Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Copyright © The British Psychological Society Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society 129 Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology (2009), 82, 129–145 q 2009 The British Psychological Society The British Psychological Society www.bpsjournals.co.uk Better than brainstorming? Potential contextual boundary conditions to brainwriting for idea generation in organizations Peter A. Heslin* Cox School of Business, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas, USA Organizations and societies all need good, useful ideas to survive and prosper. People often enjoy brainstorming, though it is not as productive as they tend to believe. Groups can potentially generate more and better ideas when ‘brainwriting’; that is, silently sharing written ideas in a time- and sequence-structured group format. This conceptual paper identifies likely boundary conditions to the promising findings from brainwriting laboratory research generalizing to real-world organizational contexts. Important dimensions of organizational context may be revealed by drawing on the journalistic principle to examine what, who, when, where, and why certain outcomes result from particular organizational practices (Johns, 2006). Multiple potential contextual moderators are suggested in each of these five areas. Subsequent field research will inform the idea-generation literature as well as those concerned with eliciting highquality, useful ideas to address particular organizational and societal challenges. Creativity involves the development of novel, useful ideas ( Amabile, 1996; Thompson, 2003 ). Given complex, intractable business issues such as rapidly emerging technologies and growing global competition – together with broader societal crises such as terrorism, poverty, and global warming – generating creative ideas is imperative for organizations, our ecosystem, and humanity to survive and prosper ( Bandura, 2007; Heslin & Ochoa, 2008; IPCC, 2007 ). When the stakes are high, group process innovations that enable even modest increases in the quality of ideas available for consideration could be of immense practical value.1 The most widely adopted process for generating creative ideas within organizations is brainstorming ( Devine, Clayton, Philips, Dunford, & Melner, 1999; Rietzschel, Nijstad, & Stroebe, 2006; Sutton & Hargadon, 1996 ). Despite its immense popularity, when groups of people interact for the purpose of brainstorming, they significantly * Correspondence should be addressed to Professor Peter A. Heslin, Cox School of Business, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, TX 75275-0333, USA (e-mail: [email protected]). 1 The issues of identifying the most promising idea(s) from among the range of those generated – as well as successfully executing them – are substantial challenges that lie beyond the scope of the present article. For an extensive review and model of broader group innovation development and implementation issues, see West (2002). DOI:10.1348/096317908X285642 Copyright © The British Psychological Society Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society 130 Peter A. Heslin overestimate their productivity ( Paulus, Dzindolet, Poletes, & Camacho, 1993 ) and produce fewer unique ideas than nominal groups of people generating ideas alone ( Diehl & Stroebe, 1987, 1991; Mullen, Johnson, & Salas, 1991; Paulus, Larey, & Ortega, 1995; Rietzschel et al., 2006; Taylor, Berry, & Block, 1958 ). Yet people insist on habitually coming together for tasks such as generating ideas ( Leonard & Swap, 1999 ). Indeed, the fad of people in manufacturing, service, and public sector organizations seeking team-based solutions to their most pressing problems is ‘soaring’ ( Luthans, 2005, p. 440). A key challenge for organizational scholars and practitioners is to identify how group interactions for the purpose of idea generation can be made more productive. In contrast to the oral sharing of ideas in groups during brainstorming, brainwriting involves a group of people silently writing and sharing their written ideas ( VanGundy, 1983 ). Research has revealed that brainwriting yields superior idea generation than either non-sharing or nominal groups ( Gryskiewic, 1981; Paulus & Yang, 2000; Thompson, 2003 ). Although findings from well-designed laboratory experiments often generalize to field settings ( Anderson, Lindsay, & Bushman, 1999), Locke (1986) highlighted the need to empirically examine when and to whom generalizability occurs. Simonton (2000, p. 156) concluded that research is needed to address the critical issue in the creativity literature whereby ‘ : : : the gap between scientific knowledge and practical interventions is often so wide that doubts are cast on both science and practice’. Owing to the potential of brainwriting to be a more effective mode of group idea generation than brainstorming, this conceptual paper critiques the likely generalizability of brainwriting research findings to the workplace. The origin, nature, and potential promise of brainwriting are first outlined. This paper then identifies specific, previously neglected substantive contextual issues that need to be addressed by field research into whether and when the promise of brainwriting is likely to be realized in real-world settings. From brainstorming to brainwriting When a group of people shares ideas, Osborn (1957 ) observed that a widespread tendency to instantaneously evaluate them probably inhibits group members from sharing ideas they feel may evoke an unfavourable reaction from their colleagues. In order to overcome this problem, Osborn developed the now familiar brainstorming guidelines which entail groups generating as many ideas as possible: (a) without immediate concern for quality or evaluation; (b) within a set time frame; (c) by building on the ideas of others; and (d) that are recorded publicly by a non-idea-contributing facilitator/scribe. People enjoy brainstorming ( Sutton & Hargadon, 1996 ), it satisfies their needs for social interaction ( VanGundy, 1983 ), and groups that follow Osborn’s guidelines produce more ideas than those that do not ( Parnes & Meadow, 1959 ). One reason for this increased productivity is that participating in a brainstorming session provokes cognitive facilitation, whereby the ideas of other people trigger novel associations that would not have come to mind during a solitary idea-generation session ( Paulus, Larey, & Dzindolet, 2000 ). A sense of excitement and synergy can also enhance creative idea generation during brainstorming ( Paulus, 2000 ). However, novel associations only facilitate idea generation to the extent that individuals pay attention to other peoples’ ideas ( Brown, Tumeo, Larey, & Paulus, 1998; Dugosh, Paulus, Roland, & Yang, 2000 ). Copyright © The British Psychological Society Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society Brainwriting 131 Limitations of brainstorming The sequential nature of idea sharing during brainstorming and resulting ‘verbal traffic jams’ ( Brown & Paulus, 2002, p. 211) can lead to ideas being forgotten. People might also decide, while they wait for their ‘turn’, that their ideas are not good enough to share. Withholding ideas for this reason, or because of a concern not to upstage a higher status brainstorming group member ( VanGundy, 1983 ), typically reflects evaluation apprehension ( Geen, 1985 ). Brainstorming also requires a skilled facilitator and can be disrupted by one or more members taking more than their fair share of ‘air time’ ( VanGundy, 1983 ). Trying