Journal of Business and Psychology

, Volume 30, Issue 4, pp 621–639

Is Being a Jerk Necessary for Originality? Examining the Role of Disagreeableness in the Sharing and Utilization of Original Ideas

Article

Abstract

Purpose

We aimed to investigate the relationship between lower levels of agreeableness (i.e., disagreeableness) and innovation process such as idea generation, promotion, and group utilization, as well as potential contextual moderators of these relationships.

Design/Methodology/Approach

In the first laboratory study (n = 201), we examined links among individual and group measures of agreeableness, originality of ideas generated, and group utilization of ideas. In a second laboratory study (n = 291), we utilized confederates in an on-line environment to investigate the originality of ideas shared with group members after manipulating both feedback and originality of ideas generated by others.

Findings

In study 1, disagreeableness was generally unrelated to the originality of ideas generated, but positively related to group utilization of ideas. Similar trends were observed in study 2 with the caveat that disagreeableness was positively linked to originality of ideas shared only when the social context was unsupportive of novel ideas and confederate group members shared original ideas.

Implications

Disagreeable personalities may be helpful in combating the challenges faced in the innovation process, but social context is also critical. In particular, an environment supportive of original thinking may negate the utility of disagreeableness and, in fact, disagreeableness may hamper the originality of ideas shared.

Originality/Value

Few studies have investigated the relationship between disagreeableness and originality and even fewer have examined both the social context and stage of innovation in which these relationships may occur. Results suggest there is value in considering each in future investigations.

