In investigating how member ability is translated into group brainstorming performance, it was predicted that a group’s collective intelligence (CI) would enable it to capitalize on member ability while maximizing process gains and mitigating process losses. Ninety-nine groups were randomly assigned to complete a short brainstorming task using a hybrid (individual-group work) or collective (only group work) task structure. High CI groups were better than low CI groups at translating member ability into group brainstorming performance. Additionally, this hybrid structure was more beneficial for low CI groups than for high CI groups in generating total ideas.
AfuahA.TucciC. L. (2012). Crowdsourcing as a solution to distant search. Academy of Management Review, 37(3), 355–375. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2010.0146
2.
AggarwalI.WoolleyA. W. (2019). Team creativity, cognition, and cognitive style diversity. Management Science, 65(4), 1586–1599. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2017.3001
3.
AggarwalI.WoolleyA. W.ChabrisC. F.MaloneT. W. (2019). The impact of cognitive style diversity on implicit learning in teams. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 112. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00112
4.
AmabileT. M. (1982). Social psychology of creativity: A consensual assessment technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(5), 997–1013. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.43.5.997
5.
AmabileT. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(2), 357–376. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.2.357
6.
ArgoteL. (2012). Organizational learning: Creating, retaining, and transferring knowledge. Springer.
7.
BaruahJ.PaulusP. B. (2016). The role of time and category relatedness in electronic brainstorming. Small Group Research, 47(3), 333–342. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496416642296
8.
BechkyB. A.OkhuysenG. A. (2011). Expecting the unexpected? How SWAT officers and film crews handle surprises. Academy of Management Journal, 54(2), 239–261. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.60263060
9.
BernsteinE.ShoreJ.LazerD. (2018). How intermittent breaks in interaction improve collective intelligence. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 115(35), 8734–8739. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1802407115
10.
BouchardT. J.JrHareM. (1970). Size, performance, and potential in brainstorming groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 54(1, Pt.1), 51–55. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0028621
11.
BrownV.TumeoM.LareyT. S.PaulusP. B. (1998). Modeling cognitive interactions during group brainstorming. Small Group Research, 29(4), 495–526. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496498294005
12.
ChikersalP.TomprouM.KimY. J.WoolleyA. W.DabbishL. (2017, February25–March1). Deep structures of collaboration: Physiological correlates of collective intelligence and group satisfaction [Conference session]. CSCW ’17: Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing, Portland, OR, United States. (pp. 873–888). https://doi.org/10.1145/2998181.2998250
13.
CourseyL. E.GertnerR. T.WilliamsB. C.KenworthyJ. B.PaulusP. B.DoboliS. (2019). Linking the divergent and convergent processes of collaborative creativity: The impact of expertise levels and elaboration processes. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 699. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00699
14.
DeRosaD. M.SmithC. L.HantulaD. A. (2007). The medium matters: Mining the long-promised merit of group interaction in creative idea generation tasks in a meta-analysis of the electronic group brainstorming literature. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(3), 1549–1581. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2005.07.003
15.
DiehlM.StroebeW. (1987). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward the solution of a riddle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(3), 497–509. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.53.3.497
16.
DiehlM.StroebeW. (1991). Productivity loss in idea-generating groups: Tracking down the blocking effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(3), 392–403. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.61.3.392
17.
DugoshK. L.PaulusP. B.RolandE. J.YangH. C. (2000). Cognitive stimulation in brainstorming. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(5), 722–735. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.5.722
18.
EngelD.WoolleyA. W.JingL. X.ChabrisC. F.MaloneT. W. (2014). Reading the mind in the eyes or reading between the lines? Theory of mind predicts collective intelligence equally well online and face-to-face. PLoS One, 9(12), e115212. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0115212
19.
FisherC. M.AmabileT. (2008). Creativity, improvisation and organizations. In RickardsT.RuncoM. A.MogerS. (Eds.), The Routledge companion to creativity (pp. 27–38). Routledge.
GallupeR. B.DennisA. R.CooperW. H.ValacichJ. S.BastianuttiL. M.NunamakerJ. F.Jr. (1992). Electronic brainstorming and group size. Academy of Management Journal, 35(2), 350–369. https://doi.org/10.5465/256377
22.
