The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
When Collections of Creatives Become Creative Collectives: A Field Study of Problem Solving at Work
Abstract
This paper introduces a model of collective creativity that explains how the locus of creative problem solving shifts, at times, from the individual to the interactions of a collective. The model is grounded in observations, interviews, informal conversations, and archival data gathered in intensive field studies of work in professional service firms. The evidence suggests that although some creative solutions can be seen as the products of individual insight, others should be regarded as the products of a momentary collective process. Such collective creativity reflects a qualitative shift in the nature of the creative process, as the comprehension of a problematic situation and the generation of creative solutions draw from—and reframe—the past experiences of participants in ways that lead to new and valuable insights. This research investigates the origins of such moments, and builds a model of collective creativity that identifies the precipitating roles played by four types of social interaction: help seeking, help giving, reflective reframing, and reinforcing. Implications of this research include shifting the emphasis in research and management of creativity from identifying and managing creative individuals to understanding the social context and developing interactive approaches to creativity, and from a focus on relatively constant contextual variables to the alignment of fluctuating variables and their precipitation of momentary phenomena.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Discovery of Grounded Theory; Strategies for Qualitative Research
Glaser, B. G., Strauss, A. L., & Strutzel, E. (1968) · Nursing Research · doi:10.1097/00006199-196807000-00014 · Cited by 39,449
Building Theories from Case Study Research
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258557 · Cited by 17,455
Hartley, J. (2004) · Essential Guide to Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research · doi:10.4135/9781446280119.n26 · Cited by 15,461
Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams
Edmondson, A. (1999) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2666999 · Cited by 12,026
ASSESSING THE WORK ENVIRONMENT FOR CREATIVITY.
AMABILE, T. M., CONTI, R., COON, H., LAZENBY, J., & HERRON, M. (1996) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/256995 · Cited by 6,029
Cognition in Practice: Mind, Mathematics and Culture in Everyday Life
Lave, J. (1988) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511609268 · Cited by 5,148
Society, Culture, and Person: A Systems View of Creativity
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2014) · The Systems Model of Creativity · doi:10.1007/978-94-017-9085-7_4 · Cited by 1,289
Walsh, J. P., & Ungson, G. R. (1991) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258607 · Cited by 835
Cited by
Anderson, N., Potočnik, K., & Zhou, J. (2014) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206314527128 · Cited by 3,103
Exploitation-Exploration Tensions and Organizational Ambidexterity: Managing Paradoxes of Innovation
Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M. W. (2009) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1080.0406 · Cited by 2,195
Amabile, T. M., & Pratt, M. G. (2016) · Research in Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.riob.2016.10.001 · Cited by 1,863
Hennessey, B. A., & Amabile, T. M. (2010) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100416 · Cited by 1,475
From creativity to innovation: The social network drivers of the four phases of the idea journey
Perry-Smith, J. E., & Mannucci, P. V. (2017) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2014.0462 · Cited by 1,121
Metadata
- Authors
- Hargadon, A. B., & Bechky, B. A.
- Venue
- Organization Science
- Published
- 2006-08
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 484-500
- ISSN
- 1047-7039 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5455
- OpenAlex
- W2123285750
- Cited by
- 1,288
- References
- 8
- FWCI
- 30.35
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.