Is Being a Jerk Necessary for Originality? Examining the Role of Disagreeableness in the Sharing and Utilization of Original Ideas
- 1.4k Downloads
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
KeywordsCreativity Personality Agreeableness Teams
- Austen, B. (2012, August). The story of Steve Jobs: An inspiration of cautionary tale? Wired Magazine. pp.73–78.Google Scholar
- Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prencitce-Hall.Google Scholar
- Blank, S. (2013). Why the lean start-up changes everything. Harvard Business Review, 91, 63–72.Google Scholar
- Boatman, J. E., & Wellins, R. S. (2011). Global leadership forecast 2011. Pittsburgh, PA: Development Dimensions International.Google Scholar
- Brown, B., & Anthony, S. D. (2011). How P&G tripled its innovation success rate. Harvard Business Review, 89, 64–72.Google Scholar
- Burch, G. J. (2006). The “creative-schizotype”: Help or hindrance to team-level innovation? University of Auckland Business Review, 8, 43–53.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design & analysis issues for field settings. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.Google Scholar
- Cooper, R. G. (1990). New products: What distinguishes the winders? Research Technology Management, 33(6), 27–31.Google Scholar
- 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
- Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Klein, K. J., & Kozlowski, (2000). Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
- 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/
- Martin, B. (2013). Difficult Men. New York: Penguin Press.Google Scholar
- 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
- Murray, H. A. (1938). Explorations in personality. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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