GirotraK.TerwieschC.UlrichK. T. (2010). Idea generation and the quality of the best idea. Management Science, 56(4), 591–605. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1090.1144
23.
GliksonE.HarushR.KimY. J.WoolleyA. W.ErezM. (2016). Psychological safety and collective intelligence in multicultural globally dispersed teams. Social Sciences Research Network. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3813887
24.
GonzálezV. M.MarkG. (2005). Managing currents of work: Multi-tasking among multiple collaborations. In GellersenH.SchmidtK.Beaudouin-LafonM.MackayW. (Eds.), ECSCW (pp. 143–162). Springer-Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-4023-7_8.
25.
GrahamW. K.DillonP. C. (1974). Creative supergroups: Group performance as a function of individual performance on brainstorming tasks. The Journal of Social Psychology, 93(1), 101–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1974.9923134
26.
GuptaP.WoolleyA. W. (2021). Articulating the role of artificial intelligence in collective intelligence: A transactive systems framework. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 65(1), 670–674.
27.
HackmanJ. R. (1987). The design of work teams. In LorschJ. (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 315–342). Prentice-Hall.
28.
HackmanJ. R. (2002). Leading teams: Setting the stage for great performances. Harvard Business School Press.
29.
HayesA. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.
30.
HillG. W. (1982). Group versus individual performance: Are N+ 1 heads better than one?Psychological Bulletin, 91(3), 517–539. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.91.3.517
JaukE.BenedekM.DunstB.NeubauerA. C. (2013). The relationship between intelligence and creativity: New support for the threshold hypothesis by means of empirical breakpoint detection. Intelligence, 41(4), 212–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2013.03.003
33.
JohnsonB. R.D’LauroC. J. (2018). After brainstorming, groups select an early generated idea as their best idea. Small Group Research, 49(2), 177–194. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496417720285
34.
KimY. J.EngelD.WoolleyA. W.LinJ. Y. T.McArthurN.MaloneT. W. (2017, February25–March1). What makes a strong team? Using collective intelligence to predict team performance in league of legends [Conference session]. Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing, Portland, OR, United States. (pp. 2316–2329). https://doi.org/10.1145/2998181.2998185
35.
KimY. J.AggarwalI.WoolleyA.W. (2017, February2–5). How collective intelligence impacts team performance: Exploring transactive memory systems as a mechanism [Conference poster]. The Organization Science Winter Conference, Park City, UT, United States.
36.
KohnN. W.PaulusP. B.ChoiY. (2011). Building on the ideas of others: An examination of the idea combination process. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(3), 554–561. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.01.004
37.
KohnN. W.SmithS. M. (2011). Collaborative fixation: Effects of others’ ideas on brainstorming. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25(3), 359–371. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1699
38.
KordeR.PaulusP. B. (2017). Alternating individual and group idea generation: Finding the elusive synergy. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 70, 177–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2016.11.002
39.
LarsonJ. R. (2013). In search of synergy in small group performance. Psychology Press.
40.
LazerD.PentlandA.AdamicL.AralS.BarabásiA. L.BrewerD.ChristakisN.ContractorN.FowlerJ.GutmannM.JebaraT.KingG.MacyM.RoyD.Van AlstyneM. (2009). Life in the network: The coming age of computational social science. Science, 323(5915), 721–723. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1167742
41.
LeBretonJ. M.SenterJ. L. (2008). Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability and interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 11(4), 815–852. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428106296642
42.
LevineJ. M.AlexanderK. M.WrightA. G. C.HigginsE. T. (2016). Group brainstorming: When regulatory nonfit enhances performance. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 19(2), 257–271. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430215577226
43.
LiangD. W.MorelandR.ArgoteL. (1995). Group versus individual training and group performance: The mediating role of transactive memory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(4), 384–393. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167295214009
44.
LuriaA. R. (1973). The working brain: An introduction to neuropsychology. Basic Books.
45.
MaaraviY.HellerB.ShohamY.MoharS.DeutschB. (2021). Ideation in the digital age: Literature review and integrative model for electronic brainstorming. Review of Managerial Science, 15(6), 1431–1464. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-020-00400-5
46.
