Staying Alive: Toward a Diverging Consensus Model of Overcoming a Bias Against Novelty in Groups

References

• Abbott A (1990) A primer on sequence methods. Organ. Sci. 1(4):375–392.Link, Google Scholar
• Amabile TM, Pratt MG (2016) The dynamic componential model of creativity and innovation in organizations: Making progress, making meaning. Res. Organ. Behav. 36:157–183.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Anderson C, Brion S, Moore DA, Kennedy JA (2012) A status-enhancement account of overconfidence. J. Personality Soc. Psychol. 103(4):718–735.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Andriopoulos C (2003) Six paradoxes in managing creativity: An embracing act. Long Range Planning 36(4):375–388.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bailey DE, Leonardi PM, Chong J (2010) Minding the gaps: Understanding technology interdependence and coordination in knowledge work. Organ. Sci. 21(3):713–730.Link, Google Scholar
• Bales RF, Strodtbeck FL (1951) Phases in group problem-solving. J. Abnormal Sociol. Psychol. 46(4):485.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bechky BA (2003) Sharing meaning across occupational communities: The transformation of knowledge on a production floor. Organ. Sci. 14(3):312–330.Link, Google Scholar
• Behfar KJ, Peterson RS, Mannix EA, Trochim WMK (2008) The critical role of conflict resolution in teams: A close look at the links between conflict type, conflict management strategies, and team outcomes. J. Appl. Psychol. 93(1):170–188.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Benson JK (1977) Organizations: A dialectical view. Admin. Sci. Quart. (22)1:1–21.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Boudreau KJ, Guinan EC, Lakhani KR, Riedl C (2016) Looking across and looking beyond the knowledge frontier: Intellectual distance, novelty, and resource allocation in science. Management Sci. 62(10):2765–2783.Link, Google Scholar
• Campbell DT (1960) Blind variation and selective retentions in creative thought as in other knowledge processes. Psychol. Rev. 67(6):380–400.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Carlile PR (2002) A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: Boundary objects in new product development. Organ. Sci. 13(4):442–455.Link, Google Scholar
• Chia R (1994) The concept of decision: A deconstructive analysis. J. Management Stud. 31(6):781–806.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cohen SG, Bailey DE (1997) What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. J. Management 23(3):239–290.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Criscuolo P, Dahlander L, Grohsjean T, Salter A (2017) Evaluating novelty: The role of panels in the selection of R&D projects. Acad. Management J. 60:433–460.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cronin MA, Weingart LR (2007) Representational gaps, information processing, and conflict in functionally diverse teams. Acad. Management Rev. 32(3):761–773.Crossref, Google Scholar
• De Dreu CKW, Weingart LR (2003) Task vs. relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 88(4):741–749.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Diedrich J, Benedek M, Jauk E, Neubauer AC (2015) Are creative ideas novel and useful? Psychol. Aesthetics Creativity Arts 9(1):35.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dougherty D (1992) Interpretive barriers to successful product innovation in large firms. Organ. Sci. 3(2):179–202.Link, Google Scholar
• Eisenhardt KM (1989) Building theories from case study research. Acad. Management Rev. 14(4):532–550.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eisenhardt KM, Graebner ME (2007) Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Acad. Management J. 50(1):25–32.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Elsbach KD, Kramer RM (2003) Assessing creativity in hollywood pitch meetings: evidence for a dual-process model of creativity judgments. Acad. Management J. 46(3):283–301.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Farjoun M (2010) Beyond dualism: Stability and change as a duality. Acad. Management Rev. 35(2):202–225.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ford JD, Ford LW (1994) Logics of identity, contradiction, and attraction in change. Acad. Management Rev. 19(4):756–785.Google Scholar
• Ford CM, Sullivan DM (2005) Selective Retention Processes That Create Tensions Between Novelty and Value in Business Domains (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, Mahwah, NJ).Google Scholar
• Ford CM, Sharfman MP, Dean JW (2008) Factors associated with creative strategic decisions. Creative Innovative Management 17(3):171–185.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gebert D, Boerner S, Kearney E (2010) Fostering team innovation: Why is it important to combine opposing action strategies? Organ. Sci. 21(3):593–608.Link, Google Scholar
