This study proposes that working with colleagues who have similar levels of open personality can enhance a person’s social exchange relationship with teammates, which then inspires the person’s creativity. This study also draws on the idea-journey model of creativity and innovation to propose that the positive relationship between team members’ aggregated similarity in openness personality with teammates and the performance of the new product that the team develops is stronger when members of the team possess low levels of openness personality in aggregate. Examining data collected from Taiwanese new product development team engineers, we find support for these arguments.
AmabileT. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. In StawB. M.CummingsL. L. (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 10, pp. 123–167). JAI Press.
2.
AndersonJ. C.GerbingD. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411
3.
AndersonN.PotočnikK.ZhouJ. (2014). Innovation and creativity in organizations a state-of-the-science review, prospective commentary, and guiding framework. Journal of Management, 40(5), 1297–1333. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314527128
4.
AndersonR. E.TathamR. L.BlackW. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis. Prentice Hall.
5.
BakerW. E.SinkulaJ. M. (2007). Does market orientation facilitate balanced innovation programs? An organizational learning perspective. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 24(4), 316–334. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2007.00254.x
BanduraA.WaltersR. H. (1977). Social learning theory (Vol. 1). Prentice Hall.
11.
BellS. T. (2007). Deep-level composition variables as predictors of team performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3), 595–615. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.3.595
12.
BerkmanE. T.WilsonS. M. (2021). So useful as a good theory? The practicality crisis in (social) psychological theory. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(4), 864–874. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620969650
13.
BernerthJ. B.ArmenakisA. A.FeildH. S.GilesW. F.WalkerH. J. (2008). The influence of personality differences between subordinates and supervisors on perceptions of LMX: An empirical investigation. Group & Organization Management, 33(2), 216–240. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601106293858
14.
BondM. H.ShiuW. Y. F. (1997). The relationship between a group’s personality resources and the two dimensions of its group process. Small Group Research, 28(2), 194–217. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496497282002
15.
BosoN.CadoganJ. W.StoryV. M. (2013). Entrepreneurial orientation and market orientation as drivers of product innovation success: A study of exporters from a developing economy. International Small Business Journal, 31(1), 57–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242611400469
16.
BrislinR. W. (Ed.) (1986). The wording and translation of research instruments. Sage.
17.
BrowerA. (1989). Group development as constructed social reality: A social-cognitive understanding of group formation. Journal Social Work with Groups, 12(2), 23–41. https://doi.org/10.1300/J009v12n02_03
18.
BrowerA. (1996). Group development as constructed social reality revisited: The constructivism of small groups. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services, 77(6), 336–344. https://doi.org/10.1606/1044-3894.931
CableD. M.EdwardsJ. R. (2004). Complementary and supplementary fit: A theoretical and empirical integration. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 822–834. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.5.822
24.
ChenG.GullyS. M.EdenD. (2001). Validation of a new general self-efficacy scale. Organizational Research Methods, 4(1), 62–83. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442810141004
25.
CostaP. T. J.McCraeR. R. (1992). Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO PI–R) and NEO five-factor inventory (NEO FFI) professional manual. Psychological Assessment Resources.
26.
DayanM.Di BenedettoC. A.ColakM. (2009). Managerial trust in new product development projects: Its antecedents and consequences. R&D Management, 39(1), 21–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.2008.00538.x
27.
De DreuC. K. W.NijstadB. A.BechtoldtM. N.BaasM. (2011). Group creativity and innovation: A motivated information processing perspective. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5(1), 81–89. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017986
28.
De DreuC. K. W.NijstadB. A.van KnippenbergD. (2008). Motivated information processing in group judgment and decision making. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12(1), 22–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868307304092
29.
De DreuC. K. W.WeingartL. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 741–749. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.741
30.
EhrhardtK.SharifM. M. (2019). Career implications for high-quality work relationships: An SCCT test. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 37(4), 474–490. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-10-2018-0443
31.
FarmerS. M.TierneyP.Kung-McIntyreK. (2003). Employee creativity in Taiwan: An application of role identity theory. Academy of Management Journal, 46(5), 618–630. https://doi.org/10.5465/30040653
32.
FarmerS. M.Van DyneL.KamdarD. (2015). The contextualized self: How team-member exchange leads to coworker identification and helping OCB. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(2), 583–595. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037660
33.
FeistG. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(4), 290–309. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0204_5
34.
FordL. R.SeersA. (2006). Relational leadership and team climates: Pitting differentiation versus agreement. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(3), 258–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.02.005
35.
FornellC.LarckerD. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement errors. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 382–388. https://doi.org/10.2307/3150980
GhoshV.BharadwajaM.YadavS.KabraG. (2019). Team-member exchange and innovative work behaviour: The role of psychological empowerment and creative self-efficacy. International Journal of Innovation Science, 11(3), 344–361. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJIS-12-2018-0132
38.
GoldbergL. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public domain, personality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor models. Personality Psychology in Europe, 7(1), 7–28.
39.
GouldnerA. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25(2), 161–178. https://doi.org/10.2307/2092623
40.
GuthrieJ. P. (2001). High-involvement work practices, turnover, and productivity: Evidence from New Zealand. Academy of Management Journal, 44(1), 180–190. http://doi.org/10.2307/3069345
41.
HayesA. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford.
42.
ImS.WorkmanJ. P.Jr. (2004). Market orientation, creativity, and new product performance in high-technology firms. Journal of Marketing, 68(2), 114–132. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.68.2.114.27788
43.
JordanM. H.FeildH. S.ArmenakisA. A. (2002). The relationship of group process variables and team performance: A team-level analysis in a field setting. Small Group Research, 33(1), 121–150. https://doi.org/10.1177/104649640203300104
44.