MajchrzakA.MalhotraA.ZagglM. A. (2021). How open crowds self-organize. Academy of Management Discoveries, 7(1), 104–129. https://doi.org/10.5465/amd.2018.0087
47.
MannucciP. V.OraziD. C.de ValckK. (2020). Developing improvisation skills: The influence of individual orientations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 66(3), 612–658. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839220975697
48.
MasonW.WattsD. J. (2011). Collaborative learning in networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109(3), 764–769. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1110069108
49.
MayoA. T. (2019). Dynamic teams: Exploring the enabling conditions and outcomes of coordination [Doctoral dissertation]. Carnegie Mellon University.
50.
MayoA. T.WoolleyA. W. (2021). Variance in group ability to transform resources into performance, and the role of coordinated attention. Academy of Management Discoveries, 7(2), 225–246. https://doi.org/10.5465/amd.2019.0231
51.
MayoA. T.WoolleyA. W.ChowR. M. (2020). Unpacking participation and influence: Diversity’s countervailing effects on expertise use in groups. Academy of Management Discoveries, 6(2), 300–319. https://doi.org/10.5465/amd.2018.0044
52.
McGrathJ. E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and performance (Vol. 14). Prentice-Hall.
53.
MednickS. A. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological Review, 69(3), 220–232. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0048850
54.
MeslecN.AggarwalI.CurseuP. L. (2016). The insensitive ruins it all: Compositional and compilational influences of social sensitivity on collective intelligence in groups. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 676. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00676
MoormanC.MinerA. S. (1998). Organizational improvisation and organizational memory. Academy of Management Review, 23(4), 698–723. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1998.1255634
57.
NijstadB. A. (2015). Creativity in groups. In MikulincerM.ShaverP. R. (Eds.), APA handbook of personality and social psychology: Vol. 2: Group processes (pp. 35–65). American Psychological Association.
58.
NijstadB. A.De DreuC. K. W.RietzschelE. F.BaasM. (2010). The dual pathway to creativity model: Creative ideation as a function of flexibility and persistence. European Review of Social Psychology, 21(1), 34–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463281003765323
59.
NijstadB. A.StroebeW. (2006). How the group affects the mind: A cognitive model of idea generation in groups. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 186–213. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_1
60.
NijstadB. A.StroebeW.LodewijkxH. F. M. (2003). Production blocking and idea generation: Does blocking interfere with cognitive processes?Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39(6), 531–548. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-1031(03)00040-4
61.
OsbornA. F. (1953). Applied imagination: Principles and procedures of creative thinking. Scribner.
62.
PaulusP. B.BrownV. R. (2007). Toward more creative and innovative group idea generation: A cognitive-social-motivational perspective of brainstorming. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 1(1), 248–265. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00006.x
PaulusP. B.NijstadB. A. (2003). Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration. Oxford University Press.
65.
PaulusP. B.PutmanV. L.DugoshK. L.DzindoletM. T.CoskunH. (2002). Social and cognitive influences in group brainstorming: Predicting production gains and losses. European Review of Social Psychology, 12(1), 299–325. https://doi.org/10.1080/14792772143000094
66.
PaulusP. B.YangH. C. (2000). Idea generation in groups: A basis for creativity in organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 76–87. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2000.2888
67.
PinsonneaultA.BarkiH.GallupeR. B.HoppenN. (1999). Electronic brainstorming: The illusion of productivity. Information Systems Research, 10(2), 110–133. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.10.2.110
68.
Pirola-MerloA.MannL. (2004). The relationship between individual creativity and team creativity: Aggregating across people and time. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(2), 235–257. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.240
69.
PluutH.FlesteaA. M.CurşeuP. L. (2014). Multiple team membership: A demand or resource for employees?Group Dynamics Theory Research and Practice, 18(4), 333–348. https://doi.org/10.1037/gdn0000016
70.
PreacherK. J.HayesA. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods Instruments & Computers, 36(4), 717–731. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03206553
RiedlC.KimY. J.GuptaP.MaloneT. W.WoolleyA. W. (2021). Quantifying collective intelligence in human groups. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(21), e2005737118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2005737118
73.