• Gillespie A (2011) Trust and Conflict: Representation, Culture and Dialogue (Routledge, Hove, UK).Google Scholar
• Glaser BG, Strauss AL (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory (Aldine Publishing Company, New York).Google Scholar
• Goh KT, Goodman PS, Weingart LR (2013) Team innovation processes an examination of activity cycles in creative project teams. Small Group Res. 44(2):159–194.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Grégoire DA, Barr PS, Shepherd DA (2010) Cognitive processes of opportunity recognition: The role of structural alignment. Organ. Sci. 21(2):413–431.Link, Google Scholar
• Hargadon AB (2002) Brokering knowledge: Linking learning and innovation. Res. Organ. Behav. 24:41–85.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hargadon AB, Bechky BA (2006) When collections of creatives become a creative collectives: A field study of problem solving at work. Organ. Sci. 17(4):484–500.Link, Google Scholar
• Hargadon A, Sutton RI (1997) Technology brokering and innovation in a product development firm. Admin. Sci. Quart. 42(4):716–749.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Harrison SH, Rouse ED (2014) Let’s dance! Elastic coordination in creative group work: A qualitative study of modern dancers. Acad. Management J. 57(5):1256–1283.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Harvey S (2013) A different perspective: The multiple effects of deep level diversity on group creativity. J. Experiment. Soc. Psych. 49(5):822–832.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Harvey S (2014) Creative synthesis: Exploring the process of extraordinary group creativity. Acad. Management Rev. 39(3):324–343.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Harvey S, Kou C-Y (2013) Collective engagement in creative tasks: The role of evaluation in the creative process in groups. Admin. Sci. Quart. 58(3):346–386.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Harvey S, Currall SC, Hammer TH (2017) Decision diversion in diverse teams: Findings from inside a corporate boardroom. Acad. Management Discoveries 3(4):358–381.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hirokawa RY (1983) Group communication and problem-solving effectiveness: An investigation of group phases. Human Comm. Res. 9(4):291–305.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Holloman CR, Hendrick HW (1972) Adequacy of group decision as a function of the decision-making process. Acad. Management J. 15:175–184.Google Scholar
• Hsee CK (1996) The evaluability hypothesis: An explanation for preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of alternatives. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 67(3):247–257.Google Scholar
• Huang L, Pearce JL (2015) Managing the unknowable: The effectiveness of early-stage investor gut feel in entrepreneurial investment decisions. Admin. Sci. Quart. 60(4):634–670.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Huizinga J (1955) Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play Element in Culture (Beacon Press, Boston, MA).Google Scholar
• Jackson MH, Poole MS (2003) Idea‐generation in naturally occurring contexts. Human Comm. Res. 29(4):560–591.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Janis I (1982) Groupthink (Houghton Mifflin, Boston).Google Scholar
• Jehn KA (1995) A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Admin. Sci. Quart. 40(2):256–282.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kohn NW, Paulus PB, Choi Y (2011) Building on the ideas of others: An examination of the idea combination process. J. Experiment. Sociol. Psychol. 47(3):554–561.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Langley A (1999) Strategies for theorizing from process data. Acad. Management Rev. 24(4):691–710.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Laughlin PR (1988) Collective induction: Group performance, social combination processes, and mutual majority and minority influence. J. Personality Sociol. Psychol. 54(2):254.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lewis MW (2000) Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Acad. Management Rev. 25(4):760–776.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Litchfield RC (2008) Brainstorming reconsidered: A goal-based view. Acad. Management Rev. 33(3):649–668.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Loewenstein J, Mueller J (2016) Implicit theories of creative ideas: How culture guides creativity assessments. Acad. Management Discoveries 2(4):320–348.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Long Lingo E, O’Mahony S (2010) Nexus work: Brokerage on creative projects. Admin. Sci. Quart. 55(1):47–81.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lovelace K, Shapiro DL, Weingart LR (2001) Maximizing cross-functional new product teams’ innovativeness and constraint adherence: A conflict communications perspective. Acad. Management J. 44(4):779–793.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mainemelis C, Ronson S (2006) Ideas are born in fields of play: Toward a theory of play and creativity in organizational settings. Res. Organ. Behav. 27:81–131.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Majchrzak A, More PH, Faraj S (2012) Transcending knowledge differences in cross-functional teams. Organ. Sci. 23(4):951–970.Link, Google Scholar
