work in? Describe each location your team decided to work. From the list above, which location best supported your work and why? What specific characteristics made the location an ideal place to work in ? = 100 % 1) 2 ) 3 ) 4 ) 5 ) 6 ) 7 )

PAGE 106

106 Judges Score Sheet Presentation Feedback Creativity (based on your own d efinition) : / 10 Overall Concept and Private Label Development: / 10 Store Design (Front & Interior): / 10 Store Layout : / 10 Assortment Plan & Merchandising Strategy : / 10 Income Statements for Start -up a nd Growth Phases : / 10 Marketing Plan : / 10 Use of Technology: / 10 Evidencebased Research : / 10 Presentation Style: / 10 Additional Comments : TEAM: JUDGE:

PAGE 107

107 APPENDIX C ACRA CHARRETTE SCHED ULE March 17, Tuesday 2009 3:00 pm 5:30 pm Arrival and Hotel (Reitz Union) check in Reitz Union Hotel Address: UF Reitz Union (Museum Road) Campus Map: http://campusmap.ufl.edu/?loc=0686&zoom =17 Driving direction: http://www.union.ufl.edu/hotel/directions.asp Hotel contact information: (352) 392 2151 or ruhotel@union.ufl.edu 5:00 pm Registration (Friends Music Room at University Auditorium) 6:00 pm 8:30 pm Kick off & Opening reception dinner Team building activities and Team Introduction March 18, Wednesday 2009 (Field trip to Client : ALL Day ) 8:00 am Departure from Reitz Union at 8 am Sharp 11:00 am 4:00 pm Meet the Client (Headquarter) and Store Visit 4:00 pm 5:30 pm Team meeting for brainstorming and having fun at beach 6:00 pm 7:00 pm Dinner 10:00 pm Arrival at Reitz Union March 19, Thursday 2009 (Reitz Union Grand Salon A ) 11:00 am Project research by group 11:30 am 12:30 pm Presentation, Design as a Marketing Tool, by Kenneth Walker from WalkerGroupDesign (Reitz Union Grand Salon A ) 12:30 pm 1:30 pm Lunch 1:30 pm 1:50 pm Industry Panel Introduction 2:00 pm 5:00 pm Industry Experts (Group Rotation) Creative Design Kenneth Walker, WalkerGroupDesign Communication/advertising Paul Daigle, President, PYPER PAUL + KENNEY Advertising/Communication

PAGE 108

108 Merchandising Don Niemann, Director of Merchandise Buying, Client Finance Bill Alcorn, former Sr Vice President, Controller & CPO JCPenney Retail technology Julia Arnette, VP in Global Industry, IBM HR Mary Beth Garcia, Director, Novations Group Inc. 5:30 pm 6:3 0 pm Dinner 6:30 pm Project work by group March 20, Friday 2009 (Reitz Union: Break out room for each group) 2:00 pm Project work by group 2:00 pm 3:30 pm Presentation skill workshop (feedback will be provided to one volunte ered team) Reitz Union Rion Room 235 3:30 pm Project work by group March 21, Saturday 2009 (Bryan 232 Bill Alcorn Room) 9:00 am 12:30 pm Presentations 12:30 pm 1:30 pm Lunch/Evaluations by Judges 1:30 pm 2:30 pm Award reception/closing

