Group Composition, Creative Synergy, and Group Performance

By S. Taggar. 2001

103 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Management Science and Operations Research, Social Psychology, Strategy and Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/199eea0f97f020a00a7d6c2413bbbe681f555a80

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Management Science and Operations Research

In Social Psychology

In Strategy and Management

Citations in the corpus

The Effects of Personal and Contextual Characteristics on Creativity: Where Should We Go from Here? (2004, background): “In general, the few studies that have focused on team creativity (e.g.,Gilson & Shalley, 2004; Pirola-Merlo & Mann, 2004; Taggar, 2001, 2002) have followed an input-processoutcome model that is dominant in research on teams (e.g.,Cohen & Bailey, 1997).”
Fostering team creativity: perspective taking as key to unlocking diversity's potential. (2010, background): “The widely acknowledged importance of integrating diverse viewpoints for high (creative) performance (Taggar, 2001; cf. Gardner, Gino, & Staats, 2012) highlights the need to consider processes focused on the team and its members as facilitators of elaboration and creativity.”
The Personality Composition of Teams and Creativity: The Moderating Role of Team Creative Confidence (2008, background): “…indicators of personality by determining the number of team members scoring in the top third (beyond the 66th percentile) or bottom third (below the 33rd percentile) of the personality distributions (e.g., Barry & Stewart, 1997; Chirumbolo et al., 2005; Taggar, 2001; Waung & Brice, 1998).”
The Dark Side of Leadership: A Three-Level Investigation of the Cascading Effect of Abusive Supervision on Employee Creativity (2012, background): “…in creativity research is to use objective measures of creativity, such as creative performance bonuses, new ideas proposed, invention disclosure forms, research reports, and patent announcements (e.g., Liao, Liu, & Loi, 2010; Oldham & Cummings, 1996; Taggar, 2001; Tierney, Farmer, & Graen, 1999).”
The Effect of Conformist and Attentive-To-Detail Members on Team Innovation: Reconciling the Innovation Paradox (2011, methodology): “Specifically, we focused on the cognitive styles of creativity, conformity to rule and group, and attention to detail found to predict idea generation and implementation behaviors of individuals and teams (Miron et al., 2004; Shroder, 1989; Taggar, 2001).”
Leading for Innovation (2011, background): “Taggar (2001), for example, found that teams comprised entirely of creative personalities failed to outproduce those teams that had only one or two creative individuals.”
Different Strokes for Different Teams: The Contingent Effects of Positive and Negative Feedback on the Creativity of Informationally Homogeneous and Diverse Teams (2017, background): “As ideas and information which are more difficult to relate to face a greater risk of being ignored, discounted, or rejected (Taggar, 2001; cf. Cruz, Boster, & Rodriguez, 1997; Reber, Schwarz, & Winkielman, 2004; Winkielman & Cacioppo, 2001) they are less likely to feed into teams’ generative…”