• Mark G (2002) Extreme collaboration. Comm. ACM 45(6):89–93.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mesmer-Magnus JR, DeChurch LA (2009) Information sharing and team performance: A meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 94(2):535.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Metiu A, Rothbard NP (2013) Task bubbles, artifacts, shared emotion, and mutual focus of attention: A comparative study of the microprocesses of group engagement. Organ. Sci. 24(2):455–475.Link, Google Scholar
• Miles M, Huberman M (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis, 2nd ed. (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA).Google Scholar
• Minson JA, Mueller JS (2012) The cost of collaboration: Why joint decision making exacerbates rejection of outside information. Psychol. Sci. 23(3):219–224.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Miron-Spektor E, Beenen G (2015) Motivating creativity: The effects of sequential and simultaneous learning and performance achievement goals on product novelty and usefulness. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 127:53–65.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Miron-Spektor E, Erez M (2017) Looking at creativity through a paradox lens. Smith WK, Lewis MW, Jarzabkowski P, Langley A, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Paradox (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK), 434–451.Google Scholar
• Miron-Spektor E, Erez M, Naveh E (2011) The effect of conformist and attentive-to-detail members on team innovation: Reconciling the innovation paradox. Acad. Management J. 54(4):740–760.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mohammed S, Ringseis E (2001) Cognitive diversity and consensus in group decision making: The role of inputs, processes, and outcomes. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 85:310–335.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Moore D, Healy P (2008) The trouble with overconfidence. Psychol. Rev. 115(2):502–517.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Moreau CP, Lehmann DR, Markman AB (2001) Entrenched knowledge structures and consumer response to new products. J. Marketing Res. 38(1):14–29.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mueller J (2017) Creative Change: Why We Resist It...How We Can Embrace It (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, New York).Google Scholar
• Mueller JS, Melwani S, Goncalo JA (2012) The bias against creativity: Why people desire but reject creative ideas. Psychol. Sci. 23:13–17.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mueller JS, Wakslak CJ, Krishnan V (2014) Construing creativity: The how and why of recognizing creative ideas. J. Experiment. Sociol. Psychol. 51:81–87.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mueller JS, Melwani S, Loewenstein J, Deal J (2018) Reframing the decision-makers’ dilemma: Toward social context model of creative idea recognition. Acad. Management J. 61(1):1–17.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mumford MD, Lonergan DC, Scott G (2002) Evaluating creative ideas: Processes, standards, and context. Inquiry 22(1):21–30.Google Scholar
• Mumford MD, Feldman JM, Hein MB, Nagao DJ (2001) Tradeoffs between ideas and structure: Individuals vs. group performance in creative problem solving. J. Creative Behav. 35(1):1–23.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Murnighan JK, Conlon DE (1991) The dynamics of intense work groups: A study of British string quartets. Admin. Sci. Quart. 36(2):165–186.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Okhuysen GA, Bechky BA (2009) 10 coordination in organizations: An integrative perspective. Acad. Management Ann. 3(1):463–502.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Osborn AF (1957) Applied Imagination: Principles and Procedures of Creative Problemsolving (Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York).Google Scholar