to remember an idea until it can be shared, listening to others, and interacting in accordance with the rules of brainstorming also consume mental resources that could otherwise be devoted to generating more ideas ( Nijstad & Stroebe, 2006 ). These inhibitory dynamics are each forms of idea production blocking ( Diehl & Stroebe, 1987, 1991; Nijstad & Stroebe, 2006 ). The productivity of brainstorming groups is also reduced by social loafing, downward comparisons, and illusions of productivity. Social loafing is a low level of contribution that results from people feeling that they are not personally accountable or that their efforts are not needed by the group ( Karau & Williams, 1993; Shepperd, 1993 ). Downward comparisons involve people matching the rate and type of ideas they generate with those produced by the lowest performers in the group ( Roy, Gauvin, & Limayem, 1996 ). Finally, people tend to exhibit illusions of productivity regarding the superiority of group compared to individual performance ( Paulus et al., 1993 ), as well as regarding their personal contributions relative to other group members ( Paulus, Larey, Putman, Leggett, & Roland, 1996 ). These are further sources of production loss during brainstorming. Brainwriting has been developed to address these issues. Brainwriting Brainwriting involves silently sharing written ideas in groups. Relative to brainstorming, brainwriting potentially minimizes the affect of status differentials, dysfunctional interpersonal conflicts, domination by one or two group members, pressure to conform to group norms, and digressions from the focal topic ( VanGundy, 1983 ). It might also eliminate production blocking, reduce social loafing, and encourage careful processing of shared ideas ( Paulus & Yang, 2000 ). VanGundy briefly outlined six different types of brainwriting. These are the nominal group technique, the collective notebook, the brainwriting pool, pin cards, battellebildmappen-brainwriting, and the SIL method. VanGundy identified the first four techniques as pure brainwriting, as they do not involve group discussion of written ideas during the idea-generation process. In contrast, VanGundy suggested that the latter two techniques (i.e. battelle-bildmappen-brainwriting and the SIL method) are hybrids insofar as they entail a combination of the oral brainstorming and silent brainwriting. VanGundy offered heuristic suggestions about when each of the types of brainwriting might be most suitable, though no empirical evidence to support his speculations. Paulus and Yang (2000) further developed and systematically tested the outcomes of the pin card brainwriting procedure discussed by VanGundy (1983), so this is the prototypical form of brainwriting discussed throughout the duration of this paper. The brainwriting procedure used by Paulus and Yang entails members of four-person groups each sharing written ideas as they are generated. The first stage involves participants being seated at a table where they write an idea on one of about 25 small slips of paper and pass it on to the person seated on their right-hand side. Accountability Copyright © The British Psychological Society Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society 132 Peter A. Heslin is increased and social loafing reduced by each person writing with a different colour pen. Participants are instructed to read the idea(s) on each slip of paper they receive from the person on their left, before adding one of their own ideas, and then passing it on to their right. If participants cannot come up with an idea in a reasonable period of time, they are allowed to pass the slip of paper on without writing anything on it. Finally, when participants receive a completed slip with four ideas on it, they are instructed to read those ideas before placing the slip in the centre of the table for all to see. The second recall stage of Paulus and Yang’s (2000) brainwriting procedure involves individuals being reseated in different corners of the room and asked to individually list as many ideas as possible from the first stage, including their own. This second recall stage is intended to encourage cognitive stimulation through careful attention to the ideas generated by other group members during the first stage. In the final stage participants remain apart and are asked to continue generating ideas individually (without sharing) for an additional 15 minutes. How well does brainwriting work? An experiment by Paulus and Yang (2000) compared the idea generation of a brainwriting group, with a nominal group, and a memory group. The nominal group generated ideas alone. The memory group completed the same procedure as the brainwriting group, except for also being warned that they would be tested for their memory of the ideas developed and exchanged during the brainwriting session. During the initial session, the brainwriting groups generated a greater number of unique ideas – calculated by excluding repetitive ideas – than either the memory groups or the nominal groups. During the third solitary idea-generation stage, the brainwriting and memory conditions both produced a greater number of unique ideas than the nominal group, though the brainwriting and memory groups were not significantly different on this uniqueness criterion. Finally, as predicted, the number of ideas recalled (during Stage 2) from the first session mediated the effect of initial group performance upon subsequent (Stage 3) solitary idea-generation performance. Paulus and Yang (2000) concluded that exposure to others’ ideas followed by a recall/incubation period is cognitively stimulating. An alternative explanation for their findings is that the sense of competition induced by frantically passing around slips of paper marked with personally identifying ink could have created social pressure to continue generating more ideas. Dugosh and Paulus (2005) strived to disentangle these alternative explanations by experimentally manipulating both cognitive and social facilitation. Dugosh and Paulus found that both the number of ideas to which participants were exposed (i.e. cognitive stimulation) and the extent to which the experimenters made social comparisons salient (i.e. social stimulation), each had both individual and interactive effects on the quantity of unique idea generation. Implications for idea generation within organizations Paulus and Yang (2000) provided the first and only known experimental evidence that brainwriting enhances idea-generation performance, relative to nominal groups, which in-turn are generally more productive than traditional brainstorming groups ( Diehl & Stroebe, 1987, 1991; Mullen et al., 1991; Paulus et al., 1995; Rietzschel et al., 2006; Taylor et al., 1958 ). This study suggests that cognitive and social stimulation may occur Copyright © The British Psychological Society Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society Brainwriting 133 when production blocking and social loafing are minimized and the careful processing of shared ideas is encouraged. Such findings have apparent promise for facilitating idea generation by groups working in organizations. However, they were obtained on the basis of having randomly assigned unacquainted first year university students earn course credit by completing the relatively trivial task of generating possible uses for a paper clip ( Paulus & Yang, 2000 ). There have been subsequent investigations into internal validity issues such as the relative role of cognitive versus social stimulation during brainwriting (e.g. Brown & Paulus, 2002; Dugosh & Paulus, 2005 ). In