Task Rotation and Polychronicity: Effects on Individuals' Creativity

By Nora Y. Madjar, Greg R. Oldham. 2006

90 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Cognitive Neuroscience, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/9f44ed7ab9eff85de229418971742f7c0008cca2

How researchers see this paper

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

In Cognitive Neuroscience

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

In Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

Citations in the corpus

9 Creativity in Organizations (2007, result): “Nonetheless, results from prior research have tended to be weak or inconclusive (eg, Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby, & Herron, 1996 ; Madjar & Oldham, 2006 ).”
Effects of task and relationship conflicts on individual work behaviors (2011, unknown): “We included several demographic variables (gender, age, education level, tenure, and rank) of subordinates as control variables, which may influence their performance (Madjar and Oldham, 2006; Shin and Zhou, 2003).”
Time for Reflection: A Critical Examination of Polychronicity (2010, methodology): “The person–environment and person–job fit perspectives offer a useful avenue for designing such research, and there is already some first evidence supporting it (Madjar & Oldham 2006; Slocombe & Bluedorn, 1999), although more work is needed.”
The curvilinear relation between experienced creative time pressure and creativity: moderating effects of openness to experience and support for creativity. (2006, background): “Unfortunately, the few studies that have tested this idea have produced results that are generally weak and inconclusive (e.g., Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby, & Herron, 1996; Madjar & Oldham, 2006).”
A Critical Analysis of the Workplace Creativity Criterion Space (2012, background): “…amount of description used for each idea (i.e., elaboration)—each an indicator of CPB idea generation (Beersma & De Dreu, 2005; Choi & Thompson, 2005; Connolly, Jessup, & Valacich, 1990; Eisenberger & Rhoades, 2001; Madjar & Oldham, 2006; Nijstad et al., 2003; Pearsall, Ellis, & Evans, 2008).”
A Conceptual Typology of Multitasking Behavior and Polychronicity Preferences (2012, background): “…people usually prefer to “center their attention on one thing and then move on to something else” (Hall, 1959, p. 178), and therefore achieve better performance in the execution of the primary task in strong non-multitasking contexts (Madjar and Oldham, 2006; Goonetilleke and Luximon, 2010).”
The Multitasking Preference Inventory: Toward an Improved Measure of Individual Differences in Polychronicity (2010, background): “E-mail: epoposki@iupui.edu Polychronicity has been studied in relation to a wide variety of constructs relevant to multitasking situations including satisfaction, creativity, fit, and performance (e.g., Delbridge, 2000; Hecht & Allen, 2005; König, Bühner, & Mürling, 2005; Madjar & Oldham, 2006).”
Multiple Tasks' and Multiple Goals' Effect on Creativity: Forced Incubation or Just a Distraction? (2008, methodology): “The creative tasks were divergent thinking/idea-generation tasks based on those suggested by Torrance (1974) and used by Madjar and Oldham (2006); they involved the generation of creative ideas for (a) an extraordinary business trip and (b) a new refrigerator design.”