Keywords

Creativity Personality Agreeableness Teams 

References

  1. Amabile, T. M., & Conti, R. (1999). Changes in the work environment for creativity during downsizing. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 630–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, C., Lindsay, J. J., & Bushman, B. J. (1999). Research in the psychology laboratory: Truth or triviality? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8, 3–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson, N., Potocnik, K., & Zhou, J. (2014). Innovation and creativity in organizations: A state of science review, prospective commentary, and guiding framework. Journal of Management, 40, 1297–1333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson, N., & West, M. A. (1996). The team climate inventory: Development of the TCI and its applications in teambuilding for innovativeness. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5, 53–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Anderson, N. R., & West, M. A. (1998). Measuring climate for work group innovation: Development and validation of the team climate inventory. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 235–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ashford, S. J., Blatt, R., & VandeWalle, D. (2003). Reflections on the looking glass: A review of research on feedback-seeking behaviors in organizations. Journal of Management, 29(6), 773–799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2007). Empirical, theoretical, and practical advantages of the HEXACO model of personality structure. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11, 150–166.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Austen, B. (2012, August). The story of Steve Jobs: An inspiration of cautionary tale? Wired Magazine. pp.73–78.Google Scholar
  9. Axtell, C. M., Holman, D. J., Unsworth, K. L., Wall, T. D., & Waterson, P. E. (2000). Shopfloor innovation: Facilitating the suggestion and implementation of ideas. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73, 265–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prencitce-Hall.Google Scholar
  11. Barron, F., & Harrington, D. (1981). Creativity, intelligence, and personality. Annual Review of Psychology, 32, 439–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Basadur, M., Runco, M. A., & Vega, L. A. (2000). Understanding how creative thinking skills, attitudes and behaviors work together: A casual process model. Journal of Creative Behavior, 34, 77–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Batey, M., & Furnham, A. (2006). Creativity, intelligence, and personality: A critical review of the scattered literature. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 132, 355–429.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Berger, R. M., Guilford, J. P., & Christensen, P. R. (1957). A factor-analytic study of planning abilities. Psychological Monographs, 71, 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Besemer, S. P., & O’Quin, K. (1999). Confirming the three-factor creative products analysis matrix model in an American sample. Creativity Research Journal, 12, 287–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Blair, C. S., & Mumford, M. D. (2007). Errors in idea evaluation: Preference for the unoriginal? The Journal of Creative Behavior, 41, 27–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Blank, S. (2013). Why the lean start-up changes everything. Harvard Business Review, 91, 63–72.Google Scholar
  18. Boatman, J. E., & Wellins, R. S. (2011). Global leadership forecast 2011. Pittsburgh, PA: Development Dimensions International.Google Scholar
  19. Brown, B., & Anthony, S. D. (2011). How P&G tripled its innovation success rate. Harvard Business Review, 89, 64–72.Google Scholar
  20. Burch, G. J. (2006). The “creative-schizotype”: Help or hindrance to team-level innovation? University of Auckland Business Review, 8, 43–53.Google Scholar
  21. Burch, G. S., Pavelis, C., Hemsley, D. R., & Corr, P. J. (2006). Schizotypy and creativity in visual artists. British Journal of Psychology, 97, 177–190.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Choi, J. N. (2004). Individual and contextual predictors of creative performance: The mediating role of psychological processes. Creativity Research Journal, 16, 187–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cleveland, J. N., Lim, A. S., & Murphy, K. R. (2007). Feedback phobia? Why employees do not want to give or receive performance feedback. In J. Langan-Fox & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Research companion to the dysfunctional workplace: Management challenges and symptoms (pp. 168–186). London: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  24. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.Google Scholar
  25. Colquitt, J. A. (2008). From the editors: Publishing laboratory research in AMJ: A question of when, not if. Academy of Management Journal, 51, 616–620.Google Scholar
  26. Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design & analysis issues for field settings. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.Google Scholar
  27. Cooper, R. G. (1990). New products: What distinguishes the winders? Research Technology Management, 33(6), 27–31.Google Scholar
  28. Cooper, R. G., & Kleinschmidt, E. J. (1986). An investigation into the new product process: Steps, deficiencies, and impact. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 3, 71–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Costa, P. T., McCrae, R. R., & Dye, D. D. (1991). Facet scales for agreeableness and conscientiousness: A revision of the NEO Personality Inventory. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 887–889.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Crawford, C. M. (1977). Marketing research and the new product failure rate. Journal of Marketing, 41, 51–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Cruz, G. (2010, April). A star is born: Thomas Edison. Time Magazine. Retrieved from, http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1981000_1980999_1981124,00.html
  32. Dawson, J., & Richter, A. W. (2006). Probing three-way interactions in moderated multiple regression: Development and application of a slope difference test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 917–926.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Feist, G. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 290–309.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  35. Frese, M., Teng, E., & Wijnen, C. J. D. (1999). Helping to improve suggestion systems: Predictors of giving suggestions in companies. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 1139–1155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Frey, M. C., & Detterman, D. K. (2004). Scholastic assessment or g? The relationship between the scholastic assessment test and general cognitive ability. Psychological Science, 15, 373–377.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative “description of personality”: The big-five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1216–1229.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Goldberg, L. R. (1999). A broad-bandwith, public domain, personality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor models. In I. Mervielde, I. Deary, F. De Fruyt, & F. Ostendorf (Eds.), Personality Psychology in Europe (Vol. 7, pp. 7–28). Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M. C., Cloninger, C. R., et al. (2006). The International Personality Item Pool and the future of public-domain personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 84–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hall, W. B., & MacKinnon, D. W. (1969). Personality inventory correlates of creativity among architects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53, 322–326.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Highhouse, S., & Gillespie, J. Z. (2009). Do samples really matter that much? In C. E. Lance & R. J. Vandenberg (Eds.), Statistical and methodological myths and urban legends: Doctrine, verity, and fable in the organizational and social sciences (pp. 249–267). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  42. Hoff, E. V., Carlsson, I. M., & Smith, G. J. W. (2013). Personality. In M. D. Mumford (Ed.), Handbook of Organizational Creativity (pp. 241–270). London: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  43. Hoffman, D. A., & Gavin, M. B. (1998). Centering decisions in hierarchical linear models: Implications for research in organizations. Journal of Management, 24, 623–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Howell, J. M., & Boies, K. (2004). Champions of technological innovation: The influence of contextual knowledge on role orientation, idea generation, and idea promotion on champion emergence. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 123–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Jackman, J., & Strober, M. (2003). Fear of feedback. Harvard Business Review, 81, 101–107.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Janssen, O. (2000). Job demands, perceptions of effort-reward fairness, and innovative work behavior. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73, 287–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Janssen, O. (2005). The joint impact of perceived influence and supervisor supportiveness on employee innovative behavior. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78, 573–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kim, K. H. (2008). Meta-analyses of the relationship of creative achievement to both IQ and divergent thinking test scores. Journal of Creative Behavior, 42, 107–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Kim, T., Hon, A. H. Y., & Lee, D. (2010). Proactive personality and employee creativity: The effects of job creativity requirement and supervisor support for creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 22, 37–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. King, L. A., McKee Walker, L., & Broyles, S. J. (1996). Creativity and the five-factor model. Journal of Research in Personality, 30, 189–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Klein, K. J., & Kozlowski, (2000). Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  52. Kuncel, N. R., Crede, M., & Thomas, L. L. (2005). The validity of self-reported grade point averages, class ranks, and test scores: A meta-analysis and review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 75, 63–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Lee, K., Ogunfowora, B., & Ashton, M. C. (2005). Personality traits beyond the big five: Are they within the HEXACO space? Journal of Personality, 73, 1438–1463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. (2006). Voice and cooperative behavior as contrasting forms of contextual performance: Evidence of differential relationships with big five personality characteristics and cognitive ability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 326–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Lim, H. S., & Choi, J. N. (2009). Testing an alternative relationship between individual and contextual predictors of creative performance. Social Behavior and Personality, 37, 117–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Ma, H. H. (2009). The effect size of variables associated with creativity: A meta-analysis. Creativity Research Journal, 21, 30–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Madjar, N., Oldham, G. R., & Pratt, M. G. (2002). There’s no place like home? The contributions of work and non-work creativity support to employees’ creative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 757–767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Marks, G. (2011). Steve Jobs was a jerk. Good for him. Forbes. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/quickerbettertech/2011/10/10/steve-jobs-was-a-jerk-good-for-him/
  59. Martin, B. (2013). Difficult Men. New York: Penguin Press.Google Scholar
  60. McCrae, R. R. (1987). Creativity, divergent thinking, and openness to experience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 1258–1265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. McDermid, C. D. (1965). Some correlates of creativity in engineering personnel. Journal of Applied Psychology, 49, 14–19.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Meng, Xiao-Li, Rosenthal, R., & Rubin, D. B. (1992). Comparing correlated correlation coefficients. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 172–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Miron-Spektor, E., Erez, M., & Naveh, E. (2011). The effect of conformist and attentive-to-detail members on team innovation: Reconciling the innovation paradox. Academy of Management Journal, 54, 740–760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Montag, T., Maertz, C. P., & Baer, M. (2012). A critical analysis of the workplace creativity criterion space. Journal of Management, 38(4), 1362–1386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Mohammed, S., & Nadkarni, S. (2011). Temporal diversity and team performance: The moderating role of team temporal leadership. Academy of Management Journal, 54, 489–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Mook, D. G. (1983). In defense of external invalidity. American Psychologist, 38, 379–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Mueller, J. S., & Kamdar, D. (2011). Why seeking help from teammates is a blessing and a curse: A theory of help seeking and individual creativity in team contexts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 263–276.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Mueller, J. S., Melwani, S., & Goncalco, J. A. (2011). The bias against creativity: Why people desire but reject creative ideas. Psychological Science, 23, 13–17.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. Mumford, M., & Gustafson, S. (1988). Creativity syndrome: Integration, application, and innovation. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 27–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Mumford, M. D., & Hunter, S. T. (2005). Innovation in organizations: A multi-level perspective on creativity. In F. J. Yammarino & F. Dansereau (Eds.), Research in multi-level issues (Vol. IV, pp. 11–74). Oxford, England: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  71. Murray, H. A. (1938). Explorations in personality. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  72. Nemeth, C. (1986). Differential contributions of majority vs minority influence. Psychological Review, 93, 23–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Nezlek, J. B., & Zyzniewski, L. E. (1998). Using hierarchical linear modeling to analyze grouped data. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 2, 313–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Ohly, S., Sonnentag, S., & Pluntke, F. (2006). Routinization, work characteristics, and their relationships with creative and proactive behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, 257–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at work. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 607–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Paulus, P. B., Dzindolet, M., & Kohn, N. W. (2013). Collaborative creativity—Group creativity and team innovation. In M. D. Mumford (Ed.), Handbook of Organizational Creativity (pp. 327–357). London: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  77. Pirola-Merlo, A., & Mann, L. (2004). The relationship between individual creativity and team creativity: Aggregating across people and time. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 235–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Ragazzoni, R., Baiardi, P., Zotti, A. M., Anderson, N., & West, M. (2002). Italian validation of the team climate inventory: A measure of team climate for innovation. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 17, 325–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Redmond, M. R., Mumford, M. D., & Teach, R. (1993). Putting creativity to work: Effects of leader behavior on subordinate creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 55, 120–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Silvia, P. J., Kaufman, J. C., Reiter-Palmon, R., & Wigert, B. (2011). Cantankerous creativity: Honesty-humility, agreeableness, and the HEXACO structure of creative achievement. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 687–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Somech, A., & Drach-Zahavy, A. (2013). Translating team creativity to innovation implementation: The role of team composition and climate for innovation. Journal of Management, 39, 684–708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Sternberg, R. J., & O’Hara, L. A. (1999). Creativity and intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 251–272). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  83. Taggar, S. (2002). Individual creativity and group ability to utilize individual creative resources: A multilevel model. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 315–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Tett, R. P., & Burnett, D. D. (2003). A personality trait-based interactionist model of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 500–517.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. Tett, R. P., & Guterman, H. A. (2000). Situation trait relevance, trait expression, and cross-situational consistency: Testing a principle of trait activation. Journal of Research in Personality, 34, 397–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2004). The Pygmalion process and employee creativity. Journal of Management, 30, 413–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Unsworth, K. L., Wall, T. D., & Carter, A. (2005). Creative requirement: A neglected construct in the study of employee creativity? Group and Organization Management, 30, 541–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Vincent, A. S., Decker, B. P., & Mumford, M. D. (2002). Divergent thinking, intelligence, and expertise: A test of alternative models. Creativity Research Journal, 14, 163–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin, R. W. (1993). Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Academy of Management Review, 18, 293–321.Google Scholar
  90. Zhou, J. (2003). When the presence of creative coworkers is related to creativity: Role of supervisor close monitoring, developmental feedback, and creative personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 413–422.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  91. Zhou, J., & George, J. M. (2001). When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: Encouraging the expression of voice. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 682–696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Industrial & Organizational AreaPennsylvania State UniversityState CollegeUSA
  2. 2.College of BusinessStony Brook UniversityStony BrookUSA

Personalised recommendations