RiedlC.WoolleyA. W. (2017). Teams vs. Crowds: A field test of the relative contribution of incentives, member ability, and emergent collaboration to crowd-based problem solving performance. Academy of Management Discoveries, 3(4), 382–403. https://doi.org/10.5465/amd.2015.0097
74.
RosenbergM. J. (1965). When dissonance fails: On eliminating evaluation apprehension from attitude measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1(1), 28–42. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0021647
75.
RotterG. S.PortugalS. M. (1969). Group and individual effects in problem solving. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53(4), 338–341. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0027771
76.
SimontonD. K. (1988). Scientific genius: A psychology of science. Cambridge University Press.
77.
SimontonD. K. (2003). Scientific creativity as constrained stochastic behavior: The integration of product, person, and process perspectives. Psychological Bulletin, 129(4), 475–494. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.4.475
78.
StachowskiA. A.KaplanS. A.WallerM. J. (2009). The benefits of flexible team interaction during crises. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(6), 1536–1543. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016903
79.
SteinerI. D. (1972). Group process and productivity. Academic Press.
80.
StewartD. D.StasserG. (1995). Expert role assignment and information sampling during collective recall and decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(4), 619–628. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.69.4.619
81.
StroebeW.DiehlM. (1994). Why groups are less effective than their members: On productivity losses in idea-generating groups. European Review of Social Psychology, 5(1), 271–303. https://doi.org/10.1080/14792779543000084
82.
StroebeW.NijstadB. A.RietzschelE. F. (2010). Beyond productivity loss in brainstorming groups: The evolution of a question. In ZannaM.OlsonJ. (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 43, pp. 157–203). Academic Press.
83.
SuttonR. I.HargadonA. (1996). Brainstorming groups in context: Effectiveness in a product design firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 685–718. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393872
TaggarS. (2002). Individual creativity and group ability to utilize individual creative resources: A multilevel model. Academy of Management Journal, 45(2), 315–330. https://doi.org/10.5465/3069349
86.
TaylorA.GreveH. R. (2006). Superman or the fantastic four? Knowledge combination and experience in innovative teams. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 723–740. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2006.22083029
87.
ThompsonL. (2008). Making the team: A guide for managers (3rd ed.). Prentice-Hall.
88.
TindaleR. S.LarsonJ. R. (1992). Assembly bonus effect or typical group performance? A comment on Michaelsen, Watson, and Black (1989). Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(1), 102–105. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.77.1.102
89.
TomprouM.KimY. J.ChikersalP.WoolleyA. W.DabbishL. A. (2021). Speaking out of turn: How video conferencing reduces vocal synchrony and collective intelligence. PLoS One, 16(3), e0247655. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0247655
ValentineM. A.RetelnyD.ToA.RahmatiN.DoshiT.BernsteinM. S. (2017, May6–11). Flash organizations: Crowdsourcing complex work by structuring crowds as organizations [Conference session]. Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Denver, CO, United States. (pp. 3523–3537). https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025811
WeidmannB.DemingD. J. (2020). Team players: How social skills improve group performance (Working Paper No. 27071; Working Paper Series). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w27071
94.
WoehrD. J.LoignonA. C.SchmidtP. B.LoughryM. L.OhlandM. W. (2015). Justifying aggregation with consensus-based constructs: A review and examination of cutoff values for common aggregation indices. Organizational Research Methods, 18(4), 704–737. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428115582090
95.
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
96.
WoolleyA. W.AggarwalI. (2020). Collective intelligence and group learning. In ArgoteL.LevineJ. M. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of group and organizational learning (pp. 1–25). Oxford University Press.
97.
WoolleyA. W.ChabrisC. F.PentlandA.HashmiN.MaloneT. W. (2010). Evidence for a collective intelligence factor in the performance of human groups. Science, 330(6004), 686–688. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1193147
98.
YuanY.van KnippenbergD. (2020). From member creativity to team creativity? Team information elaboration as moderator of the additive and disjunctive models. PLoS One, 15(12), e0243289. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243289
ZhouJ.HoeverI. J. (2014). Research on workplace creativity: A review and redirection. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1, 333–359. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091226
