59 different component, it is thought that the final product will be more innovative if ‘weak ties’ (the dotted lines) between teams are encouraged. Links exist between this literature and the notion of ‘social capital’. Putnam (2000, p19) suggests that;
“The core idea of social capital theory is that networks have value . . . social contacts affect the productivity of individuals and groups… Social capital refers to connections among individuals – social networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them.”
This understanding is built on by others who suggest that the essence of social capital is that connectedness is a valuable asset for human beings (Rutten and Boekema, 2007). Further to this point, Wu et al (2008) highlight that groups and organisations which display strong social capital are characterised by a greater frequency of interaction and communication. It is suggested that trust, commitment and a willingness to share knowledge are vital foundations of such environments. This discussion will be picked up again when issues around the environment for creative idea generation are debated.
Alongside the points presented thus far diversity, both in terms of group membership and connections, is thought to support the production of creative ideas (McAdam and McClelland, 2002; Daniels and Macdonald, 2005; Ucbasaran et al, 2010; Martinez and Aldrich, 2011). It is thought that increasing diversity is one of the tasks which effective leaders need to accomplish (Amabile and Khaire, 2008; Ucbasaran et al, 2010). There is a contention in the literature however, suggesting that groups which are ‘too diverse’ are often not
60 cohesive (Daniels and Macdonald, 2005). Infinite diversity does not equal an infinite number of creative ideas; it is thought that group diversity needs to be managed effectively for maximum benefit. The following case study drawn from Daniels and Macdonald (2005) highlights these issues within a learning environment.
Case Study: Group Diversity
On a degree course within a university, about 50 per cent of the students were of a UK-white ethnic origin, and the other 50 per cent were from a range of overseas countries. A crucial part of the course was for students to carry out some research in individual groups and then present their findings. The presentation was an assessed piece of work.
The lecturer decided to divide the students into groups with an equal balance of UK and overseas students. Immediately difficulties occurred. These included:
UK students dominating the group discussion, because they could speak English (the working language of the group) more fluently than the overseas students.
Ideas of some students being dismissed because they did not express them clearly enough - again a language issue.
Some students, who came from a culture where speaking out was not encouraged, being too shy to contribute.
61 It was realised that the students had not taken time to understand the different cultures within the groups, and the expectations of behaviour that came from these cultures. It was questioned whether the groups were too diverse, and whether they would ever be successful. With some guidance from the lecturer, the groups did work more effectively but there remained some difficulties and it was never felt that the groups really operated to full efficiency.
Source: Daniels and Macdonald (2005) Page 33.
Permission to reproduce this extract has been granted by The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development
This extract demonstrates the importance of group cohesion and follows previous thoughts that organisations must successfully ‘design’ the collective context (Chaharbaghi and Cripps, 2007). Further research builds on these thoughts and hints that the relationship between diversity and teamworking takes a U-shaped form (Williams and O’Reilly, 1998; Webber and Donahue, 2001; Richard and Shelor, 2002) with small increases in diversity having small positive effects on the overall functioning of a group. Balancing this it is proposed that very diverse groups offer little improvement in group problem solving and creativity because they are less cohesive.
Parallels can be drawn between the thoughts of Daniels and Macdonald (2005) and Ruef (2002). On the basis of this analysis it can be argued that diverse networks are beneficial to creative idea generation although the sources do present an area of contention as well. Daniels and Macdonald (2005) highlight that groups which are very diverse can have a negative impact on cohesion while Ruef (2002) argues that individuals need to maintain many social connections outside of their immediate field of expertise to increase their tendency to have creative ideas. When producing a synthesis between these
62 views it can be proposed that work environments need to establish an ‘effective’ level of diversity. The U-shaped relationship between diversity and group cohesion is depicted in figure 2.5.
Figure 2.5: Diversity and Group Cohesion
The bell shaped curve in figure 2.5 demonstrates the relationship between group diversity and the relative levels of creativity and problem solving while the dotted line depicts the inferred level of group cohesiveness. A concept related to this is the notion of “groupthink”. This is;
‘A mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members’ strivings for unanimity override their motivation to appraise realistically the alternative courses of action.’
Source: Huczynski and Buchanan (2001) Page 756.
Diversity arguably has a role to play in mitigating groupthink (Huczynski and Buchanan, 2001; Daniels and McDonald, 2005). In order to prevent groupthink, individuals who disagree with the group’s ‘evolving consensus’ must be willing
63 to make their voices heard. Empirical research into groupthink demonstrates that it is most likely to occur in situations where a leader is particularly dominant (Huczynski and Buchanan; 2001).
Having now examined the nature of creative idea generation and understood, in particular, the notion of collective creativity and associated theories, it would be easy to skip on to other key factors that might impact idea generation such as leadership and facets of organisational environments. These discussions, however, would be of little use unless they are grounded in the wider context. As a result the following parts of this chapter will discuss firstly creative idea generation in larger organisations and then the idiosyncrasies of SME environments. The rationale for first examining creative idea generation in larger organisations is simply that there is a wider, well-established body of literature to explore.