Our Research on Comparing Idea-Sharing Versus Unmindcuffing the Crowd

  • Ann MajchrzakEmail author
  • Arvind Malhotra


We describe our field research in which we compare the rated innovativeness of crowds who were exposed to the Idea-Sharing process against “unmindcuffed” crowds. To just collect the data, we had to embark on a painstaking five-year effort of data collection and analysis because all third-party vendors were using the Idea-Sharing process. We describe details about how we ran the 20 crowdsourcing events in the field with partner organizations, making changes to third-party software to create the condition of unmindcuffing the crowd. We randomly assigned events to either the Idea-Sharing or the Unmindcuffed condition. We had executives rate the ideas for their novelty, implementability, and competitive advantage. We found that the unmindcuffed crowds produce more innovative solutions than the more traditionally used Idea-Sharing process!


  1. Abbott, A. (2001). Time Matters: On Theory and Method. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  2. Alam, S. L., & Campbell, J. (2017). Temporal Motivations of Volunteers to Participate in Cultural Crowdsourcing Work. Information Systems Research, 28(4), 744–759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in Context: Update to the Social Psychology of Creativity. Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar
  4. Bailey, D. E., Leonardi, P. M., & Barley, S. R. (2012). The Lure of the Virtual. Organization Science, 23(5), 1485–1504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baralou, E., & Tsoukas, H. (2015). How Is New Organizational Knowledge Created in a Virtual Context? An Ethnographic Study. Organization Studies, 36(5), 593–620.Google Scholar
  6. Berg, J. (2016). Balancing on the Creative High-Wire: Forecasting the Success of Novel Ideas in Organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 61, 433–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bjelland, O. M., & Wood, R. C. (2008). An Inside View of IBM’s’ Innovation Jam’. MIT Sloan Management Review, 50(1), 32.Google Scholar
  8. Dennis, A., & Williams, M. (2003). Electronic Brainstorming. In Group Creativity: Innovation Through Collaboration (pp. 160–178). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dennis, A. R., Wixom, B. H., & Vandenberg, R. J. (2001). Understanding Fit and Appropriation Effects in Group Support Systems Via Meta-Analysis. MIS Quarterly, 25(2), 167–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ewenstein, B., & Whyte, J. (2009). Knowledge Practices in Design: The Role of Visual Representations as ‘Epistemic Objects’. Organization Studies, 30(1), 7–30.Google Scholar
  11. Faraj, S., Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Majchrzak, A. (2011). Knowledge Collaboration in Online Communities. Organization Science, 22(5), 1224–1239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Feng, J., Zhang, Y., Liu, X., Zhang, L., & Han, X. (2018). Just the Right Amount of Ethics Inspires Creativity: A Cross-Level Investigation of Ethical Leadership, Intrinsic Motivation, and Employee Creativity. Journal of Business Ethics, 153(3), 645–658.Google Scholar
  13. Fuller, J., Hutter, K., Hautz, J., & Matzler, K. (2014). User Roles and Contributions in Innovation-Contest Communities. Journal of Management Information Systems, 31(1), 273–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Goffman, E. (1959). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  15. Hackman, J. R., & Kaplan, R. E. (1974). Interventions into Group Process: An Approach to Improving the Effectiveness of Groups. Decision Sciences, 5(3), 459–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hutter, K., Hautz, J., Füller, J., Mueller, J., & Matzler, K. (2011). Communitition: The Tension Between Competition and Collaboration in Community-Based Design Contests. Creativity and Innovation Management, 20(1), 3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jeppesen, L. B., & Lakhani, K. R. (2010). Marginality and Problem-Solving Effectiveness in Broadcast Shar. Organization Science, 21(5), 1016–1033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kaufmann, N., Schulze, T., & Veit, D. (2011, August). More Than Fun and Money: Worker Motivation in Crowdsourcing – A Study on Mechanical Turk. AMCIS, 11, 1–11.Google Scholar
  19. Kristensson, P., & Magnusson, P. R. (2010). Tuning Users’ Innovativeness During Ideation. Creativity and Innovation Management, 19, 147–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Leimeister, J. M., Huber, M., Bretschneider, U., & Krcmar, H. (2009). Leveraging Crowdsourcing: Activation-Supporting Components for IT-Based Ideas Competition. Journal of Management Information Systems, 26(1), 197–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Leonardi, P. M. (2014). Social Media, Knowledge Sharing, and Innovation: Toward a Theory of Communication Visibility. Information Systems Research, 25(4), 796–816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Luo, X., Slotegraaf, R. J., & Pan, X. (2006). Cross-Functional “Coopetition”: The Simultaneous Role of Cooperation and Competition Within Firms. Journal of Marketing, 70(2), 67–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mächler, M., & Bühlmann, P. (2004). Variable Length Markov Chains: Methodology, Computing, and Software. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 13(2), 435–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mack, T., & Landau, C. (2015). Winners, Losers, and Deniers: Self-Selection in Crowd Innovation Contests and the Roles of Motivation, Creativity, and Skills. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 37, 52–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Magnusson, P. R. (2009). Exploring the Contributions of Involving Ordinary Users in Ideation of Technology-Based Services. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 26, 578–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Majchrzak, A., & Malhotra, A. (2016). Effect of Knowledge-Sharing Trajectories on Innovative Outcomes in Temporary Online Crowds. Information Systems Research, 27(4), 685–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Majchrzak, A., Griffith, T., Reez, D., & Alexy, O. (2018). Organizations Designed for Grand Challenges: Generative Dilemmas and Implications for Organization Design Theory. Academy of Management Discoveries, 4(4), 472–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Malhotra, A., & Majchrzak, A. (in press). Engaging Customer Care Employees in Internal Collaborative Crowdsourcing: Managing the Inherent Tensions and Associated Challenges. Human Resource Management.