contrast, to my knowledge there have been no substantive published conceptual or empirical analyses of the potential effectiveness of brainwriting beyond the laboratory setting. Next an illustrative array of contextual issues likely to affect the utility of brainwriting for eliciting useful ideas to address real-word challenges beyond the laboratory setting are outlined. Research needed on potential contextual boundary conditions Context involves the set of situational opportunities and countervailing constraints that affect the occurrence, meaning, and outcomes of certain behaviours ( Griffin, 2007; Johns, 2006; Rousseau & Fried, 2001 ). Owing to the absence of a widely accepted taxonomy of context ( Griffin, 2007; Rousseau & Fried, 2001 ), the following discussion is guided by Johns’ suggestion that important dimensions of context may be revealed by drawing on the journalistic principle to examine what, who, when, where, and why certain practices have particular outcomes. Adoption of Johns’ organizing framework does not imply endorsement of it as a comprehensive taxonomy of potential contextual factors. As Griffin (2007, p. 860) noted, ‘The raw number of possible dimensions for context at different levels of analysis and across theoretical domains means a simple consensus about dimensional structure is unlikely.’ Thus, Johns’ approach is adopted merely as a parsimonious approach to identifying and organizing the suggested potential contextual boundary conditions to brainwriting outcomes. The discussion that follows has also been guided by the imperative for future brainwriting research to adopt a meso perspective ( House, Rousseau, & Thomas-Hunt, 1995; Rousseau & House 1994). This involves investigating how a range of micro-, meso-, and macro-level variables might directly and interactively affect the behavioural, affective, and idea-generation outcomes from brainwriting. Finally, no formal model or propositions will be offered. My intention is to stimulate research focusing on boundary conditions that researchers deem most applicable in the specific field settings in which they study brainwriting ( Latham, 2007; Rousseau, 2007 ), rather than merely empirical tests of the particular potential moderators discussed in this manuscript. What does brainwriting yield? Based on the experimental finding that the quantity and quality of ideas tend to be highly correlated ( Adánez, 2005; Diehl & Stroebe, 1987; Mullen et al., 1991 ), the quality of ideas is routinely operationalized within the brainstorming/brainwriting literature as the number of unique ideas that are produced (e.g. Dugosh & Paulus, 2005; Larey & Paulus, 1999; Paulus & Yang, 2000; Taylor et al., 1958 ). There are, however, several problematic issues with this approach to discerning idea quality. First, recall that Paulus and Yang calculated the number of unique ideas by subtracting the repeated ideas from the total number of ideas generated. This approach yields an estimation of idea quality Copyright © The British Psychological Society Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society 134 Peter A. Heslin (i.e. uniqueness) that is insufficiently independent and thereby contaminated ( Campbell, Dunnette, Lawler, & Weick, 1970 ) by the quantity of ideas produced. Second, as noted in the opening sentence, creativity involves the development of novel, useful ideas ( Amabile, 1996; Thompson, 2003 ). Subtracting non-repeated ideas from all ideas taps non-redundancy, but not necessarily novelty relative to the existing ideas that are already known for addressing the issue(s) at hand. Third, even more significantly, non-redundancy indicates nothing about the practical usefulness of the ideas generated. Fourth, the quantity of ideas produced is not necessarily empirically related to the rated quality of ideas (e.g. Pearsall, Ellis, & Evans, 2008 ). These four issues suggest construct deficiency (Campbell et al., 1970 ) in how the concept of idea quality has often been operationalized in idea-generation laboratory studies. This provides reason to question the ecological validity and thus generalizability of brainwriting research to the realm of generating the novel, useful ideas needed to address serious real-world challenges. A critical question for field research is whether, relative to brainstorming, brainwriting yields higher quality (i.e. truly novel, useful, and/or effective) ideas, as well as merely a greater number of ‘unique’ (i.e. non-redundant) ideas. Meaningful indicators of idea quality could include: (a) ratings by subject matter experts regarding relevant design, manufacturing, marketing, and service delivery issues; (b) salient innovation characteristics such as user assessments of the perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, sustained adoption of ideas generated through brainwriting ( Davis, 1989 ); as well as (c) whether the ideas generated are ultimately effective for addressing key organizational challenges. Rogers’ (1962, 2003) diffusion of innovation theory highlights that the likelihood of an idea being successfully implemented can be analysed in terms of its relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, observability, and trialability. Relative advantage is the degree to which an innovation is perceived as being better than its precursor. Compatibility is the degree to which an innovation is perceived as being consistent with the existing values, needs, and past experiences of potential adopters. Complexity is the degree to which an innovation is perceived as being difficult to use. Observability is the degree to which the results of an innovation are observable to others. Finally, trialability is the degree to which experimentation is possible before adoption. Overall, the construct validity with which ‘idea quality’ is operationalized within field settings will be increased by assessing it using a range of organizationally relevant criteria such as those just outlined, as guided by the precise nature of the challenge regarding which ideas are being generated ( Rousseau, 2007 ). Should brainwriting be as useful in field settings as suggested by VanGundy (1983), as well as Paulus and Yang (2000), other potential fruits of brainwriting are increased group cohesion and potency, as well as satisfaction of group members’ social interaction needs. With regard to the latter, VanGundy (1983) suggested that unless there is dysfunctional group conflict, the highly structured and silent nature of brainwriting means that social interaction needs are more likely to be met through brainstorming than brainwriting. In lieu of any known direct evidence in this regard, research could usefully examine the impact on groups and group members of brainwriting versus brainstorming. Relevant outcomes might include group cohesion ( Lee & Farh, 2004 ), self-efficacy ( Heslin & Klehe, 2006 ), groupefficacy (Whiteoak, Chalip, & Hort, 2004 ), group identification ( Aharpour & Brown, 2002 ), and satisfaction of social interaction needs ( VanGundy, 1983 ), as potentially mediated by the perceived quality of the insights that result from the idea-generation process adopted. Copyright © The British Psychological Society Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society Brainwriting 135 For whom is brainwriting suitable? In contrast to traditional brainstorming, brainwriting is typically a more structured and constrained process. When engaging in the Paulus and Yang’s (2000) brainwriting procedure, participants are not allowed to speak. They are assigned a certain colour pen that increases their accountability by making their personal