PAGE 109

109 APPENDIX D RESIDUAL HISTOGRAMS FOR NORMAL DISTRIBUT ION Creative Problem Solving Profile (CPSP)

PAGE 110

110

PAGE 111

111

PAGE 112

112

PAGE 113

113 Adjective Check List (ACL)

PAGE 114

114

PAGE 115

115

PAGE 116

116

PAGE 117

117

PAGE 118

118 APPENDIX E FIRST PLACE PRESENTA TION Release Permission

PAGE 119

119 First Place Teams Presentation (double click icon below to view presentation)

PAGE 120

120 LIST OF REFERENCES Al -Rawi, K. (2008). Cohesiveness within teamwork: The relationship to performance effectiveness -case study. Education, Business and Society: Contemporary Middle Eastern Issues, 1(2), 92 106. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Amabile, T. M. (1981, April). Brilliant but Cruel: Perceptions of Negative Evaluators. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association, New York, NY. Amabi le, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity New York: Springer -Verlag. Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. In B. Staw & L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, (Vol. 10 pp. 123 167 ). Gre enwich, CT: JAI Press. Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, Inc. Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39 1154 1184. Arvey, R. D., Dewhirst, H. D., & Boling, J. C., ( 1976). Relationships between goal clarity, participation in goal setting, and personality characteristics on job satisfaction in a scientific organization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61(1), 103 105. Amabile, T. M., & Mueller, J. S. ( 2008). Studying creativity, its processes, and its antecedents: An exploration of the componential theory of creativity. In J. Zhou & C. Shalley (Eds.), Handbook of organizational creativity (pp. 33 64) New York : Taylor & Francis Group, LLC. Baer, J. ( 1998). The case for domain specificity of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 11 (2), 173 177. Barlow, C. A. (2000). Deliberate insight in team creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 34(2), 101 117. Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1 26. Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., Neubert, M. J., & Mount, M. K. (1998). Relating ability and personality to work -team pro cesses and team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(3), 377 391. Barron, F. (1988). Putting creativity to work. In R. J. Sternberg (E d. ) The nature of creativity New York: Cambridge University Press. Barron, F. B., & Harrington, D. M. (1981). Creativity, intelligence, and personality. In M. R. Rosenzweig & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Annual Review of Psychology, (Vol. 32, pp. 439 476). Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.

PAGE 121

121 Basadur, M. S. ( 1974). Think or sink. The deliberate methods change bulletin, July -S eptember, Procter & Gamble Management Systems Division, Cincinnati, OH. Basadur, M. S. (1979). Training in creative problem solving: Effects on deferred judgment and problem finding and solving in an industrial research organization. Unpublished doctoral d issertation. University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH. Basadur, M. S. (1992). Managing creativity: A Japanese model. Academy of Management Executive. 6 (2), 29 42. Basadur M. S., & Basadur, T. (in press ). Where are the Generators? The Journal of Pyschology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. Basadur, M. S., & Gelade, G. (2002). Simplifying organization -wide creativity A new mental model (Working Paper No. 107). Hamilton, Ontario, Canada: McMaster University, Management of Innovation and New Technolog y Research Centre. Basadur, M. S., & Gelade, G. (2003). Using the Creative Problem Solving Profile (CPSP) for diagnosing and solving real -world problems. Emergence, 5(3), 22 47. Basadur, M. S., Graen, G. B., & Wakabayashi, M. (1990). Identifying individual differences in creative problem solving style. Journal of Creative Behavior, 24(2), 111 131. Basadur M. S., & Head, M. ( 2001). Team performance and satisfaction: A link to cognitive style within a process framework. Journal of Creative Behavior, 35(4), 2 27 248. Beebe, S., & Masterson, J. (1994). Communicating in small groups. New York: HarperCollins. Belbin, M. R. (1993). Team roles at work. Oxford, England: Butterworth Heinemann. Belbin, M. R. (2000). Team Roles at Work, 9th ed. Portland, OR: Butterworth Heinemann Benne, K. D., & Sheats, P. (1948). Functional roles of group members. Journal of Social Issues, 4, 41 49. Berkowitz, L. (1954). Group standards, cohesiveness, and productivity. Human Relations, 7, 509 519. Besser, T. L. (1995). Rewards and organizational goal achievement: A case study of Toyota Motor manufacturing in Kentucky. Journal of Management Studies, 32, 383 398. Bradley, J. H., & Hebert, F. J. (1997). The effect of personality type on team performance. Journal of Management Development, 16(5), 337 353. Brophy, D. R. ( 1998). Understanding, measuring, and enhancing individual creative problem solving efforts. Creativity Research Journal, 11 (2), 123 150. Brown, S. L., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (1998). Competing on the Edge: Strategy as Structured Chaos. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

