Task context changes: teams’ maladaptive responses to unanticipated change

Abstract

Understanding how teams are affected by and adapt to unexpected change is critical to maximizing team effectiveness. We explore the perspective that rather than being adaptive, how teams experience relativistic adjustments in pacing can actually undermine team creative processes and performance. We test our hypotheses in two experimental studies. Study 1 considers how teams experience change in the time available to complete the task, while Study 2 employs a change in workload. Results support that the deviating patterns of task pacing exhibited by teams responding to an unexpected exogenous change undermines effective team creative processes, leading to lower levels of creative performance. In addition, their effects differ by when the change occurs in the teams' work process (i.e., earlier, midpoint, or later).

Every Sherlock needs a Dr. Watson: A theory of creativity catalysts in organizations

“…Receiving excessive levels of catalytic contribution in the form of too much support can create a premature illusion that an underdeveloped idea is good enough. The creative process is an iterative one, requiring individuals to go back and forth with their ideas, making new connections, and to keep developing their ideas (Koseoglu, Shalley, & Herndon, 2017). Employees who receive excessive levels of support and encouragement might prematurely stop the iterative creative process before fully developing their ideas.…”

Conducting rigorous research on individual creativity

“…Similarly, scholars have asked raters to assess ideas on up to four dimensions assessing both novelty and usefulness and averaging the scores (for example, novelty, originality, usefulness, and feasibility; Zhou et al, 2017). Other researchers, however, asked the raters to assess overall creativity (Madjar et al, 2019) or combined overall creativity, novelty, and usefulness into a composite measure (Koseoglu et al, 2017b). While some report that the definition of "novel and useful" was provided to the rater (Jung & Lee, 2015), others do not specify what, if any, direction was provided to the raters.…”