Response: Ideas are ten a penny - It's team implementation not idea generation that counts

Cet article presente une synthese des recherches et theories qui eclairent notre comprehension de la creativite et de la mise en oeuvre de l’innovation dans les groupes de travail. Il semble que la creativite apparaisse essentiellement au cours des premieres etapes du processus, avant la mise en oeuvre. On etudie l’influence des caracteristiques de la tâche, des capacites et de l’eventail des connaissances du groupe, des demandes externes, des mecanismes d’integration et de coherence de groupe. La perception d’une menace, l’incertitude ou de fortes exigences entravent la creativite, mais favorisent l’innovation. La diversite des connaissances et des capacites est un bon predicteur de l’innovation, mais l’integration du groupe et les competences sont indispensables pour recolter les fruits de la diversite. On examine aussi les implications theoriques et pratiques de ces considerations. In this article I synthesise research and theory that advance our understanding of creativity and innovation implementation in groups at work. It is suggested that creativity occurs primarily at the early stages of innovation processes with innovation implementation later. The influences of task characteristics, group knowledge diversity and skill, external demands, integrating group processes and intragroup safety are explored. Creativity, it is proposed, is hindered whereas perceived threat, uncertainty or other high levels of demands aid the implementation of innovation. Diversity of knowledge and skills is a powerful predictor of innovation, but integrating group processes and competencies are needed to enable the fruits of this diversity to be harvested. The implications for theory and practice are also explored.

[1]  Michael A. West,et al.  Chief executive leadership style, consensus decision making, and top management team effectiveness , 2000 .

[2]  L. Shore,et al.  Job and organizational attitudes in relation to employee behavioral intentions , 1990 .

[3]  Jennifer M. George,et al.  Personality, affect, and behavior in groups. , 1990 .

[4]  Janice R. Kelly,et al.  Effects of time limits and task types on task performance and interaction of four-person groups. , 1985 .

[5]  Amy Buhl Conn,et al.  Is everyone in agreement? An exploration of within-group agreement in employee perceptions of the work environment. , 2001, The Journal of applied psychology.

[6]  Neil Anderson,et al.  Organizational innovation in the UK:A case study of perceptions and processes , 1991 .

[7]  J. Dawson,et al.  Breast cancer teams: the impact of constitution, new cancer workload, and methods of operation on their effectiveness , 2003, British Journal of Cancer.

[8]  A. Edmondson Learning from Mistakes is Easier Said Than Done: Group and Organizational Influences on the Detection and Correction of Human Error , 1996 .

[9]  A. Edmondson Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams , 1999 .

[10]  P. Paulus Groups, Teams, and Creativity: The Creative Potential of Idea-generating Groups , 2000 .

[11]  N. Anderson,et al.  Innovation in top management teams , 1996 .

[12]  T. M. Amabile The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization. , 1983 .

[13]  J. George,et al.  Understanding prosocial behavior, sales performance, and turnover: A group-level analysis in a service context. , 1990 .

[14]  L. Shore,et al.  Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment in Relation to Work Performance and Turnover Intentions , 1989 .

[15]  Teresa M. Amabile,et al.  Assessing the Work Environment for Creativity , 1996 .

[16]  A. Kruglanski,et al.  The freezing and unfreezing of lay-inferences: Effects on impressional primacy, ethnic stereotyping, and numerical anchoring ☆ , 1983 .

[17]  G. Mugny,et al.  Perspectives on minority influence , 1985 .