PAGE 122

122 Bryant, A. & Harvey, G. (2000), Acute Stress Disorder, American Psychological Association, Washington, DC. Buros, O. S. (1985). The ninth mental measurements yearbook Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements. Carnall, C. A. (1999). Managing change in organizations, (3rd ed. ). Hernel Hempstead: Prentice Hall. Carrano A. L., & Thorn, B. K. (2005). A multidisciplinary approach to sustainable product and process design. Journal of Manufacturing Syst ems, 24 (3), 209 214. Cartwright, D. (1968). The nature of group cohesiveness. In D. Cartwright & A. Zander (Eds.), Group dynamics: Research and theory (3rd ed., pp. 91 109). New York: Harper & Row. Clampitt, G., DeKock, R. & Cashman, T. (2000). A strategy for communicating about uncertainty. Academy of Management Executive, 14(4) 41 57. Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. (1997). What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23, 239 290. Cs ikszentmihalyi, M. (1988). Society, culture, and person: A systems view of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity: Contemporary psychological p erspectives (pp. 325 339). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Davis, G. (1999). Creat ivity is forever (4th rev. ed.). Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt. Davis, G. (2004). Creativity is forever (5th ed.). Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt. Davis, G. A., & Bull, K. S. (1978). Strengthening affective component of creativity in a college course. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70(5), 833 836. Davis, J. (1969). Group performance. Reading, MA: AddisonWesley. Domino, G. (1970). Identification of potentially creative persons from the Adjective Check List. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 35, 48 5 1. Domino, G., & Giuliani, I. (1997). Creativity in three samples of photographers: A validation of the Adjective Check List Creativity Scale. Creativity Research Journal, 10 (2&3), 193 200. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1990). Speed and strategic choice: How managers accelerate decision making. California Management Review, 32(3), 39 54. Eisenhardt, K. M., & Zbaracki, M. J. (1992). Strategic decision making. Strategic Management Journal, 13, 17 37.

PAGE 123

123 Ely, R. (1995). The role of dominant identity and experience in organi zational work on diversity. In S. E. Jackson & M. N. Ruderman (Eds.), Diversity in work teams: Research paradigms for a changing workplace (pp. 161 186). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Ely, R. ( 2004). A field study of group diversity, participation in diversity education programs, and performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 755 780. Eysenck, (1994). Creativity and personality: Word association, origence, and psychoticism. In M. A. Runco & R. Richards (Eds.), Eminent Creativ ity, Everyday Creativity, and Health, (pp. 107 118). Santa Barbara, CA: Greenwood Publishing Group. Farnham -Diggory, S. (1972). Cognitive processes in education. New York: Harper & Row. Focus Groups for the Business Fellows Program. (1999). College Station, TX: Mays Business School. Feldhusen J. F., & Goh B. E. (1995). Assessing and accessing creativity: An integrative review of theory, research, and development. Creativity Research Journal, 8 231 247. Forbes, D. P. & Milliken, F. J. (1999). Cognition an d corporate governance: Understanding boards of directors as strategic decision -making groups. Academy of Management Review, 24(3 ), 489 505. Forsyth, D. R. (1990). Group dynamics (2nd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole. French, E. (1958). Development of a measure of complex motivation. In J. W. Atkinson (Ed.), Motives in fantasy, action and society (pp. 242 248). Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand. Gladstein, D. L. (1984). Groups in context: A model of task group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 499 517. Gough, H. G., & Heilbrun, A. B. (1983). The Adjective Check List manual (1983 edition). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Guzzo, R. A. & Dickson, M. (1996). Teams in organizations: Recent research on performance and effectiveness Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 307 338. Guzzo, R. A., & Shea, G. P. (1992). Group performance and intergroup relations in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette & L. H. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 3, 2nd ed., pp. 269 313). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Hackman, J. R. (1987). The design of work teams. In Handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 315 342). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Hackman, J. R. (1990). Conclusion: Creating more effective work groups in organizations. In J. R. Hackman (Ed.), Groups that work (and those that don't). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