KeatsB. W.HittM. A. (1988). A causal model of linkages among environmental dimensions, macro organizational characteristics, and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 31(3), 570–598. https://doi.org/10.2307/256460
45.
KirraneM.KilroyS.KidneyR.FloodP. C.BauwensR. (2019). The relationship between attachment style and creativity: The mediating roles of LMX and TMX. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 28(6), 784–799. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2019.1646247
46.
Kristof-BrownA. L.ZimmermanR. D.JohnsonE. C. (2005). Consequences of individuals’fit at work: A meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, person-group, and person-supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology, 58(2), 281–342. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00672.x
47.
LiangH. Y.ShihH. A.ChiangY. H. (2015). Team diversity and team helping behavior: The mediating roles of team cooperation and team cohesion. European Management Journal, 33(1), 48–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2014.07.002
48.
LiaoH.ChuangA. C.JoshiA. (2008). Perceived deep-level dissimilarity: Personality antecedents and impact on overall job attitude, helping, work withdrawal, and turnover. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 106(2), 106–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2008.01.002
49.
LiaoH.LiuD.LoiR. (2010). Looking at both sides of the social exchange coin: A social cognitive perspective on the joint effects of relationship quality and differentiation on creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 53(5), 1090–1109. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.54533207
50.
LiuY. W.KellerR. T.ShihH. A. (2011). The impact of team-member exchange, differentiation, team commitment, and knowledge sharing on R&D project team performance. R&D Management, 41(3), 274–287. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.2011.00636.x
MachM.DolanS.TzafrirS. (2010). The differential effect of team members’ trust on team performance: The mediation role of team cohesion. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83(3), 771–794. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317909X473903
53.
MolmL. D.TakahashiN.PetersonG. (2000). Risk and trust in social exchange: An experimental test of a classical proposition. American Journal of Sociology, 105(5), 1396–1427. https://doi.org/10.1086/210434
54.
MoynihanL. M.PetersonR. S. (2004). The role of personality in group processes. In SchneiderB.SmithD. B. (Eds.), Personality and organizations (pp. 317–345). Lawrence Erlbaum.
55.
MuchinskyP. M.MonahanC. J. (1987). What is person-environment congruence? Supplementary versus complementary models of fit. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31(3), 268–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-8791(87)90043-1
56.
MullenB.CopperC. (1994). The relation between group cohesiveness and performance: An integration. Psychological Bulletin, 115(2), 210–227. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.115.2.210
Perry-SmithJ. E.MannucciP. V. (2017). From creativity to innovation: The social network drivers of the four phases of the idea journey. Academy of Management Review, 42(1), 53–79. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2014.0462
60.
PodsakoffP. M.MacKenzieS. B.PaineJ. B.BachrachD. G. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26(3), 513–563. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630002600307
61.
Reiter-PalmonR. (2017). Team creativity and innovation. Oxford University Press.
62.
Reiter-PalmonR.Robinson-MorralE. J.KaufmanJ. C.SantoJ. B. (2012). Evaluation of self-perceptions of creativity: Is it a useful criterion?Creativity Research Journal, 24(2–3), 107–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2012.676980
63.
SchilpzandM. C.HeroldD. M.ShalleyC. E. (2011). Members’ openness to experience and teams’ creative performance. Small Group Research, 42(1), 55–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496410377509
64.
SeersA. (1989). Team-member exchange quality: A new construct for role-making research. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 43(1), 118–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(89)90060-5
65.
SeersA.PettyM.CashmanJ. F. (1995). Team-member exchange under team and traditional management: A naturally occurring quasi-experiment. Group & Organization Management, 20(1), 18–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601195201003
66.
SethiR.IqbalZ. (2008). Stage-gate controls, learning failure, and adverse effect on novel new products. Journal of Marketing, 72(1), 118–134. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.72.1.118
67.
ShalleyC. E.ZhouJ.OldhamG. R. (2004). The effects of personal and contextual characteristics on creativity: Where should we go from here?Journal of Management, 30(6), 933–958. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jm.2004.06.007
68.
ShinS. J.ZhouJ. (2007). When is educational specialization heterogeneity related to creativity in research and development teams? Transformational leadership as a moderator. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(6), 1709–1721. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.6.1709
69.
TierneyP.FarmerS. M. (2002). Creativity self-efficacy: Its potential antecedents and relationship to creative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 45(6), 1137–1148. https://doi.org/10.5465/3069429
TrimmerK. J.DominoM. A.BlantonJ. E. (2002). The impact of personality diversity on conflict in ISD teams. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 42(4), 7–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/08874417.2002.11647047
72.
TseH. H.DasboroughM. T. (2008). A study of exchange and emotions in team member relationships. Group & Organization Management, 33(2), 194–215. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601106293779
73.
TsuiA. S.O’reillyC. A.III. (1989). Beyond simple demographic effects: The importance of relational demography in superior-subordinate dyads. Academy of Management Journal, 32(2), 402–423. https://doi.org/10.2307/256368
74.
van KnippenbergD.HoeverI. J. (2017). Team diversity and team creativity: A categorization-elaboration perspective. In Rieter-PalmonR. (Ed.), Team creativity and innovation (pp. 41–60). https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190222093.003.0003
75.
WoodmanR. W.SawyerJ. E.GriffinR. W. (1993). Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Academy of Management Review, 18(2), 293–321. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1993.3997517
76.
Yli-RenkoH.JanakiramanR. (2008). How customer portfolio affects new product development in technology-based entrepreneurial firms. Journal of Marketing, 72(5), 131–148. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.72.5.131
77.
ZhouJ. (2003). When the presence of creative coworkers is related to creativity: Role of supervisor close monitoring, developmental feedback, and creative personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(3), 413–422. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.3.413
