1 / 49

Leading diverse and creative teams: The role of inclusive leadership

Leading diverse and creative teams: The role of inclusive leadership. Roni Reiter-Palmon Professor, Department of Psychology Center for Collaboration Science. Why Creativity in Teams?. Increasing complexity of problems Additional performance benefits from varied skills of the team members

sela
Télécharger la présentation

Leading diverse and creative teams: The role of inclusive leadership

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Leading diverse and creative teams: The role of inclusive leadership Roni Reiter-Palmon Professor, Department of Psychology Center for Collaboration Science

  2. Why Creativity in Teams? • Increasing complexity of problems • Additional performance benefits from varied skills of the team members • Creativity is defined as any product, process, or solution that is both original (novel) and useful (appropriate).

  3. Team Creativity • Much research on teams as a contextual variable (Woodman, Sawyer, & Griffin, 1993) • Focus on individual creativity • More recent interest in the construct of team creativity (Reiter-Palmon, Wigert & de Vreede, 2011)

  4. Use the Input-Process-Output (IPO) model • Input • Team Characteristics • Team Diversity • Process • Social Processes • Cognitive Processes

  5. In what ways are teams diverse? • Demographic characteristics • Gender • Age • Race/Ethnicity • Nationality/Culture • Personal Characteristics • Personality • Motivation • Values

  6. Functional Diversity • Job/Position • Department • Discipline

  7. Meta analysis by Hulsherger et al. (2009) • Demographic diversity not related to creativity Functional diversity related to creativity • Not enough information on personal characteristics

  8. Strengths • More information • More diverse information • More perspectives • Cognitive benefits • Weaknesses • More difficulty in communicating • More difficulty in developing trust • Social deficits

  9. Team Processes • Social Processes • Multiple models of important social processes (Mathieu et al., 2008; Rousseau, Aube, & Savoie, 2006; Salas, Stagl, Burke, & Goodwin, 2007) • Commonalities across models • Collaboration and Coordination • Communication • Trust and Psychological Safety • Conflict

  10. Social Processes - Collaboration • Important for • Dynamic situation • Team adaptation • Creativity (Burke et al., 2006; Janssens & Brett, 2006)

  11. Collaboration • Team goals that emphasize collaboration relate to idea generation (Mitchell, Boyle, & Nicholas, 2009) • Collaboration is related to creativity and innovation in teams (Drach-Zehavy& Somech, 2001; Pearce & Ensley, 2004) • Effective collaboration allows for integration of diverse perspectives (Mitchell, Boyle, & Nicholas, 2009)

  12. Social Processes - Communication • Internal Communication – within the team • External Communication – outside of the team • With other departments/teams in the organization • Outside the organization (customers, suppliers, etc.)

  13. Ancona and Caldwell (1992) Ancona and Caldwell (1992 External Communication Ancona and Caldwell (1992) Ancona and Caldwell (1992) • One of the strongest predictors of team creativity (Damanpour, 1991; Hulsheger et al., 2009) • Diverse teams engage in more external communication (Ancona & Caldwell, 1992; Keller, 2001)

  14. External Communication • Role of external communication • Providing diverse information • Weak ties related to creativity (Baer, 2010; Perry-Smith, 2006; Perry-Smith & Shalley, 2003) • Developing Support for new ideas (Howell & Shea, 2006)

  15. Internal communication • Communication with members within the team • Collaborative communication increases creativity (Lovelace, Shapiro, & Weingart, 2001) • Negative forms of communication hinder creativity (Lovelace, Shapiro, & Weingart, 2001) • Frequent communication hinder creativity (Kratzer, Leenders, & van Engelen, 2004)

  16. Trust and Psychological Safety • Linked to creativity and innovation (Carmeli & Spreitzer, 2009; West & Anderson, 1996) • Linked to team member willingness to discuss information openly (Burke et al., 2006; Edmondson, 2004; Rank et al., 2004).

  17. Trust and Psychological Safety • Low trust causes disagreements and ambiguous information to be interpreted in a negative way (Nicholson & West, 1988; Salas et al., 2005; West & Richter, 2008)

  18. Conflict • Can be task or relationship based (Jehn, 1997) • Hypothesized that task conflict may be beneficial (Kurtzberg & Amabile, 2001; Mannix & Neale, 2005)

  19. conflict • Mixed results regarding effect of conflict on creativity • Relationship = negative • Task = mixed • Possible curvilinear relationship (De Dreu, 2006)

  20. Social processes are interrelated and may have interactive effects on team creativity and innovation • Low trust can lead to more conflict • Communication increases trust and psychological safety • trust and psychological safety increase communication • Collaboration requires communication

  21. Time as an important variable • Social processes develop and change over time (team dynamics) • Social processes may have different effects depending on timing within a project

  22. Cognitive Processes • Social Cognition - How individuals and teams think about teams and team processes • Problem Solving (Reiter-Palmon, Herman, & Yammarino, 2008)

  23. Cognitive Processes • Received much more attention at the individual level than at the team level • Individual models of cognitive processes are available • Not clear how individual cognition then is aggregated to the team level

  24. Current work focuses on social cognition • How individuals and teams think about teams and team processes • Shared Mental Models • Reflexivity