PAGE 124

124 Hambrick, D., Cho, T., & Chen, M. (1996). The influence of top management team heterogeneity on firms competitive movers. Administra tive Science Quarterly, 41, 659 684. Hargadon, A. B. & Sutton, R. I. (1997). Technology brokering and innovation in a product development firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(4), 716 749. Hargadon, A. B., & Bechky, B. A. (2006). When collections of creatives become creative collectives: A field study of problem solving at work. Organization Science, 17(4), 484 500. Haythorn, W. (1953). The influence of individual members on the characteristics of small groups. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 48, 276 284. Heckhausen, H. (1989). Motivation und Handln, 2nd ed., Springer Verlag, Hamburg. Higgins, E. T. (1996). Knowledge activation: Accessibility, applicability, and salience. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles, (pp. 133 168). New York: Guilford Press. Hirshberg, J. (1998). The Creative Priority: Driving Innovative Business in the Real World. New York: Harper Business. Hough, L. M. (1992). The "Big-Five" personality variables construct conf usion: Description versus prediction. Human Performance, 5, 139 155. Houtz J. C., & Krug, D. ( 1995). Assessment of creativity: Resolving a mid -life crisis. Educational Psychology Review, 7(3), 269 300. Houtz, J. C., Selby, E. C., Esquivel, G. B., Okoye, R A., Peters, K. M., & Treffinger, D. J. (2003). Comparison of two creativity style measures. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 96, 288 296. Isaksen S. G., & Geuens, (2006). A technical report of the relationships between an assessment of problem solving styl e and creative problem solvin g. Buffalo, NY: The Creative Problem Solving Group, Inc. Isaksen, S. G. (Ed.), (1987). Frontiers of creativity research: Beyond the basics. Buffalo, New York: Bearly Limited. Jackson, M. C. (2005). Reflections on knowledge management from a critical systems perspective. Knowledge Management Research and Practice, 3, 187 196. Jackson, S. E., Stone, V. K., & Alvarez, E. B. (1992). Socialization amidst diversity: Impact of demographics on work team oldtimers and newcomers. In L L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 15, pp. 45 110). Greenwich, CT : JAI Press.

PAGE 125

125 James, K., & Asmus, C. (2001). Personality, cognitive skills, and creativity in different life domains. Creativity Research Journal, 13( 2), 149 159. Janis, I., & Mann, L. (1977). Decision making. New York: Free Press. Kanter, R. M. (1988). When a thousand flowers bloom: Structural, collective, and social conditions for innovation in organization. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Rese arch in organizational behavior (Vol. 10, pp. 169 211). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Kasl, E., Marsick, V. J., & Dechant, K. (1997). Teams as learners. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 33 227 246. Katzenbach, J. R. & Smith, D. K. (1993). The wisdom of teams: Creating the high-performance organization. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Kirton, M. J. (1987). Kirton adaption-innovation manual (2 nd ed. ). Hatfield, England: Occupational Research Center. Kolb, D. A. (1976). Management and the learning process. California Management Review, 18, 21 31. Kurtzberg, T. R. (2000). Creative styles and teamwork: Effects of coordination and conflict on group outcomes Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Northwestern University, Evanston, IL. Kurtzberg, T. R., & Amabile, T. M. (2001). From Guilford to creative synergy: Opening the black box of team level creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 13, 285 294. Larson, C. E., & LaFasto, F. M. J. (1989). Teamwork: What must go right/what can go wrong. Newbury Park, CA: S age. Latham, P. (2001). The importance of understanding and changing employee outcome expectancies for gaining commitment to an organizational goals. Personnel Psychology, 54, 707 716. Leonard, D. A., & Straus, S. (1997). Putting your companys whole brain to work. Harvard Business Review, 75 (4), 110 123. Leonard, D. A., & Swap, W. C. (1999). When Sparks Fly. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Levi, D. (2001) Group dynamics for teams. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. MacKinnon, D. W. (1978). In search of human effectiveness: Identifying and developing creativity. Buffalo, NY: Creative Education Foundation.

PAGE 126

126 Mani, B. G. ( 1995). Progress on the journey to total quality management: Using the Myers Briggs Type Indicator and the Adjective Check List in management development. Public Personnel Management, 24(3), 365 398. Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E. & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26, 356 376. Mayer, R. E. ( 1999). Fifty years of creativity research. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 449 460). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McComb, S., Green, S., & Compton, W. (1999). Project goals, team performance, and shared understanding. Engineering M anagement Journal, 11(3), 7 12. McCrimmon, M. (1995). Teams without roles: Empowering teams for greater creativity. The Journal of Management Development, 14(6), 35 41. McDermid, C. D. ( 1965). Some correlates of creativity in engineering personnel. Journal of Applied Psychology, 49(1), 14 19. McGrath, J. E. (1964). Social psychology: A brief introduction. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Meneely, J., & Portillo, M. (2005). The adaptable mind in design: Relating personality, cognitive style, and creative performance. Creativity Research Journal, 17(2&3), 155 166. Mooney, R. L. (1963). A conceptual model for integrating four approaches to the identification of creative talent. In C. W. Taylor, & F. Barron (Eds.), Scientific creativity: Its recognition and development (pp. 331 339). New York: Wiley. Morrison, A. M. ( 1992). The new leaders. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Morrison, A. M. ( 1995). Closing the gap between research and practice. In S. E. Jackson & M. N. Ruderman (Eds.) Diversity in work teams: Research paradigms for a changing workplace (pp. 2 1 9 224). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Mount, M. K., & Barrick, M. R. (1995). The Big Five personality dimensions: Implications for research and practice in human resources management. Resea rch in Personnel and Human esources Management, 13, 153 200. Mumford, T. V., Campion, M. A., & Morgeson, F. P. (2006). Situational judgment in work teams: A team role typology. In J. A. Weekley & R. E. Ployhart (Eds.), Situational judgment tests: Theory, m easurement, and application (pp. 319 343). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Mumford, T. V., Morgeson, F. P., Van Iddekinge, C. H., & Campion, M. A. (2008). The Team Role Test: Development and validation of a team role knowledge situational judgment test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(2), 250 267.

