Profiling Group Dynamics within Business and Design Student Teams: Relationships among Personality Traits,Problem–Solving Styles,and Creative Performance
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online September, 2012
Profiling Group Dynamics within Business and Design Student Teams: Relationships among Personality Traits,Problem–Solving Styles,and Creative Performance
This study examined relationships among personality traits, problem–solving styles, and creative performance of business and design student teams. Forty–two business, merchandising, and interior design students, divided into six teams of seven, participated in an interdisciplinary competition to solve a real–world retail design problem. Students completed the Adjective Check List (ACL) and the Creative Problem–Solving Profile to gauge personality traits and problem–solving style, respectively. The ACL was scored using Domino's Creativity Scale (ACL–Cr) to identify personality traits associated with creative behavior and seven additional subscales associated with team dynamics. The sample also completed a Team Process Survey (TPS), created by the researchers to identify team strengths, challenges, conflicts, and resolutions during the process. Finally, a panel of judges with business, merchandising, and design expertise rank ordered the final design solutions and accompanying business proposals to determine the winning competition entry. Findings indicated that individual creative personality traits might be a necessary but not sufficient condition for creative team performance. Also, teams that displayed more diversified problem–solving profiles outperformed less diverse teams, with the winning team having the most equal representation of all problem–solving styles. All teams reported conflicts and challenges during the process; however, the bottom three placing teams took conflicts personally, whereas the top three placing teams perceived emerging conflicts as a positive force to develop their thinking and strategy.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlterJ. (1984). Creativity profile of university and conservatory dance students.Journal of Personality Assessment, 48(2), 153–158.
2.
AlterJ. (1989). Creative profile of university and conservatory music students.Creativity Research Journal, 2(3), 184–195.
3.
AmabileT. (1981). Brilliant but cruel: Perceptions of negative evaluators. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association.
4.
AmabileT. (1983). Social psychology of creativity.New York: Springer–Verlag.
5.
AmabileT. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
6.
AmabileT., ContiR., CoonH., LazenbyJ., & HerronM. (1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity.The Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1154–1184.
7.
AmabileT., & MuellerJ. (2008). Studying creativity, its processes, and its antecedents: An exploration of the componential theory of creativity. In ZhouJ. & ShalleyC. (Eds.), Handbook of organizational creativiy (pp. 33–64). New York: Taylor & Francis Group.
8.
AmabileT. M. (1990). Within you, without you: The social psychology of creativity, and beyond. In RuncoM. A. & AlbertR. S. (Eds.), Theories of creativity. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
9.
BaerJ. (1998). Point–counterpoint: The case for domain specificity of creativity.Creativity Research Journal, 11(2), 173–177.
10.
BarlowC. (2000). Deliberate insight in team creativity.Journal of Creative Behavior, 34(2), 101–117.
11.
BarrickM., & MountM. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta–analysis.Personnel Psychology, 44, 1–26.
12.
BarrickM., StewartG., NeubertM., & MountM. (1998). Relating ability and personality to work–team processes and team effectiveness.Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(3), 337–391.
13.
BarronF. (1988). Putting creativity to work. In SternbergR. (Ed.), The nature of creativity.New York: Cambridge University Press.
14.
BarronF., & HarringtonD. (1981). Creativity, intelligence, and personality. In RosenzweigM. & PorterL. (Eds.), Annual review of psychology (Vol. 32, pp. 439–476). Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.
15.
BasadurM. (1998). The basadur simplex creative problem solving profile inventory: Development, reliability and validity. Unpublished manuscript, Ontario, Canada.
16.
BasadurM., & HeadM. (2001). Team performance and sastifaction: A link to cognitive style within a process framework.Journal of Creative Behavior, 35(4), 227–248.
17.
BerkowitzL. (1954). group standards, cohesiveness, and productivity. Human Relations, 7, 509–519.
18.
BrankiN., EdmondsE., & JonesR. (1993). A study of socially shared cognition in design.Planning and Design, 20(3), 295–306.
19.
BropheyD. (2001). Comparing the attributes, activities, and performance of divergent, convergent, and combination thinkers.Creativity Research Journal, 13(3 & 4), 439–455.
20.
BrownS., & EisenhardtK. (1998). Competing on the edge: Strategy as structured chaos. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
21.
BundersonC. (1989). The validity of the Herrmann brain dominance instrument. In HerrmannN. (Ed.), The creative brain. Kingsport, TN: Quebecor Printing Book Group.
22.
BurosO. S. (1985). The ninth mental measurements yearbook. Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.
23.
CartwrightD. (1968). The nature of group cohesiveness. In CartwrightD. & ZanderA. (Eds.), Group dynamics: Research and theory (3rd ed., pp. 91–109). New York: Harper & Row.
24.
CrossN., & Clayburn CrossA. (1995). Observations of teamwork and social processes in design.Design Studies, 16(2), 143–170.
25.
