Practice 2: Crowds Offering a Variety of Types of Knowledge Are More Innovative Than Crowds Suggesting More Ideas

  • Ann MajchrzakEmail author
  • Arvind Malhotra


We coded the knowledge traces contributed by the crowds. We were looking for the presence of any of four different types of knowledge shared about the problem description and solutions: facts, examples, paradoxical objectives, and ideas for solving the problem. We found that innovative ideas were NOT preceded by a larger variety of ideas! Instead, innovative ideas were preceded by the crowd posting a greater variety of different knowledge TYPES. Thus, it is not simply diversity of opinions that matter, it is the diversity in how each member frames their knowledge when they are sharing it during the crowdsourcing.


  1. Baer, M., Dirks, K., & Nickerson, J. (2013). Microfoundations of strategic problem formulation. Strategic Management Journal, 34(2), 197–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bayus, B. L. (2013). Crowdsourcing New Product Ideas over Time: An Analysis of the Dell IdeaStorm Community. Management Science, 59(1), 226–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brabham, D. (2008). Moving the Crowd at iStockphoto: The Composition of the Crowd and Motivations for Participation in a Crowdsourcing Application. First Monday. Retrieved from
  4. Carlile, P. (2004). Transferring, Translating, and Transforming: An Integrative Framework for Managing Knowledge Across Boundaries. Organization Science, 15(5), 555–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cohen, W., & Levinthal, D. (1990). Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and Innovation. (Technology, Organizations, and Innovation). Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cronin, M., & Weingart, L. (2007). Representational Gaps, Information Processing, and Conflict in Functionally Diverse Teams. The Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 761–773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Di, P., Wasko, M., & Hooker, R. (2010). Getting Customers’ Ideas to Work for You: Learning from Dell How to Succeed with Online User Innovation Communities. MIS Quarterly Executive, 9(4), 213–228.Google Scholar
  8. Dupont. (2015). Winners of the 2015 DuPont Safety and Sustainability Awards. Retrieved from
  9. Echterhoff, G., Higgins, E., & Levine, J. (2009). Shared Reality: Experiencing Commonality with Others’ Inner States About the World. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(5), 496–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ensley, M., & Pearce, C. (2001). Shared Cognition in Top Management Teams: Implications for New Venture Performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 22(2), 145–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fiore, S. M., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (2001). Group Dynamics and Shared Mental Model Development. In M. London (Ed.), How People Evaluate Others in Organizations (pp. 309–336). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  12. Firth, B., Hollenbeck, J., Miles, J., Ilgen, D., & Barnes, C. (2015). Same Page, Different Books: Extending Representational Gaps Theory to Enhance Performance in Multiteam Systems. Academy of Management Journal, 58(3), 813–835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Frey, K., Lüthje, C., & Haag, S. (2011). Whom Should Firms Attract to Open Innovation Platforms? The Role of Knowledge Diversity and Motivation. Long Range Planning, 44(5), 397–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Füller, J., Jawecki, G., & Mühlbacher, H. (2007). Innovation Creation by Online Basketball Communities. Journal of Business Research, 60(1), 60–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Giaccardi, E., & Fischer, G. (2008). Creativity and Evolution: A Metadesign Perspective. Digital Creativity, 19(1), 19–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Goldschmidt, G. (2011). Avoiding Design Fixation: Transformation and Abstraction in Mapping from Source to Target. Journal of Creative Behavior, 45(2), 92–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Harrison, D., & Klein, K. (2007). What’s the Difference? Diversity Constructs as Separation, Variety, or Disparity in Organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1199–1228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Harrison, D., Price, K., & Bell, M. (1998). Beyond Relational Demography: Time and the Effects of Surface- and Deep-Level Diversity on Work Group Cohesion. Academy of Management Journal, 41(1), 96–107.Google Scholar
  19. Harrison, D., Price, K., Gavin, J., & Florey, A. (2002). Time, Teams, and Task Performance: Changing Effects of Surface-and Deep-Level Diversity on Group Functioning. The Academy of Management Journal, 45(5), 1029–1045.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Harvey, S. (2014). Creative Synthesis: Exploring the Process of Extraordinary Group Creativity. Academy of Management. The Academy of Management Review, 39(3), 324–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hinds, P., & Mortensen, M. (2005). Understanding Conflict in Geographically Distributed Teams: The Moderating Effects of Shared Identity, Shared Context, and Spontaneous Communication. Organization Science, 16(3), 290–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jeppesen, L., & Lakhani, K. (2010). Marginality and Problem-Solving Effectiveness in Broadcast Search. Organization Science, 21(5), 1016–1033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kohn, N., & Smith, S. (2011). Collaborative Fixation: Effects of Others’ Ideas on Brainstorming. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25(3), 359–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lau, R., & Cobb, A. (2010). Understanding the Connections Between Relationship Conflict and Performance: The Intervening Roles of Trust and Exchange. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(6), 898–917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Leimeister, J., 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
