Advertisement

Innovation und Kreativität in Projekten

  • Günter W. Maier
  • Ute R. Hülsheger
  • Neil Anderson
  • Barbara Steinmann
Chapter

Zusammenfassung

Neue Produkte und Dienstleistungen werden heutzutage kaum noch von Einzelnen „erfunden“, sondern meistens von Projektteams erarbeitet. Inzwischen liegt eine ganze Reihe von Befunden darüber vor, welche gruppenbezogenen Faktoren die Innovativität von Projektteams beeinflussen, welche für die Projektpraxis bedeutsam sind.

Literatur

  1. Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 10, 123–167.Google Scholar
  2. Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, N., & King, N. (1993). Innovation in organizations. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 8, pp. 1–34). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  4. Anderson, N., Potočnik, K., Bledow, R., Hülsheger, U. R., & Rosing, K. (2016). Innovation and creativity in organizations. In D. S. Ones, N. R. Anderson, H. K. Sinangil & C. Viswesvaran (Eds.), Handbook of Industrial, Work and Organizational Psychology (2nd edn.). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  5. Anderson, N., & West, M. (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
  6. Beal, D. J., Cohen, R. R., Burke, M. J., & McLendon, C. L. (2003). Cohesion and performance in groups: A meta-analytic clarification of construct relations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 989–1004.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Brodbeck, F. C., & Maier, G. W. (2001). Das Teamklima-Inventar (TKI) für Innovation in Gruppen: Psychometrische Überprüfung an einer deutschen Stichprobe. Zeitschrift für Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie, 45, 59–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brodbeck, F. C., Anderson, N. R., & West, M. (2000). Das Teamklima-Inventar. Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  9. Caird, S. (1994). How do award winners come up with innovative ideas? Creativity and Innovation Management, 3, 3–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dougherty, D. (1992). Interpretive barriers to successful product innovation in large firms. Organization Science, 3, 179–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Edmondson, A. C. (1996). Learning from mistakes is easier said than done: Group and organizational influences on the detection and correction of human error. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 32, 5–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Elsbach, K. D., & Kramer, R. M. (2003). Assessing creativity in Hollywood pitch meetings: Evidence for a dual-process model of creativity judgments. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 283–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gebert, D. (2007). Psychologie der Innovationsgenerierung. In D. Frey & L. von Rosenstiel (Hrsg.), Enzyklopädie der Psychologie: Wirtschaftspsychologie (S. 783–808). Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  14. Homans, G.C. (1950). The human group. New York: Hartcourt.Google Scholar
  15. Hülsheger, U. R., Anderson, N. R., & Salgado, J. F. (2009). Team-level predictors of innovation at work: A comprehensive meta-analysis spanning three decades of research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1128–1145.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Kanter, R. M. (1988). When a thousand flowers bloom: Structural, collective, and social conditions for innovation in organization. Research in Organizational Behavior, 10, 169–211.Google Scholar
  17. Kasof, J. (1995). Social determinants of creativity: Status expectations and the evaluation of original products. Advances in Group Processes, 12, 167–220.Google Scholar
  18. Keller, R. T. (1992). Transformational leadership and the performance of research and development project groups. Journal of Management, 18, 489–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Leenders, M. A. A. M., & Wierenga, B. (2002). The effectiveness of different mechanisms for integrating marketing and R&D. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 19, 305–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lovelace, K., Shapiro, D. L., & Weingart, L. R. (2001). Maximizing cross-functional new product teams’ innovativeness and constraint adherence: A conflict communications perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 779–793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Maier, G. W., Streicher, B., Jonas, E., & Frey, D. (2007). Kreativität und Innovation. In D. Frey & L. von Rosenstiel (Hrsg.), Enzyklopädie der Psychologie: Wirtschaftspsychologie (S. 809–855). Stuttgart: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  22. Monge, P., Cozzens, M., & Contractor, N. (1992). Communication and motivational predictors of the dynamics of organizational innovation. Organization Science, 3, 250–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Paulus, P. B. (2002). Different ponds for different fish: A contrasting perspective on team innovation. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 51, 394–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rosing, K., Frese, M., & Bausch, A. (2011). Explaining the heterogeneity of the leadership-innovation relationship: Ambidextrous leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 22, 956–974. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.07.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Saavedra, R., Earley, P. C., & Dyne, L. van (1993). Complex interdependence in task-performing groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 61–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Schewe, A. F., Hülsheger, U. R., & Maier, G. W. (2014). Metaanalyse: Praktische Schritte und Entscheidungen im Umsetzungsprozess. Zeitschrift für Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie, 58, 186–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Schuler, H., Funke, U., Moser, K., & Donat, M. (1995). Personalauswahl in Forschung und Entwicklung. Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  28. Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 580–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Shalley, C. E., & Gilson, L. L. (2004). What leaders need to know: A review of social and contextual factors that can foster or hinder creativity. Leadership Quarterly, 15, 33–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Staw, B. M., & Boettger, R. D. (1990). Task revision: A neglected form of work performance. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 534–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Vegt, G. van der & Vliert, E. van de (2002). Intragroup interdependence and effectiveness: Review and proposed directions for theory and practice. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 17, 50–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Waldman, D. A., & Bass, B. M. (1991). Transformational leadership at different phases of the innovation process. Journal of High Technology Management Research, 2, 169–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ward, T. B., Smith, S. M., & Finke, R. A. (1999). Creative cognition. In R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 189–212). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Weisberg, R. W. (1993). Creativity: Beyond the myth of creativity. New York: Freeman.Google Scholar
  35. West, M. A. (1990). The social psychology of innovation in groups. In M. A. West & J. L. Farr (Eds.), Innovation and creativity at work (pp. 309–333). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  36. West, M. A., & Farr, J. L. (1990). Innovation at work. In M. A. West, & J. L. Farr (Hrsg.), Innovation and creativity at work (S. 3–13). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  37. 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
  38. 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-Verlag GmbH Deutschland 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Günter W. Maier
    • 1
  • Ute R. Hülsheger
    • 2
  • Neil Anderson
    • 3
  • Barbara Steinmann
    • 4
  1. 1.Universität Bielefeld, Fakultät für Psychologie und Sportwissenschaft, Arbeits- und OrganisationspsychologieBielefeldDeutschland
  2. 2.Faculty of Psychology, Work and Organizational PsychologyMaastrichtNiederlande
  3. 3.Brunel Business School, College of Business, Arts and Social SciencesHRM / Organizational Psychology, Brunel University London, Eastern Gateway BuildingLondonUnited Kingdom
  4. 4.Universität Bielefeld, Fakultät für Psychologie und Sportwissenschaft, Arbeits- und OrganisationspsychologieBielefeldDeutschland

Personalised recommendations