PAGE 127

127 Nemeth, C. (1997). Managing innovation: When less is more. California Management Review, 40(1), 58 66. Nemeth, C. J. (1995). Dissent as driving cognition, attitudes, and judgments. Social Cognition, 13, 273 291. Northcraft G., Polzer, J., Neale, M., & Kramer, R. (1995). Diversity, social identity, and performance: Emergent social dynamics in cross -functional teams. In S. Jackson & M. Ruderman (Eds.), Diversity in work teams: Research paradigms for a changing workplace (pp. 69 95). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Oldham, G. & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at work. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 607 634. Osborn, A. F. ( 1953). Applied imagination: Principles and procedures of creative thinking. New York: Charles Scribner s Sons. Osborn, A. F. (1963). Applied imagination, 3rd ed. New York: Scribners. Osborn, D. & Moran, L. (2000). The new -self directed work teams 2nd ed. Blacklick, OH: McGraw -Hill. Osche, R. (1 990). Before the Gates of Excellence. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Parker, G. M. (1996). Team players ad teamwork. San Francisco: Jossey -Bass. Parnes, S. J. ( 1977). CPSI: The general system. Journal of Creative Behavior, 11(1), 1 11. Par nes, S. J. (1981). Magic of your mind. Buffalo, NY: Bearly Limited. Parnes, S. J., Noller, R. B., & Biondi, A. M. (1977). Creative actionbook. New York: Scribners. Paulus, P. B. ( 2008). Fostering creativity in groups and teams. In J. Zhou & C. Shalley (Eds .), Handbook of organizational creativity. New York: Taylor & Francis Group, LLC. Pegels, C. C. & Yang, B. (2000). The impact of managerial characteristics on strategic assets management capabilities. Team Performance Management, 6, 97 107. Peterson, T. O. (2004). So you re thinking of trying problem based learning?: Three critical success factors for implementation. Journal of Management Educatioin, 28(5), 630 647. Pirola Merlo A., & Mann, L. ( 2004). The relationship between individual creativity and team creativity: Aggregating across people and time. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 235 257. Plucker, J. A., & Renzulli, J. S. (1999). Psychometric approaches to the study of h u man creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 35 6 1). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

PAGE 128

128 Pokras, S. (1995). Team problem solving. Menlo Park, CA: CRISP Publications. Renzulli J. S., & Reis, S. M. ( 1991). The assessment of creative products in programs for gifted and talented students. Gifted Ch ild Qu arterly, 35 (3), 128 134. Rousseau, M. (2001). The idiosyncratic deal, flexibility versus fairness. Organizational Dynamics, 29(4) 260 273. Salas, E., Sims, D. E., & Burke, C. S. (2005). Is there a big five in teamwork? Small Group Research, 36, 555 Sawyer, K. (2007). Group Genius: The Creative Power of Collaboration. New York: Basic Books. Schepers P., & van den Berg P. (2007) Social factors of work -environment creativity. Journal of Business and Psychology, 21(3), 407 428. Schweiger, D. M ., & Sandberg, W. R. (1989). The utilization of individual capabilities in group approaches to strategic decision -making. Strategic Management Journal 10 31 43. Simons, T. L. & Peterson, R. S. (2000). Task conflict and relationship conflict in top manage ment teams: The pivotal role of intragroup trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 102 111. Simonton, D. K. (1988). Creativity, leadership, and chance. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity. New York: Cambridge Universtity Press. Spreitzer, G. M., Cohen, S. G., & Ledford, Jr., G. E. (1999). Developing effective self -managing work teams in service organizations. Group & Organization Management, 24(3), 340 366. Staehle, W. (1999), Management, 8th ed., Verlag Vahlen, Mnchen. Steiner, I. D. (197 2). Group processes and productivity. New York: Academic Press. Stevens, M. J., & Campion, M. F. (1994). The knowledge, skill, and ability requirements for teamwork: Implications for human resource management. Journal of Management, 20, 503 530. Stewart, G L., & Barrick, M. R. (2000). Team structure and performance: Assessing the mediating role of intrateam process and the moderating role of task type. Academy o Manangement Journal, 43(2), 135 148. Stewart, G. L., Fulmer, I. S., & Barrick, M. R. (2005). An exploration of member roles as a multilevel linking mechanism for individual traits and team outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 58, 343 365. Sundstrom, E., DeMeuse, K., & Futrell, D. ( 1990). Work teams. American Psychologist, 45, 120 133.