  26. Majchrzak, A., & Malhotra, A. (2013). Towards an Information Systems Perspective and Research Agenda on Crowdsourcing for Innovation. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 22(4), 257–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Majchrzak, A., Jarvenpaa, S., & Hollingshead, A. (2007). Coordinating Expertise Among Emergent Groups Responding to Disasters. Organization Science, 18(1), 147–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Majchrzak, A., More, P., & Faraj, S. (2012). Transcending Knowledge Differences in Cross-Functional Teams. Organization Science, 23(4), 951–970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Malhotra, A., Majchrzak, A., & Niemiec, R. (2017). Using Public Crowds for Open Strategy Formulation: Mitigating the Risks of Knowledge Gaps. Long Range Planning, 50(3), 397–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Massa, S., & Testa, S. (2008). Innovation and SMEs: Misaligned Perspectives and Goals Among Entrepreneurs, Academics, and Policy Makers. Technovation, 28(7), 393–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Michinov, N., Jamet, E., Metayer, N., & Le Henaff, B. (2015a). The Eyes of Creativity: Impact of Social Comparisons and Individual Creativity on Performance and Attention to Others’ Ideas During Electronic Brainstorming. Computers in Human Behavior, 42(C), 57–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Michinov, N., Jamet, E., Métayer, N., & Le Hénaff, B. (2015b). The Eyes of Creativity: Impact of Social Comparison and Individual Creativity on Performance and Attention to Others’ Ideas During Electronic Brainstorming. Computers in Human Behavior, 42(C), 57–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Miron-Spektor, E., Gino, F., & Argote, L. (2011). Paradoxical Frames and Creative Sparks: Enhancing Individual Creativity Through Conflict and Integration. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 116(2), 229–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mitchell, R., & Nicholas, S. (2006). Knowledge Creation in Groups: The Value of Cognitive Diversity, Transactive Memory and Open-Mindedness Norms. The Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, 4(1), 67–74.Google Scholar
  35. Mohammed, S., & Angell, L. C. (2004). Surface-and Deep-Level Diversity in Workgroups: Examining the Moderating Effects of Team Orientation and Team Process on Relationship Conflict. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 25(8), 1015–1039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Montag, T., Maertz, C., & Baer, M. (2012). A Critical Analysis of the Workplace Creativity Criterion Space. Journal of Management, 38(4), 1362–1386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Padgett, J. F., & Powell, W. W. (2012). The Problem of Emergence. In J. F. Padgett & W. W. Powell (Eds.), The Emergence of Organizations and Markets (pp. 1–29). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Park, H. (2008). The Effects of Shared Cognition on Group Satisfaction and Performance: Politeness and Efficiency in Group Interaction. Communication Research, 35(1), 88–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pertula, M., & Sipilä, P. (2007). The Idea Exposure Paradigm in Design Idea Generation. Journal of Engineering Design, 18(1), 93–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Peterson, E., Mitchell, T., Thompson, L., & Burr, R. (2000). Collective Efficacy and Aspects of Shared Mental Models as Predictors of Performance Over Time in Work Groups. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 3(3), 296–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Phillips, K. W., & Loyd, D. L. (2006). When Surface and Deep-Level Diversity Collide: The Effects on Dissenting Group Members. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 99(2), 143–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Poetz, M., & Schreier, M. (2012). The Value of Crowdsourcing: Can Users Really Compete with Professionals in Generating New Product Ideas? Journal of Product Innovation Management, 29(2), 245–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Porter, A. J., Tuertscher, P., & Huysman, M. (2018). Saving Our Oceans: Tackling Grand Challenges through Crowdsourcing. In 34th European Group for Organizational Studies (EGOS) Colloquium: Surprise in and around Organizations: Journeys to the Unexpected. EGOS.Google Scholar
  44. Prpić, J., Shukla, P., Kietzmann, J., & Mccarthy, I. (2015). How to Work a Crowd: Developing Crowd Capital Through Crowdsourcing. Business Horizons, 58(1), 77–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Putnam, L., Fairhurst, G., & Banghart, S. (2016). Contradictions, Dialectics, and Paradoxes in Organizations: A Constitutive Approach. The Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 65–171.Google Scholar
  46. Schemmann, B., Herrmann, A., Chappin, M., & Heimeriks, G. (2016). Crowdsourcing Ideas: Involving Ordinary Users in the Ideation Phase of New Product Development. Research Policy, 45(6), 1145–1154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sio, U., Kotovsky, K., & Cagan, J. (2015). Fixation or Inspiration? A Meta-analytic Review of the Role of Examples on Design Processes. Design Studies, 39, 70–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Smith, G. (1989). Defining Managerial Problems: A Framework for Prescriptive Theorizing. Management Science, 35(8), 963–998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Smith, S. (2003). The Constraining Effects of Initial Ideas. In Group Creativity: Innovation Through Collaboration (pp. 15–31). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Smith, S., Linsey, J., & Kerne, A. (2011). Using Evolved Analogies to Overcome Creative Design Fixation. In Design Creativity 2010 (pp. 35–39). London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Solomon, M. (2006). Groupthink Versus the Wisdom of Crowds: The Social Epistemology of Deliberation and Dissent. Southern Journal of Philosophy, 44, 28–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Stieger, D., Matzler, K., Chatterjee, S., & Ladstaetter-Fussenegger, F. (2012). Democratizing Strategy: How Crowdsourcing Can Be Used for Strategy Dialogues. California Management Review, 54(4), 44–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Tsoukas, H. (2002). Introduction: Knowledge-Based Perspectives on Organizations: Situated Knowledge, Novelty, and Communities of Practice. Management Learning, 33(4), 419–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. United Nations. (2017b). Goal 14: Conserve and Sustainably Use the Oceans, Seas, and Marine Resources. Retrieved from
  55. van Ginkel, W., & van Knippenberg, D. (2008). Group Information Elaboration and Group Decision Making: The Role of Shared Task Representations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 105(1), 82–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Viswanathan, V., & Linsey, J. (2013). Examining Design Fixation in Engineering Idea Generation: The Role of Example Modality. International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation, 1(2), 109–129.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