CsikszentmihalyiM. (1988). Society, culture, and person: A systems view of creativity. In SternbergR. J. (Ed.), The nature of creativity: Contemporary psychological perspectives (pp. 325–339). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
26.
CsikszentmihalyiM. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention.New York: HarperCollins.
27.
DavisG., & BullK. (1978). Strengthening affective components of creativity in a college course.Journal of Educational Psychology, 70(5), 833–836.
28.
DavisG. A. (2008). Creativity is forever (5th ed.). Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt.
29.
DavisJ. (1969). Group performance. Reading, MA: Addison–Wesley.
30.
DominoG. (1970). Identification of potentially creative persons from the adjective check list.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 35, 48–51.
31.
DominoG. (1974). Assessment of cinematographic creativity.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30(1), 150–154.
32.
DominoG., & GiulianiI. (1997). Creativity in three samples of photographers: A validation of the adjective check list creativity scale.Creativity Research Journal, 10(2–3), 193–200.
33.
EisenhardtK. M. (1990). Speed and strategic choice: How managers accelerate decision making.California Management Review, 32(3), 39–54.
34.
EisenhardtK. M., & ZbarackiM. J. (1992). Strategic decision making.Strategic Management Journal, 13, 17–37.
35.
EysenckH. J. (1994). Creativity and personality: Word association, origence, and psychoticism.Creativity Research Journal, 7(2), 209–216.
36.
FeldhusenJ. F., & GohB. E. (1995). Assessing and accessing creativity: An integrative review of theory, research, and development.Creativity Research Journal, 8, 231–247.
37.
GardnerH. (1989). To open minds.New York: Basic Books.
38.
GoughH., & HeilbrunA. (1983). The adjective check list manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
39.
GuilfordJ. (1967). The nature of human intelligence.New York: McGraw Hill.
40.
GuzzoR. A., & DicksonM. (1996). Teams in organizations: Recent research on performance and effectiveness.Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 307–338.
41.
HackmanJ. R. (1987). The design of work teams. In LorschJ. (Ed.), Handbook of Organizational Behavior (pp. 315–342). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
42.
HackmanJ. R. (1990). Conclusion: Creating more effective groups in organizations. In HackmanJ. R. (Ed.), Groups that work (and those that don't). San Francisco: Jossey–Bass.
43.
HambrickD., ChoT., & ChenM. (1996). The influence of top management team heterogeneity on firms’ competitive movers.Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 659–684.
44.
HargadonA. B., & BechkyB. A. (2006). When collections of creatives become creative collectives: A field study of problem solving at work.Organization Science, 17(4), 484–500.
45.
HasellM. J., & ScottS. C. (1995). Interior design visionaries’ explorations of emerging trends.Journal of Interior Design, 22(2), 1–14.
46.
HaythornW. (1953). The influence of individual members on the characteristics of small groups. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 48, 276–284.
47.
HerrmannN. (1989). The creative brain (2nd ed.). Kingsport, TN: Quebecor Printing Book Group.
48.
HoutzJ. C., SelbyE. C., EsquivelG. B., OkoyeR. A., PetersK. M., & TreffingerD. J. (2003). Comparison of two creativity style measures.Perceptual and Motor Skills, 96, 288–296.
49.
IsaksenS. G., & GeuensD. (2006). A technical report of the relationships between an assessment of problem solving style and creative problem solving. Buffalo, NY: The Creative Problem Solving Group
50.
JacksonS. E., StoneV. K., & AlvarezE. B. (1992). Socialization amidst diversity: Impact of demographics on work team oldtimers and newcomers. In CummingsL. L. & StawB. M. (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 15, pp. 45–110). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
51.
JamesK., & AsmusC. (2001). Personality, cognitive skills, and creativity in different life domains.Creativity Research Journal, 12(2), 149–159.
52.
KaslE., MarsickV. J., & DechantK. (1997). Teams as learners.Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 33, 227–246.
53.
KeyserD., & SweetlandR. (Eds.). (1984). Test critiques. Kansas City, MO: Test Corporation of America.
54.
KurtzbergT. R. (2000). Creative styles and teamwork: Effects of coordination and conflict on group outcomes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University.
55.
KurtzbergT. R., & AmabileT. M. (2001). From Guilford to creative synergy: Opening the black box of team level creativity.Creativity Research Journal, 13, 285–294.
56.
LeonardD., & StrausS. (1997). Putting your company's whole brain to work.Harvard Business Review, 75(4), 110–123.
57.
LeonardD. A., & SwapW. C. (1999). When sparks fly. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
58.
LeviD. (2001). Group dynamics for teams. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
59.
MackinnonD. (1962). The nature and nurture of creative talent.American Psychologist, 17, 484–495.
60.
MackinnonD. (1965). Personality and the realization of creative potential.American Psychologist, 20, 273–281.
61.
MackinnonD. (1970). The personality correlates of creativity: A study of American architects. In VernonP. (Ed.), Creativity (pp. 289–311). Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Books.
62.