contributions clearly known to all brainwriting participants. I have observed some brainwriting participants experience immense pressure to maintain the pace of idea generation of those seated on either side of them. Finally, participants are physically isolated for the last 20–30 minutes of the exercise. Next the potential role of individual, group composition, and group process factors in determining for whom this type of brainwriting might be most suitable are outlined. Individual factors VanGundy (1983) suggested that a bad experience with brainstorming could make individuals relatively more eager to proactively engage in brainwriting. Alternatively, people who enjoy brainstorming might resist the strong situation ( Mischel, 1968 ) imposed by the more structured brainwriting procedure, perhaps reflecting psychological reactance ( Brehm & Brehm, 1981) to perceiving that they are being unduly controlled. While studies have emphasized the importance of perceived autonomy in innovation (e.g. Cohen & Bailey, 1997; Krause, 2004 ), Paulus (2000, p. 252) observed that ‘ : : : there have been no systematic studies of this factor (perceived autonomy) on the creative process of teams or groups’. Research is needed on whether, particularly for those who cherish their autonomy, low outcome expectancies ( Bandura, 1986; Latham, 2001 ) that brainwriting will be enjoyable ( Nijstad & Stroebe, 2006; Sutton & Hargadon, 1996 ) and intrinsically rewarding ( Ryan & Deci, 2000 ) serve to demotivate active engagement in brainwriting. Individuals with a high need for achievement ( McClelland, 1956 ) value challenging tasks and explicit feedback about individual accomplishments. Given the challenge, competition, and immediate individual feedback inherent in brainwriting, research could also fruitfully explore whether individuals’ need for achievement is positively related to their experience of brainwriting as challenging, enjoyable, and stimulating. Conversely, do those with relatively high social evaluation anxiety ( Leitenberg, 1990) or neuroticism ( Costa & McCrae, 1997 ) find that personal accountability during brainwriting makes it an unduly stressful and anxietyprovoking activity? Individuals’ inclination to ponder novel perspectives is positively related to their openness to experience ( Costa & McCrae, 1997) and negatively related to their need for closure ( Kruglanski & Webster, 1996 ). Research is consequently warranted on whether openness to experience and a low need for closure positively predict individuals’ inclination to build upon others’ unique ideas while brainwriting. Studies along these lines could also examine psychological states that mediate the relationships between (a) dispositions that make employees (dis)inclined to engage in and/or enjoy brainwriting and (b) their resulting idea-generation performance. One possibly relevant mediator is threat rigidity, whereby stress and anxiety can restrict information generation and processing via over-reliance on initial hypotheses and prior expectations. Threat rigidity also increases attention to dominant cues and away from peripheral cues ( Staw, Sandelands, & Dutton, 1981 ). Given these cognitively constraining characteristics, it seems plausible that threat-rigidity would be negatively related to the generation of creative ideas. Copyright © The British Psychological Society Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society 136 Peter A. Heslin Group composition Creative stimulation during brainstorming can benefit from group members with different professional backgrounds and experience ( Stasson & Bradshaw, 1995 ). Indeed, groups that contain people with diverse but overlapping knowledge domains and skills tend to be particularly creative ( Borrill et al., 2000; Dunbar, 1995 ). To what extent do these findings generalize to brainwriting? One can imagine, for instance, a human resources (HR) professional being more perplexed and frustrated than cognitively stimulated by reading a finance analyst’s ideas that they find incomprehensible or oblivious to key HR issues. Similarly, a ‘ : : : research team composed of a statistician, Marxist sociologist, quantitative organizational psychologist, social constructionist, and political scientist may be so diverse that they are unable to develop a coherent and innovative programme of research to discover under what circumstances nursing teams on hospital wards will implement an innovation’ ( West, 2002, p. 364). Given the greater processing of others’ ideas mandated by brainwriting compared to traditional brainstorming, perhaps brainwriting participants are relatively more distracted by other’ ideas they find incomprehensible or irrelevant. Research is thus needed on whether the optimal degree of group diversity in professional background is higher in brainstorming than brainwriting groups. More nuanced subsequent research is required to explore when higher levels of diversity in group composition are advantageous, rather than an impediment to idea generation during brainwriting. One conceptual framework for guiding such research is faultline theory ( Lau & Murnighan, 1998, 2005 ), wherein faultlines are defined as ‘hypothetical dividing lines that may split a group into subgroups based on one or more attributes’ ( Lau & Murnighan, 1998, p. 328). Faultlines are commonly based on demographic differences in gender, ethnicity, age, managerial status, education, tenure, or functional area. Pearsall et al. (2008) reported that gender faultlines negatively affected the number and overall creativity of ideas generated during brainstorming, but only when the gender faultlines were ‘activated’ by the gender salient task of generating new designs for a men’s electric razor. Interestingly, emotional conflict mediated the effects of activated gender faultlines on the number of ideas generated. Future research may seek to examine whether the findings of Pearsall et al. (2008) can be replicated during brainwriting, wherein the verbal interactions through which gender faultlines may manifest and be exacerbated are constrained by the silent nature of the brainwriting procedure. Alternatively, the source of brainwriting participants’ ideas is nonetheless prototypically made evident by the use of different colour pens. Even if anonymity is aided by everyone using the same colour pen or unidentified contributions during silent electronic brainstorming, intragroup demographic differences (e.g. in status) can still be communicated by the way participants write ( Weisband, Schneider, & Connolly, 1995 ). Research is needed on the extent to which activation of faultlines based on salient demographic characteristics affects the enjoyment and productivity that results from brainwriting. Group processes West (2002) argued that interacting groups are typically characterized by varying degrees of participative decision-making, initiatives to build commitment to shared objectives, effective conflict management, intragroup safety, and reflexivity. West proposed that these group processes help prevent substantial diversity-based differences from leading to conflicts, fear, and consequent group member inhibition. Copyright © The British Psychological Society Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society Brainwriting 137 Research is warranted on whether the productive group processes identified by West increase the ‘optimal’ level of diversity within groups engaging in brainwriting. Research addressing such questions could benefit from assessing the range of potential outcomes suggested earlier – as well as potential mediators like threat rigidity – of the extent to which brainwriting is adopted and useful within institutions over a sustained period of time. Owing to the potential benefits of group member diversity on creativity ( Bell, 2007; Bell & Berry, 2007; Borrill et al., 2000; Stasson & Bradshaw, 1995 ), research on the interactive role of individual differences, group composition, faultlines, and group processes within brainwriting groups could have substantial theoretical and practical importance. When is brainwriting suitable? Vroom and Yetton’s (1973) leader-participation model (see also Vroom, 2003) identifies boundary conditions on the suitability of having employees interact for the purpose of contributing their ideas. These well-known contingency factors include the availability of time, the importance of making a high-quality decision, the likelihood of conflict among employees in reaching a decision, the relevant expertise of leaders relative to their employees regarding the issue(s) at hand, and the importance of employees’ acceptance of the decision adopted. The Vroom and Yetton model implies that it is prudent for leaders to have followers interact for the purpose of contributing their ideas to the extent that time allows, decision quality is important, congenial interactions between group members are likely, group members possess more relevant expertise than the leader, and decision acceptance by group members is needed. Relative to brainstorming, brainwriting requires a greater temporal, personal, group, and logistical investment. For instance, Paulus and Yang’s brainwriting procedure requires that furniture be organized for group members to be able to work first at a table adjacent to each other, and then apart. To assess when brainwriting is worth the investment, field research might examine whether the incremental utility of brainwriting over brainstorming is limited to, for instance, situations characterized by a high need for quality ideas, the absence of restrictive time–pressure, and/or in which it is important that brainwriting participants accept the idea that is adopted. Research could test VanGundy’s (1983) suggestion that the highly structured nature of brainwriting makes it less likely than brainstorming to trigger or exacerbate intragroup conflict during the highly competitive idea-generation process. Studies might also examine whether the potential group dominance by extroverts during brainstorming is mitigated by the brainwriting procedure. Organizational climates characterized by perceived threat, uncertainty, or other high levels of demand generally undermine creative processes ( West, 2002 ). Field research is needed on whether these factors tend to be either more or less detrimental to the utility of the highly structured brainwriting procedure, relative to the more widely known and free-flowing traditional brainstorming technique. Where is brainwriting likely to be successfully adopted? Dysfunctional consequences can result from ‘deadly combinations’ ( Becker, Huselid, Pickus, & Spratt, 1997, p. 43) of otherwise useful managerial practices applied within incongruent organizational cultural contexts. The suitability of brainwriting within a particular organization could be a function of the extent to which it has, for instance, Copyright © The British Psychological Society Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society 138 Peter A. Heslin either a prototypical market or clan organizational culture ( Kerr & Slocum, 2005 ). Defining characteristics of market cultures (e.g. Bayer, Daewoo, & PepsiCo) include independent and competitive goals, initiatives, and rewards, in contrast to the more collegial and interdependent nature of prototypically clan cultures (e.g. Asda, BMW, & Southwest Airlines). Research could fruitfully investigate whether the competitive frenzy of exchanging ideas that are personally identified by the colour of one’s ink makes brainwriting more acceptable and effective in interpersonally competitive market than in clan organizational cultures. Related research might examine whether in more egalitarian clan cultures, a process of providing anonymous contributions is more acceptable, less threatening, and thereby more productive than Paulus and Yang’s brainwriting protocol. Such research may fruitfully investigate if there is a personal accountability by organizational culture interaction, whereby superior outcomes result from high accountability brainwriting within market cultures, and from the less pressured anonymous brainwriting within clan cultures. Chatman and Jehn (1994) observed more variation in culture between industries than among firms within industries. Nelson and Gopalan (2003) reported that national culture constrains variation in organizational cultures. Thus, perhaps industry (e.g. accounting vs. advertising vs. manufacturing) and national cultural differences (e.g. in values such as power distance and risk avoidance; Hofstede, 1980, 2001 ) moderate the acceptability and usefulness of different types of brainwriting (e.g. with or without high personal accountability), more than moderators focused at the organizational culture level of analysis. For instance, people in collectivist cultures tend to avoid disrupting group harmony by outperforming their colleagues. A hallmark of high-power distance cultures is an aversion to outshining one’s boss. Research might explore whether in collectivist and/or status stratified groups – particularly within high-power distance cultures – anonymous brainwriting yields better results than either brainstorming or brainwriting in which individuals’ contributions are identifiable. Why conduct brainwriting? Beyond meeting a need to generate a large number of creative ideas, based upon their case study into brainstorming at the legendary IDEO industrial design firm, Sutton and Hargadon (1996) observed that other potential benefits of brainstorming include supporting the organizational memory, providing skill variety for participants, supporting an attitude of wisdom, creating a ‘status auction’, impressing clients, and providing income for the firm. Research is needed on which of these broader socioeconomic benefits of brainstorming also result from brainwriting. Research indicating that such benefits accrue less from brainwriting than brainstorming could represent a boundary condition to the value of brainwriting in organizations. Contrary findings would, of course, bode well for the potential practical usefulness of brainwriting. Some of the major potential boundary conditions to the effective, sustained use of brainwriting outlined in this paper are summarized in Table 1. While the abovementioned illustrative issues have been categorized for the sake of explanatory clarity, it is recommended that field research examine multiple issues from across these categories, as dictated by the prevailing research opportunities and state of the literature at the time the research is conducted. Such research would contribute to the extant idea-generation literature and have clear implications for managers and practitioners concerned with how to elicit the most useful ideas for addressing particular organizational and societal challenges. Copyright © The British Psychological Society Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society Brainwriting 139 Table 1. Sample contextual boundary conditions to the utility of brainwriting within organizations Contextual factors What does brainwriting yield? For whom is brainwriting suitable? When is brainwriting suitable? Where is brainwriting likely to be successfully adopted? Why conduct brainwriting? Illustrative