Ella Miron-Spektor

Others' anger makes people work harder not smarter: the effect of observing anger and sarcasm on creative and analytic thinking

The authors examine whether and how observing anger influences thinking processes and problem-solving ability. In 3 studies, the authors show that participants who listened to an angry customer were more successful in solving analytic problems, but less successful in solving creative problems compared with participants who listened to an emotionally neutral customer. In Studies 2 and 3, the authors further show that observing anger communicated through sarcasm enhances complex thinking and solving of creative problems. Prevention orientation is argued to be the latent variable that mediated the effect of observing anger on complex thinking. The present findings help reconcile inconsistent findings in previous research, promote theory about the effects of observing anger and sarcasm, and contribute to understanding the effects of anger in the workplace.

The effects of anger in the workplace: When, where, and why observing anger enhances or hinders performance

Most anger research has adopted a within-person view, focusing on the effects of experienced anger on a persons feelings, cognition, and behavior. Less research has examined the effects of anger expressed by one person on other people in the workplace. We review available literature on the interpersonal effects of anger and propose a theoretical framework that addresses two main questions (1) What mechanisms can explain the effects of observed anger on other people? and (2) What factors may strengthen or attenuate these effects? We propose that observed anger affects observers’ performance via emotional and cognitive routes that are interrelated, and that this effect depends on the properties of the expressed anger, the situation in which the anger occurs, and the task being performed by the observer.

When and why prior task experience fosters team creativity

This chapter presents a theoretical framework for the effects of prior task experience on team creativity. We distinguish among different types of experience within teams, namely direct and indirect prior task experience. We argue that different types of prior task experience differentially influence team creativity, and that the prior experience–creativity relationship is mediated by the development and use of transactive memory systems (TMS). We also argue that team characteristics such as identity and communication moderate the effect of prior task experience on TMS, and task characteristics such as uncertainty and interdependence moderate the effect of TMS on group creativity.

Knowledge Utilization, Coordination, and Team Performance

Considerable research has established the superior performance of teams on which team members utilize specialized knowledge and also develop transactive processes that promote coordination. Less is known, however, about the consequences for team performance when team members only possess one of the two productivity factors. We develop and test a framework highlighting the distinct challenges these teams will face. In particular, our results show that each productivity factor contributed significantly more to team performance when the other factor was present. And our findings also illustrate a potential failure mode for knowledge utilization. If team members could not coordinate their collective efforts, utilizing knowledge undermined team performance. Our framework outlines a similar risk for too much coordination, if team members cannot utilize their specialized knowledge and are asked to perform a task with a “rugged” performance landscape. We discuss the implications of our framework and results for t...

Chapter 3: Psychological Factors Surrounding Disagreement in Multicultural Design Team Meetings

© 2017 Taylor & Francis Group, London, UK. Design team problem-solving is challenging to study because the strategies and behaviours exhibited by teams can vary considerably with team composition, design environment and task demands. As a consequence, the tools and methods developed to improve team strategies and behaviours are not always empirically informed. Existing work on team problem-solving tends to adopt one of two perspectives. The first relates to design cognition and focuses on how the team represents and tackles the problem. The second relates to teamwork and focuses on how the composition, structure and dynamics of the team affect the way it works together. In this study, we adopt both these perspectives when analysing the dialogue and behaviours of a professional design team in meetings over the course of a project. Content analysis of team members’ verbal communications (with pre-defined codes) is used to characterise the team’s problemsolving strategy while qualitative observations (without pre-defined codes) are used to characterise team dynamics, integration and effectiveness during different problemsolving episodes. Our findings suggest that leadership can play an important role in design problem-solving. The team leader shapes the team’s problem-solving strategy by coordinating team discussions and helps the team to build up shared representations by facilitating closed-loop communication. These findings suggest that good leadership practices – and the team processes that they facilitate – are important in small task-driven teams and not only in larger team units such as organisations.

Middle Ground Approach to Paradox: Within-and between-culture examination of the creative benefits of paradoxical frames

Thriving in increasingly complex and ambiguous environments requires creativity and the capability to reconcile conflicting demands. Recent evidence with Western samples has suggested that paradoxical frames, or mental templates that encourage individuals to recognize and embrace contradictions, could produce creative benefits. We extended the timely, but understudied, topic by studying the nuances of for whom and why creative advantages of paradoxical frames emerge. We suggest that people endorsing a middle ground approach are less likely to scrutinize conflict and reconcile with integrative solutions, thus receiving less creative benefits of paradoxical frames. Five studies that examined individual and cultural differences in middle ground endorsement support our theory. Study 1 found that paradoxical frames increased creativity, but failed to replicate that experienced conflict mediated the relationship in a Taiwanese sample. In both within- and between-culture analysis, we showed that the creative advantages of thinking paradoxically and experiencing conflict emerged among individuals who endorse lower (vs. higher) levels of middle ground (Study 2) and among Israelis whose culture predominantly endorses middle ground strategy less, but not among Singaporeans whose culture predominantly endorses middle ground more (Study 3). Study 4 further demonstrated the causal role of middle ground in the paradox—conflict—creativity link. To answer “why,” Study 5 situationally induced integrative complex thinking that sets distinctions and forms syntheses among contradictory elements, and found that low endorsers of middle ground performed more creatively when they engaged integrative complex thinking to cope with paradoxes. This program of studies offers important insights on harnessing paradoxical experiences to catalyze creativity.

Abide, Push Back or Challenge? Face Loss and Creativity in Face, Dignity and Honor Cultures

Creativity is universally valued and desired, yet expressing creative ideas may be difficult out of fear of discrediting one’s social image. This study is the first to examine a relationship between face and creativity across multiple cultures. In Study 1, we found that face concern - an individual motivation to maintain one’s social image - was negatively related to creativity. In Study 2, we showed that face loss experience, or the experience of feeling disrespected by others, elicited different emotions and had different effects on prevention focus and creativity in different cultures. Losing face decreased the creativity of participants from a face culture (Japan), increased creativity in an honor culture (Israel) and had no effect on creativity in dignity culture (US). Face loss increased the prevention focus in the face culture, decreased prevention focus in the honor culture, and had no effect on prevention focus in dignity culture. A mediated moderation analysis revealed that prevention focus expl...

Psychological factors surrounding disagreement in multicultural design team meetings

Abstract Our research contrasts two theories of creativity in multicultural teams. The dual-process model focuses on the degree of diversity, whereas cross-cultural psychology focuses on specific cultural compositions. In individualistic cultures, team members express more conflicts and benefit from it, compared to in collectivistic cultures that emphasise harmony. The relative representation of members from these cultures may affect team dynamics, conflict and creativity. We coded over 3100 speaker turns in the 11th Design Thinking Research Symposium data-set for the presence of disagreements and examined the effects of conflict phase and team diversity on creativity, promotion and prevention approaches using Linguistic Inquiry Word Count measures. We found that micro-conflicts increased insight words in the moment of the conflict. Individuals in more diverse team meetings of Scandinavians and South-East Asians expressed fewer conflicts than teams dominated by Scandinavians and were less likely to focus on potential gains when experiencing micro-conflicts. Regardless of conflict, the more culturally diverse teams were more likely to use insight and promotion words overall. There were no effects for prevention. These findings extend extant theory to different types of heterogeneous teams in a real-world design setting. This study is novel in combining theory on team cultural diversity with a micro-process method.