15 March 2015

Creative Collaboration

Reference: Elsbach, K. D., & Flynn, F. J. (2013). Creative Collaboration and the Self‐Concept: A Study of Toy Designers. Journal of Management Studies, 50(4), 515-544.

Abstract: In this paper, we explored how collaborative behaviours were related to the self-concepts of creative workers. Our findings, derived from a qualitative study of corporate toy designers, showed that the personal (vs. social) identities of toy designers were most strongly related to collaborative behaviours. Further, collaborative behaviours defined as idea giving were most congruent with all toy designers' personal identities, while collaborative behaviours defined as idea taking were most incongruent with those identities. Finally, specific collaborative behaviours related to specific types of personal identities (e.g. the collaborative behaviour of ‘incorporating the ideas of others’ was especially incongruent with ‘artistic’ personal identities). Together, these results suggest that promoting collaboration among creative workers may require attention to not only idea-giving behaviours and social identities (as suggested by most extant theories), but also to idea-taking behaviours and personal identities. We discuss the implications of these findings for theories of creative collaboration and identity in organizations.

Notes: This is probably one of the best papers about creative collaboration that I've read in a while. Kimberly D. Elsbach did a very interesting and thorough job here, collecting massive amounts of data over long time periods of interviews and observations of product designers (unclear if they were a mix of industrial designers and design engineers). I think that sometimes qualitative research is considered not as rigorous as the average quantitative approach, but I'd use this as an example of what seems like a quite thorough and rigorous piece of work. The designers are then categorised as "artistic" or "problem solvers", which in principle I'd agree based on my years of experience working with designers, however the choice of words for these labels is rather unfortunate. I can also add that some designers are quite able to switch between these two archetypes depending on the situation, type of project, group or dyad dynamics, goals, etc. But overall, a very interesting contribution and I'll be citing this paper in my work. Ironically, in its first 2 years, it has only been cited 2 times. Another example of good research not being read enough.

No comments:

Post a Comment