potential moderators Criteria of ‘useful’ ideas Who evaluates usefulness Group cohesion Perceived usefulness and enjoyment of brainwriting Psychological reactance Need for achievement and closure Openness to experience Social evaluation anxiety/neuroticism Diversity of group composition Group processes Time available Importance of high-quality ideas Uniqueness of participants’ expertise Innovation acceptance needed Social interaction need satisfaction Organizational culture (e.g. market vs. clan) Industry (e.g. accounting vs. advertising) National culture (e.g. power distance, collectivism) Need for highly creative ideas Importance of ancillary benefits, such as creating a ‘status auction’, building organizational wisdom, and impressing clients. Implications for research and practice Paulus and Yang (2000) concluded that brainwriting is a potentially useful ideageneration technique within organizations. Key reasons why organizational innovations are not more widely tried and adopted in organizations include managers being disinclined to leave their comfort zone to experiment with alternative approaches ( Pfeffer & Sutton, 2006), if indeed they are aware that such approaches exist ( Rousseau, 2006 ). VanGundy (1983) discussed how and why brainwriting could be a valuable process for creative idea generation, though lamented that ‘ : : : most people who could benefit from it are not aware of it’ (p. 68). Little seems to have changed in this regard over the last quarter of a century. A prime purpose of this paper is to raise awareness among scholars, practitioners, and managers of brainwriting as an alternative to the well-known brainstorming technique. However, as Pfeffer and Sutton (2006, p. 5) observed, ‘ : : : if doctors practiced medicine the way many companies practice management, there would be far more sick and dead patients, and many more doctors would be in jail’. This call for a more evidence-based approach to management ( Rousseau, 2006; Rousseau & McCarthy, 2007 ) underscores the need to question the popular assumption that group brainstorming is the ‘best’ way to generate creative ideas. It also highlights the imperative for rigorous field research to investigate – and thus either confirm or refute – the validity of the contextual-based research ideas offered in this paper, so as to shed light on how and when organizations should consider using brainstorming instead of brainwriting. Copyright © The British Psychological Society Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society 140 Peter A. Heslin In practice, organizations may adopt variations of the techniques discussed in this paper. Brainwriting may be conducted via networked computers, commonly known as electronic brainstorming ( DeRosa, Smith, & Hantula, 2007 ), as well as by using the range of other brainwriting procedures identified by VanGundy (1983). Brainstorming can be modified by using instructions to ‘stay focused on the task (do not tell stories or explain ideas), keep the brainstorming going, encourage others to contribute, do not criticize, and return to previous categories’ ( Paulus, Nakui, Putman, & Brown, 2006, p. 209). A recent laboratory study by Paulus et al. found that this supplemented brainstorming protocol led to improved idea-generation productivity relative to the standard Osborn (1957) brainstorming guidelines. Given the scope for such variations, together with potential organizational resistance to following precise research protocols, field researchers are encouraged to become intimately acquainted with the history, objectives, and organizational cultures in which they plan to study issues such as those outlined in this paper. Doing so may facilitate building collaborative relationships with brainwriting participants and other stakeholders ( Latham, 2007 ). This in-turn will ultimately yield research findings that have both locally useful and generalizable insights (Rousseau, 2007 ) that enhance the productivity and enjoyment derived from brainwriting. Collaborative partnerships can also facilitate creatively adapting experimental protocols in accordance with what is deemed acceptable within a particular organizational or societal context ( Rousseau, 2007 ). To yield useful research, however, such creative adaptations should be accompanied by thorough documentation of the context and precise procedures actually adopted ( Johns, 2006; Rousseau & Fried, 2001 ), and not deviate from the range of research designs (cf. Cook & Campbell, 1979 ) that enable inferences to be reasonably drawn from field research. Given the paucity of direct evidence regarding the real-world usefulness of brainwriting and the resulting speculative nature of this paper, together with the present emphasis on the need for contextual sensitivity in future brainwriting field research, grounded theory development methods (cf. Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Suddaby, 2006 ) might fruitfully complement the more positivist approach implied throughout this manuscript for better understanding, evaluating, and ultimately improving the use of brainwriting. Grounded theoretic approaches could be particularly suitable for discovering emergent multi-level issues (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000 ). These might include how the complex, interactive dynamics of group members’ identities, interpersonal histories, patterns of interaction, and anticipations regarding future relationships tend to manifest and affect their approach to, engagement in, and outcomes from engaging in brainwriting. Such research will probably reveal that the relative usefulness of different forms of idea generation are ultimately contingent upon a range of contextual factors, such as those identified throughout this paper and exemplified in Table 1. Prior to the results of this research, Table 1 can be viewed as suggesting a tentative range of issues that managers and practitioners might ponder when deciding what they could expect brainwriting to yield, together with whom, when, where, and why it would be prudent for them to try brainwriting. Proactive collaboration between managers, organizational practitioners, and scholars ( Latham, 2007; Rousseau, 2007 ), focused on conducting preferably randomized field experiments investigating issues such as those outlined throughout this paper, are likely to yield the most useful reciprocal advances in the science and practice of groups idea generation. Copyright © The British Psychological Society Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society Brainwriting 141 Conclusion Despite a concern for application, tool-oriented research in industrial-organizational psychology and HR has not given enough attention to context. In particular, much research : : : (has) ignored the social context in which various techniques and instruments are applied. Equally important, they have also assumed a very narrow, non-systemic conception of what the functions or outcomes of these processes should be ( Johns, 2006, p. 390). All organizations and societies require good, useful ideas. They also need efficient, politically and culturally acceptable processes (Rousseau, 2007 ) for eliciting those ideas. While brainwriting appears promising based on an experimental study conducted with students in the laboratory ( Paulus & Yang, 2000 ), this conceptual paper has identified numerous contextual issues that could limit the generalizability of this technique for discovering great new ideas for addressing pressing organizational and societal challenges. Multi-level field research along the lines proposed will help clarify the conditions under which brainwriting is likely to be a practically useful technique, or whether it ultimately has minimal if any real-world applications. Acknowledgements The author thanks Jay Carson, Mickey Quinones, and Glenn Whyte, three anonymous reviewers and the editor John Arnold for helpful comments on an earlier version of this manuscript. References Adánez, A. M. (2005). Does quantity generate quality? Testing the fundamental principle of brainstorming. Spanish Journal of Psychology, 8, 215–220. Aharpour, S., & Brown, R. (2002). Functions of group identification: An exploratory analysis. Revue Internationale de Psychologie Sociale, 15, 157–186. Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Anderson, C. A., Lindsay, J. J., & Bushman, B. J. (1999). Research in the psychological laboratory: Truth or triviality? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8, 3–9. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Bandura, A. (2007). Impeding ecological sustainability through selective moral disengagement. International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development, 2, 8–35. Becker, B. E., Huselid, M. A., Pickus, P. S., & Spratt, M. F. (1997). HR as a source of shareholder value: Research and recommendations. Human Resource Management, 36, 39–47. Bell, M. P. (2007). Diversity in organizations. Mason, OH: South-Western. Bell, M. P., & Berry, D. P. (2007). Viewing diversity through different lenses: Avoiding a few blind spots. Academy of Management Perspectives, 21, 21–25. Borrill, C. S., Carletta, J., Carter, A. J., Dawson, J., Garrod, S., Rees, A., et al. (2000). The effectiveness of health care teams in the National Health Service. Birmingham: Aston Centre for Health Service Organization Research. Brehm, S. S., & Brehm, J. W. (1981). Psychological reactance: A theory of freedom and control. New York: Academic Press. Brown, V. R., & Paulus, P. B. (2002 ). Making group brainstorming more effective: Recommendations from an associative memory perspective. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 208–212. Brown, V., Tumeo, M., Larey, T. S., & Paulus, P. B. (1998). Modeling cognitive interactions during group brainstorming. Small Group Research, 29, 495–526. Copyright © The British Psychological Society Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society 142 Peter A. Heslin Campbell, J. P., Dunnette, M. D., Lawler, E. E., & Weick, K. E. (1970). Managerial behavior, performance and effectiveness. New York: McGraw Hill. Chatman, J. A., & Jehn, K. A. (1994). Assessing the relationship between industry characteristics and organizational culture: How different can you be? Academy of Management Journal, 37, 522–553. Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. (1997). What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23, 239–290. Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company. Costa, T., & McCrae, R. R. (1997). Stability and change in personality assessment: The Revised NEO Personality Inventory in the year 2000. Journal of Personality Assessment, 68, 86–94. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13, 319–340. DeRosa, D. M., Smith, C. L., & Hantula, D. A. (2007). The medium matters: Mining the longpromised merit of group interaction in creative idea generation tasks in a meta-analysis of the electronic group brainstorming literature. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 1549–1581. Devine, D. J., Clayton, L. D., Philips, J. L., Dunford, B. B., & Melner, S. B. (1999). Teams in organizations: Prevalence, characteristics, and effectiveness. Small Group Research, 30, 678–711. Diehl, M., & Stroebe, W. (1987). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward the solution of a riddle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 497–509. Diehl, M., & Stroebe, W. (1991). Productivity loss in idea-generating groups: Tracking down the blocking effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 392–403. Dugosh, K. L., & Paulus, P. B. (2005). Cognitive and social comparison processes in brainstorming. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 313–320. Dugosh, K. L., Paulus, P. B., Roland, E. J., & Yang, H. C. (2000). Cognitive stimulation in brainstorming. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 722–735. Dunbar, K. (1995). How scientists really reason: Scientific reasoning in real-world laboratories. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), The nature of insight (pp. 365–395). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Geen, R. G. (1985). Evaluation apprehension and response withholding in solution of anagrams. Personality and Individual Differences, 6, 293–298. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine. Griffin, M. A. (2007). Specifying organizational contexts: Systematic links between contexts and processes in organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28, 859–863. Gryskiewic, S. S. (1981). Applied creativity: A situational approach. Issues and Observations, 1, 3–4. Heslin, P. A., & Klehe, U. C. (2006). Self-efficacy. In S. G. Rogelberg (Ed.), Encyclopaedia of industrial/organizational psychology (Vol. 2. pp. 705–708). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Heslin, P. A., & Ochoa, J. D. (2008). Understanding and developing strategic corporate social responsibility. Organizational Dynamics, 37(2), 125–144. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. House, R., Rousseau, D. M., & Thomas-Hunt, M. (1995). The meso paradigm: A framework for the integration of micro and macro organizational behavior. Research in Organizational Behavior, 17, 71–114. IPCC (2007). Climate change 2007: Mitigation of climate change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on climate change. B. Metz, O. R. Davidson, P. R. Bosch, R. Dave, & L. A. Meyer (Eds.), Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. Copyright © The British Psychological Society Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society Brainwriting 143 Johns, G. (2006). The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review, 31, 386–408. Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1993). Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 681–706. Kerr, J., & Slocum, J. W. (2005). Managing corporate culture through reward systems. Academy of Management Executive, 19, 130–138. Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 3–90). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Krause, D. E. (2004). Influence-based leadership as a determinant of the inclination to innovate and of innovation-related behaviors: An empirical investigation. Leadership Quarterly, 15, 79–103. Kruglanski, A. W., & Webster, D. M. (1996). Motivated closing of the mind: ‘Seizing’ and ‘freezing’. Psychological Review, 103, 263–283. Larey, T. S., & Paulus, P. B. (1999). Group preference and convergent tendencies in small groups: A content analysis of group brainstorming performance. Creativity Research Journal, 12, 175–184. Latham, G. P. (2001). The importance of understanding and changing employee outcome expectancies for gaining commitment to an organizational goal. Personnel Psychology, 54, 707–716. Latham, G. P. (2007). A speculative perspective on the transfer of behavioral science findings to the workplace: ‘The times they are a-changin’. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1027–1032. Lau, D. C., & Murnighan, J. K. (1998). Demographic diversity and faultlines: The compositional dynamics of organizational groups. Academy of Management Review, 23, 325–340. Lau, D. C., & Murnighan, J. K. (2005). Interactions within groups and subgroups: The effects of demographic faultlines. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 645–659. Lee, C., & Farh, J. L. (2004). Joint effects of group efficacy and gender diversity on group cohesion and performance. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 53, 136–154. Leitenberg, H. (1990). Handbook of social and evaluation anxiety. New York: Plenum Press. Leonard, D., & Swap, W. C. (1999). When sparks fly: Igniting creativity in groups. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Locke, E. A. (1986). Generalizing from laboratory to field: Ecological validity or abstraction of essential elements. In E. A. Locke (Ed.), Generalizing from laboratory to field settings (pp. 1–9). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Luthans, F. (2005). Organizational behavior. New York: McGraw Hill. McClelland, D. C. (1956). Personality. Annual Review of Psychology, 7, 39–62. Mischel, W. (1968). Personality and assessment. New York: Wiley. Mullen, B., Johnson, C., & Salas, E. (1991). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: A metaanalytic integration. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 12, 3–23. Nelson, R. E., & Gopalan, S. (2003). Do organizational cultures replicate national cultures? Isomorphism, rejection and reciprocal opposition in the corporate values of three countries. Organization Studies, 24, 1115–1151. Nijstad, B. A., & Stroebe, W. (2006). How the group affects the mind: A cognitive model of idea generation in groups. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 186–213. Osborn, A. F. (1957). Applied imagination: Principles and procedures of creative problemsolving. New York: C. Scribner’s Sons. Parnes, S. J., & Meadow, A. (1959). Effect of ‘brainstorming’ instructions on creative problemsolving by trained and untrained subjects. Journal of Educational Psychology, 50, 171–176. Paulus, P. B. (2000). Groups, teams, and creativity: The creative potential of idea-generating groups. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 49, 237–262. Copyright © The British Psychological Society Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society 144 Peter A. Heslin Paulus, P. B., Dzindolet, M. T., Poletes, G., & Camacho, L. M. (1993). Perception of performance in group brainstorming: The illusion of group productivity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 78–89. Paulus, P. B., Larey, T. S., & Dzindolet, M. T. (2000). Creativity in groups and teams. In M. Turner (Ed.), Groups at work: Advances in theory and research (pp. 319–338). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Paulus, P. B., Larey, T. S., & Ortega, A. H. (1995). Performance and perceptions of brainstormers in an organizational setting. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 17, 249–265. Paulus, P. B., Larey, T. S., Putman, V. L., Leggett, K. L., & Roland, E. J. (1996). Social influence process in computer brainstorming. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 18, 3–14. Paulus, P. B., Nakui, T., Putman, V. L., & Brown, V. R. (2006). Effects of task instructions and brief breaks on brainstorming. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 10, 206–219. Paulus, P. B., & Yang, H. (2000). Idea generation in groups: A basis for creativity in organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82, 76–87. Pearsall, M. J., Ellis, A. P. J., & Evans, J. (2008). Unlocking the effects of gender faultlines on team creativity: Is activation the key? Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 225–234. Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. I. (2006). Hard facts, dangerous truths and total nonsense: Profiting from evidence-based management. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Rietzschel, E. F., Nijstad, B. A., & Stroebe, W. (2006). Productivity is not enough: A comparison of interactive and nominal brainstorming groups on idea generation and selection. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 244–251. Rogers, E. M. (1962). Diffusion of innovations (1st ed.). New York: Free Press. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press. Rousseau, D. M. (2006). Is there such a thing as ‘evidence-based management’? Academy of Management Review, 31, 256–269. Rousseau, D. M. (2007). A sticky, leveraging, and scalable strategy for high-quality connections between organizational practice and science. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1037–1042. Rousseau, D. M., & Fried, Y. (2001). Location, location, location: Contextualizing organizational research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 1–13. Rousseau, D. M., & House, R. J. (1994). Meso organizational behavior: Avoiding three fundamental biases. In C. L. Cooper & D. M. Rousseau (Eds.), Trends in organizational behavior (pp. 13–30). Oxford, UK: Wiley. Rousseau, D. M., & McCarthy, S. (2007). Educating managers from an evidence-based perspective. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 6, 84–101. Roy, M. C., Gauvin, S., & Limayem, M. (1996). Electronic group brainstorming: The role of feedback on productivity. Small Group Research, 27, 215–247. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78. Shepperd, J. A. (1993). Productivity loss in performance groups: A motivation analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 67–81. Simonton, D. K. (2000). Creativity: Cognitive, developmental, personal, and social aspects. American Psychologist, 55, 151–158. Stasson, M. F., & Bradshaw, S. D. (1995). Explanations of individual-group performance differences: What sort of ‘bonus’ can be gained through group interaction? Small Group Research, 26, 296–308. Staw, B. M., Sandelands, L. E., & Dutton, J. E. (1981). Threat-rigidity effects in organizational behavior: A multilevel analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, 501–524. Suddaby, R. (2006). From the editors: What grounded theory is not. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 633–642. Sutton, R. I., & Hargadon, A. (1996). Brainstorming groups in context. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 685–718. Copyright © The British Psychological Society Reproduction in any form (including the internet) is prohibited without prior permission from the Society Brainwriting 145 Taylor, D. W., Berry, P. C., & Block, C. H. (1958). Does group participation when using brainstorming facilitate or inhibit creative thinking? Administrative Science Quarterly, 3, 23–47. Thompson, L. (2003). Improving the creativity of organizational work groups. Academy of Management Executive, 17, 96–109. VanGundy, A. B. (1983). Brainwriting for new product ideas: An alternative to brainstorming. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 1, 67–74. Vroom, V. H. (2003). Educating managers for decision making and leadership. Management Decision, 41, 968–978. Vroom, V. H., & Yetton, P. W. (1973). Leadership and decision making. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press. Weisband, S. P., Schneider, S. K., & Connolly, T. (1995). Computer-mediated communication and social information: Status salience and status differences. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1124–1151. West, M. A. (2002). Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: An integrative model of creativity and innovation implementation in work groups. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 51, 355–387. Whiteoak, J. W., Chalip, L., & Hort, L. K. (2004). Assessing group efficacy: Comparing three methods of measurement. Small Group Research, 35, 158–173. Received 9 May 2007; revised version received 14 January 2008