• Paletz SBF, Schunn CD (2010) A social‐cognitive framework of multidisciplinary team innovation. Topics Cognitive Sci. 2(1):73–95.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Perry-Smith JE, Mannucci PV (2017) From creativity to innovation: The social network drivers of the four phases of the idea journey. Acad. Management Rev. 42(1):53–79.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Piezunka H, Dahlander L (2015) Distant search, narrow attention: How crowding alters organizations’ filtering of suggestions in crowdsourcing. Acad. Management J. 58(3):856–880.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Poole MS, Van de Ven AH (1989) Using paradox to build management and organization theories. Acad. Managemeent Rev. 14(4):562–578.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Putnam LL, Fairhurst GT, Banghart S (2016) Contradictions, dialectics, and paradoxes in organizations: A constitutive approach. Acad. Management Ann. 10(1):65–171.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Reiter-Palmon R, Mumford MD, O’Connor Boes J, Runco MA (1997) Problem construction and creativity: The role of ability, cue consistency and active processing. Creative Res. J. 10(1):9–23.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rietzschel EF, Nijstad BA, Stroebe W (2010) The selection of creative ideas after individual idea generation: Choosing between creativity and impact. British J. Psychol. 101(1):47–68.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schad J, Lewis MW, Raisch S, Smith WK (2016) Paradox research in management science: Looking back to move forward. Acad. Management Ann. 10(1):5–64.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sherif M (1958) Superordinate goals in the reduction of intergroup conflict. Amer. J. Sociol. 63(4):349–356.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Siler K, Strang D (2017) Peer review and scholarly originality: Let 1,000 flowers bloom, but don’t step on any. Sci. Tech. Human Values 42(1):29–61.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Simonton DK (2003) Scientific creativity as constrained stochastic behavior: The integration of product, person, and process perspectives. Psychol. Bull. 129(4):475–494.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Smith KK, Berg DN (1987) Paradoxes of Group Life: Understanding Conflict, Paralysis, and Movement in Group Dynamics (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco).Google Scholar
• Smith WK, Besharov ML (2018) Bowing before dual gods: How structured flexibility sustains organizational hybridity. Admin. Sci. Quart. 64(1):0001839217750826.Google Scholar
• Smith WK, Lewis MW (2011) Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Acad. Management Rev. 36(2):381–403.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stasser S, Titus W (1985) Pooling of unshared information in group decision making: Biased information sampling during discussion. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 48(6):1467–1478.Google Scholar
• Staw BM (2009) Is group creativity really an oxymoron? Some thoughts on bridging the cohesion-creativity divide. Mannix EA, Goncalo JA, Neale MA, eds. Research on Managing Groups and Teams: Creativity in Groups, vol. 12 (Emerald Publishing Group, Bingley, UK), 311–323.Google Scholar
• Steele LM, Hardy JH III, Day EA, Watts LL, Mumford MD (2019) Navigating creative paradoxes: Exploration and exploitation effort drive novelty and usefulness. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts.Google Scholar
• Stigliani I, Ravasi D (2012) Organizing thoughts and connecting brains: Material practices and the transition from individual to group-level prospective sensemaking. Acad. Management J. 55(5):1232–1259.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Suddaby R (2006) From the editors: What grounded theory is not. Acad. Management J. 49(4):633–642.Google Scholar
• Tindale RS, Smith CM, Thomas LS, Filkins J, Sheffey S (1996) Shared representations and asymmetric social influence processes in small groups. Witte E, David JH, eds. Understanding Group Behavior: Consensual Action by Small Groups (Lawrence Erlbaum, New York), 81–103.Google Scholar
• Tsoukas H (2009) A dialogical approach to the creation of new knowledge in organizations. Organ. Sci. 20(6):941–957.Link, Google Scholar
• Turner V (1977) Variations on a Theme of Liminality. Secular Ritual (Gorcum, Assen, Netherlands).Google Scholar
• Valentine MA, Edmondson AC (2014) Team scaffolds: How mesolevel structures enable role-based coordination in temporary groups. Organ. Sci. 26(2):405–422.Link, Google Scholar
• Van de Ven AH (1988) Central problems in the management of innovation. Tushman ML, Moore WL, eds. Readings in the Management of Innovation, 2nd ed. (Ballinger Publishing Co/Harper & Row Publishers, New York), 103–122.Google Scholar
• Van de Ven AH, Poole MS (1995) Explaining development and change in organizations. Acad. Management Rev. 20(3):510–540.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Van Maanen J (1979) The fact of fiction in organizational ethnography. Admin. Sci. Quart. 24(4):539–550.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Vroom VH, Grant LD, Cotton TS (1969) The consequences of social interaction in group problem solving. Organ. Behav. Human Performance 4(1):77–95.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Yin RK (2010) Qualitative Research from Start to Finish (Guilford Press, New York).Google Scholar