PAGE 129

129 Tan, G. (1998). Man aging creativity in organizations: A total system approach. Creativity and Innovation Management, 7(1), 23 31. Terborg, J. R., Castore, C., & DeNinno, J. A. (1976). A longitudinal ield investigation of the impact of group composition n group performance and cohesion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 782 790. Thomas, K. W. (1992). Conflict and negotiation processes in organizations. In M. Dunette and L. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational Psychology (pp. 651 718). Palo Al to, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Thomas, R. R. ( 1990, March -April). From affirmative action to affirming diversity. Harvard Business Review, 68 107 117. Thompson, L. (2000). Making the team. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Thompson, L. & Fi ne, G. (1999). Socially-shared cognition, affect, & behavior: A review and integration. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 278 302. Tjosvold, D. (1984). Effects of leader warmth and directiveness on subordinate performance on a subsequent task. J ournal of Applied Psychology, 69, 422 427. Torrance, E. P. (1962). Guiding creative talen t. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Torrance, E. P. ( 1974). Norms and technical manual: Torrance tests of creative thinking. (Rev. ed.). Bensenville, IL: Scholasti c Testing Service. Torrance, E. P. (1988). The nature of creativity as manifest in its testing. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity: Contemporary psychological perspectives (pp. 43 75). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tregaskis, O. ( 2003). Networks, power and legitimacy in multinational subsidiaries. International Journal of HRM, 14(3) 431 447. Tziner, A., & Vardi, Y. (1982). Effects of command style and group cohesiveness on the performance of self -selected tank crews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 769 775. Van de Ven, A. H. (1986). Central problems in the management of innovation. Management Science, 32(5), 590 607. VanGundy, A. B. (1984). Managing Group Creativity. New York: American Management Associations. Watson, E. (2007). Who or what creates? A conceptual framework for social creativity. Human Resource Development Review, 6(4), 419 441. Weick, K. E. (1979). The Social Psychology of Organizing. Reading, MA: Addison -Wesley.

PAGE 130

130 Weisberg, R. W. (1993). Creativity: Beyond the myth of genius. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company. West, M. A. (1994). Effective Teamwork. London: British Psychological Society and Routledge. West, M. A. & Slater, M. A. (1995). Teamwork: Myths, realities and research. The Occupational Psychologist, 24, 24 29. West M. A., & Anderson, N. R. (1996). Innovation in top management teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 680 693. Williams, W. M., & Sternberg, R. J. (1988). Group intelligence: Why some groups are better than others. Intelligence, 12, 351 377. W oodman, R. W., & Schoenfeldt, L. F. (1990). An interactionist model of creative behavior. Journal of Creative Behavior, 24, 279 290. Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin, R. W. (1993). Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Academy of Management Review, 18(2), 293 321. Zander, A. (1994). Making groups effective. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Zander, A., & Forward, J. (1968). Position in group, achievement motivation, and group aspirations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8, 282 288.

PAGE 131

131 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Chung, S. received her Bachelor of Arts (major in interior design) with high honors from Michigan State University in 2006. Following her aspiration in bridging the gap between research and practice in the design field s he continued her studies and received her Master of Interior Design from the University of Florida. Her research interests are focused on nurturing creativity in interior design education and its relation to cultivating a creative workplace.