  29. Malhotra, A., Majchrzak, A., Kesebi, L., & Looram, S. (2017a). Developing Innovative Solutions Through Internal Crowdsourcing. Sloan Management Review, 58(4), 73–79.Google Scholar
  30. Malhotra, A., Majchrzak, A., & Niemiec, R. (2017b). Using Public Crowds for Open Strategy Formulation: Mitigating the Risks of Knowledge Representation Gaps. Long Range Planning, 50(3), 397–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Malinen, S. (2015). Understanding User Participation in Online Communities: A Systematic Literature Review of Empirical Studies. Computers in Human Behavior, 46, 228–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Massa, F. G. (2017). Guardians of the Internet: Building and Sustaining the Anonymous Online Community. Organization Studies, 38(7), 959–988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. McFarland, L. A., & Ployhart, R. E. (2015). Social Media: A Contextual Framework to Guide Research and Practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(6), 1653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mueller, J., Melwani, S., Loewenstein, J., & Deal, J. J. (2018). Reframing the Decision-Makers’ Dilemma: Towards a Social Context Model of Creative Idea Recognition. Academy of Management Journal, 61(1), 94–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nembhard, I. M., & Edmondson, A. C. (2006). Making It Safe: The Effects of Leader Inclusiveness and Professional Status on Psychological Safety and Improvement Efforts in Health Care Teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 27(7), 941–966.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Nicolini, D., Mengis, J., & Swan, J. (2012). Understanding the Role of Objects in Cross-Disciplinary Collaboration. Organization Science, 23(3), 612–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nunamaker, J. F., Jr., Applegate, L. M., & Konsynski, B. R. (1987). Facilitating Group Creativity: Experience with a Group Decision Support System. Journal of Management Information Systems, 3(4), 5–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Piezunka, H., & Dahlander, L. (2015). Distant Shar, Narrow Attention: How Crowding Alters Organization’s Filtering of Suggestions in Crowdsourcing. Academy of Management Journal, 58(3), 856–880.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pinsonneault, A., & Heppel, N. (1997). Anonymity in Group Support Systems Research: A New Conceptualization, Measure, and Contingency Framework. Journal of Management Information Systems, 14(3), 89–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rains, S. A., & Scott, C. R. (2007). To Identify or Not to Identify: A Theoretical Model of Receiver Responses to Anonymous Communication. Communication Theory, 17(1), 61–91.Google Scholar
  41. Rogstadius, J., Kostakos, V., Kittur, A., Smus, B., Laredo, J., & Vukovic, M. (2011). An Assessment of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation on Task Performance in Crowdsourcing Markets. ICWSM, 11, 17–21.Google Scholar
  42. Shadish, W. R., Clark, M. H., & Steiner, P. M. (2008). Can Nonrandomized Experiments Yield Accurate Answers? A Randomized Experiment Comparing Random and Nonrandom. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 103(484), 1334–1344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Symonds, M. R., & Moussalli, A. (2011). A Brief Guide to Model Selection, Multimodel Inference and Model Averaging in Behavioural Ecology Using Akaike’s Information Criterion. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 65(1), 13–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Teplitskiy, M., Ranu, H., Gray, G., Menietti, M., Guinan, E., & Lakhani, K. R. (2019, April). Do Experts Listen to Other Experts? Field Experimental Evidence from Scientific Peer Review. Harvard Business School Working Paper, No. 19–107.Google Scholar
  45. Treem, J. W., & Leonardi, P. M. (2013). Social Media Use in Organizations: Exploring the Affordances of Visibility, Editability, Persistence, and Association. Annals of the International Communication Association, 36(1), 143–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tsoukas, H. (2009). A Dialogical Approach to the Creation of New Knowledge in Organizations. Organization Science, 20(6), 941–957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Van Der Aalst, W. M., Ter Hofstede, A. H., Kiepuszewski, B., & Barros, A. P. (2003). Workflow Patterns. Distributed and Parallel Databases, 14(1), 5–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Von Hippel, E. (2005). Democratizing Innovation. Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Von Hippel, E. (2016). Free Innovation. Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Zheng, H., Li, D., & Hou, W. (2011). Task Design, Motivation, and Participation in Crowdsourcing Contests. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 15(4), 57–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA
  2. 2.University of North CarolinaChapel HillUSA

Personalised recommendations