  25. Shared Mental Model • Representation of knowledge or beliefs that are shared by team members (Cannon-Bowers, Salas, & Converse, 1993) • Positive relationship with team creativity and innovation (Gilson & Shalley, 2004; Pearce & Ensley, 2004) • SMMs may lead to too much similarity and conformity (Cannon-Bowers et al., 1993)

  26. Team Reflexivity • Team members reflect on the objectives and strategies and adapt them to current or anticipated circumstances (West, 1996) • Reflexive teams can change their strategies and learn from past mistakes

  27. Important antecedent of team creativity and innovation (Schippers, Den Hartog, & Koopman, 2007; Tjosvold, Tang, & West, 2004) • Team reflexivity may not occur naturally (Muller, Herbig, & Petrovic, 2009) • Instructions and minority dissent may contribute to team reflexivity (De Dreu, 2002; Muller et al., 2009)

  28. Creative Problem Solving Processes • Problem identification and construction • Information gathering • Idea generation* (lots of research) • Solution evaluation and choice

  29. What is missing? • Individual cognition vs. team cognition • What happens when team members need to put together these individual cognitions? • How do we aggregate to the team level? • Early and late processes (before and after idea generation)

  30. Problem Construction • During this process the problem to be solved is • recognized and identified (Is there indeed a problem?) • defined (What is the nature of the problem?) • and constructed (What are the parameters of the problem to guide possible solutions?)

  31. Based on past experiences with similar problems – Problem Representation (Gick & Holyoak, 1983) • Includes: Goals, constraints, information and procedures • Typically, automatic application

  32. Individual Findings • Creative individuals engage in this process (Getzels & Csikszentmihalyi, 1975, 1976) • Experts spend more time on PC (Voss et al., 1991) • Deliberate PC (more time, more ways, instructions) results in creative solutions (Basadur, Graen & Green, 1982; Reiter-Palmon, et al., 1997) • Focus on goals and restrictions (Mumford, et al., 1996)

  33. Very limited research on team level problem construction • How do teams construct problems? • Similar individual problem constructions • Different construction (rGap) (Cronin & Wiengart, 2007)

  34. Large rGaps • Lead to less integration, increased conflict, and lower creativity (Gish & Clausen, 2013; Weingart, Cronin, Houser, Cagan, & Vogel, 2005) • Lead to increased creativity if differences are discussed (Leonardi, 2011; Weingart, Todorova, & Cronin, 2008)

  35. Instructions to engage in problem construction • PC teams were less creative (Reiter-Palmon, Wigert, Morral-Robinson, Hullsiek, Arreola, & Crough, 2011) • PC teams were more original (Reiter-Palmon, 2017) • PC teams had lower conflict and more satisfaction with process and outcome

  36. Information Gathering and Sharing • Cognitive process that relies on social processes (communication) • Individuals search both within and outside the team for information • Diverse teams have access to more information and more diverse information

  37. Common information is more likely to be shared (Mesmer-Magnus & DeChurch, 2009) • Do not always know what is relevant to others • No direct studies on information gathering and sharing on creativity

  38. Solution evaluation and selection • Ideas are evaluated and choice is made to implement, refine or reject ideas • Creative individuals recognize creativity (Basadur, Runco, & Vega, 2000; Runco & Chand, 1995) • Standards for evaluation likely come from problem-construction stage

  39. Domain may influence the process (Furst, Ghisletta, & Lubart, 2017; Lubart, 2009; Sullivan & Ford, 2005) • When is evaluation more effective: Early vs. Late in the process • Evaluation criteria • Instructions to choose creative ideas (Lonergan, Scott, & Mumford, 2004; Rietzschel, Nijstad, & Stroebe, 2010) • Creative ideas • Original ideas but low quality

  40. Team Evaluation and Selection • No difference between nominal and interacting groups in idea selection (Faure, 2004; Putman & Paulus, 2009; Rietzschel, Nijstad, & Stroebe, 2006) • Teams are not very good at selecting creative ideas (Kennel & Reiter-Palmon, 2012) • Evaluation accuracy leads to selection of more creative ideas (Kennel & Reiter-Palmon, 2012)

  41. Providing structure during idea evaluation and idea selection leads to increased accuracy and better idea selection (Mumford, Feldman, Hein, & Nagao, 2001; Reiter-Palmon, Kennel, de Vreede, &de Vreede, in press)

  42. Sparse research on problem solving processes • Cognitive processes in teams rely on social processes • Particularly communication • Evidence that both similarity in cognition and diversity can be important

  43. When social deficits can be overcome – cognitive benefits facilitate team creativity • Social deficits can be overcome by effective leadership • Social deficits can be overcome by time • Getting to know the other team members

  44. Leadership • Is leading creative people different? • Creative people are • Independent • Achievement oriented • Arrogant • Intelligent/knowledgeable • Difficulty in teamwork

  45. Leadership • Leaders have an important role in providing resources needed • Time • Money • Materials • People • Information • Leaders provide direction and vision

  46. Leaders can provide role modeling for both social and cognitive processes • Leaders can emphasize creativity to facilitate active engagement • Instructions • Rewarding creativity • Leaders can create a culture of openness and communication

  47. Leaders facilitate inclusivity though • Openness • Engaging all members • Facilitating a culture of collaboration • Providing support

  48. Dec. 2017 – Oxford University Press

  49. Contact • rreiter-palmon@unomaha.edu • Twitter @rrpcreativity

More Related