MackinnonD. (1978). In search of human effectiveness: Identifying and developing creativity. Buffalo, NY: Creative Education Foundation.
63.
McDonellJ. (2011). Accommodating disagreement: A study of effecitve design collaboration. Design Studies, 33(1), 44–63.
64.
MeneelyJ. (2010). Educating adaptable minds: How diversified are the thinking preferences of interior design students?Journal of Interior Design, 35(3), 21–32.
65.
MeneelyJ., & PortilloM. (2005). The adaptable mind in design: Relating personality, cognitive style, and creative performance.Creativity Research Journal, 17(2 & 3), 155–166.
66.
MorrisonA. M. (1995). Closing the gap between research and practice. In JacksonS. E., & RudermanM. N. (Ed.), Diversity in work teams: Research paradigms for a changing workplace (pp. 219–224). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
67.
MountM. K., & BarrickM. R. (1995). The big five personality dimensions: Implications for research and practice in human resources management.Research in Personnel and Human esources Management, 13, 153–200.
68.
NemethC. J. (1995). Dissent as driving cognition, attitudes, and judgments.Social Cognition, 13, 273–291.
69.
NemethC. J. (1997). Managing innovation: When less is more.California Management Review, 40(1), 58–66.
70.
OldhamG., & CummingsA. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at work.The Academy of Management Journal, 39(3), 607–634.
71.
OscheR. (1990). Before the gates of excellence. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
72.
PaulusP. B. (2008). Fostering creativity in groups and teams. In ZhouJ. & ShalleyC. (Eds.), Handbook of organizational creativity.New York: Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.
73.
PeetersM., RutteC., van TuijlH., & ReymenI. (2008). Designing in teams : Does personality matter?Small Group Research, 39(4), 438–467.
74.
PegelsC. C., & YangB. (2000). The impact of managerial characteristics on strategic assets management capabilities.Team Performance Management, 6, 97–107.
75.
Pirola–MerloA., & MannL. (2004). The relationship between individual creativity and team creativity: Aggregating across people and time.Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 235–257.
76.
PluckerJ. A., & RenzulliJ. S. (1999). Psychometric approaches to the study of human creativity. In SternbergR. J. (Ed.), Handbook of creativity. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
77.
PortilloM., & DohrJ. (1994). Bridging process and structure through criteria.Design Studies, 15(4), 403–416.
78.
RuncoM. A. (1993). Creativity, causality, and the separation of personality and cognition.Psychological Inquiry, 4(3), 221–225.
79.
RussR., & DickinsonJ. (1999). Collaborative design: “Forming, storming, and norming”.Journal of Interior Design, 25(2), 52–58.
80.
SawyerK. (2007). Group genius: The creative power of collaboration.New York: Basic Books.
81.
SchepersP., & Van den BergP. (2007). Social factors of work–environment creativity.Journal of Business and Psychology, 21(3), 407–428.
82.
SchweigerD. M., & SandbergW. R. (1989). The utilization of individual capabilities in group approaches to strategic decision–making.Strategic Management Journal, 10, 31–43.
83.
SimontonD. K. (1995). Exceptional personal influence: An integrative paradigm.Creativity Research Journal, 8 (4), 371–376.
84.
StaehleW. H. (1999). Management (8th ed.). München, Germany: Verlag Vahlen.
85.
SternbergR. (1988). A three–facet model of creativity. In SternbergR. (Ed.), The nature of creativity.New York: Cambridge Univeristy Press.
86.
SussmanG., & JustmanJ. (1976). Characteristics of preadolescent boys judged creative by their teachers.Gifted Child Quarterly, 19(3), 210–216.
87.
TerborgJ. R., CastoreC., & DeNinnoJ. A. (1976). A longitudinal field investigation of the impact of group composition in group performance and cohesion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 782–790.
88.
ThomasK. W. (1992). Conflict and negotiation processes in organizations. In DunetteM. & HoughL. (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 651–718). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
89.
TjosvoldD. (1984). Effects of leader warmth and directiveness on subordinate performance on a subsequent task. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 422–427.
90.
TzinerA., & VardiY. (1982). Effects of command style and group cohesiveness on the performance of self–selected tank crews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 769–775.
91.
VanGundyA. B. (1984). Managing group creativity.New York: American Management Associations.
92.
VanGundyA. B. (1987). Creative problem solving: A guide for trainers and management. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
93.
WatsonE. (2007). Who or what creates? A conceptual framework for social creativity.Human Resource Development Review, 6(4), 419–441.
94.
WeisbergR. W. (1993). Creativity: Beyond the myth of genius.New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.
95.
WestM. A. (1994). Effective teamwork. London: British Psychological Society and Routledge.
96.
WestM. A., & SlaterM. A. (1995). Teamwork: Myths, realities and research.The Occupational Psychologist, 24, 24–29.
97.
YangM. C. (2010). Consensus and single leader decision–making in teams using structured design methods.Design Studies, 31(4), 345–362.
