View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Creative Problem Solving in Small Groups: The Effects of Creativity Training on Idea Generation, Solution Creativity, and Leadership Effectiveness

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Creative Problem Solving in Small Groups: The Effects of Creativity Training on Idea Generation, Solution Creativity, and Leadership Effectiveness
Language: English
Authors: Puccio, Gerard J., Burnett, Cyndi, Acar, Selcuk, Yudess, Jo A., Holinger, Molly, Cabra, John F.
Source: Journal of Creative Behavior. Jun 2020 54(2):453-471.
Availability: Wiley-Blackwell. 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148. Tel: 800-835-6770; Tel: 781-388-8598; Fax: 781-388-8232; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 19
Publication Date: 2020
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Creative Thinking, Problem Solving, Brainstorming, Leadership Effectiveness, Creativity, Training, Group Activities, Adults
DOI: 10.1002/jocb.381
ISSN: 0022-0175
Abstract: This investigation evaluated the degree to which creativity training, idea generation instruction, and creative process impacted idea production, creativeness of solutions, and leadership effectiveness. Three sets of hypotheses were tested with a 114 groups of adults. First, groups whose members had some (i.e., one CPS course) or advanced training (i.e., graduate-level study in creativity or creativity professionals) were significantly more effective at idea generation than groups without training. Furthermore, leaders with some and advanced training were perceived to be significantly more effective than those with no creativity training. With respect to creativeness of solutions, the advanced training groups outperformed all others. The second set of hypotheses focused on the effectiveness of idea generation instruction (i.e., instructions without brainstorming, brainstorming, and brainstorming with criticism). Analysis revealed no significant difference for idea generation instruction relative to idea production or creativeness of solutions. The final set of hypotheses examined the use of a simple process structure for groups without prior creativity training (i.e., distinct phases for idea generation and solution development). Analysis revealed that those meetings that followed a simple process structure outperformed groups that did not follow a process for both idea generation and creativeness of solutions. Further results are presented and implications discussed.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2020
Accession Number: EJ1257066
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGhI6BIckU_zs_3rSEQkDwaAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDPuNM9GdsEUiMW49sQIBEICBmo95qSIj_wU8y4m8p875nlrP7jUSk9MO6r6c2GtiI4UhjcpXAxySsiWZQKL1vo5itn-KX0SQEutsgZhn8claD45u6i-DGNzFLLrL2ddNK-9mAc43bxhvdt4O9QinL-5T8CnrNXFOgtuL4iYB078EtsyGUdXlWWH_1iH_mYAZCv_k2A1i0xrOzbdiqVH8v6n1ywzctQp-mAzEIfk=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0143822920;3u701jun.20;2020Jun19.03:27;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0143822920-1">Creative Problem Solving in Small Groups: The Effects of Creativity Training on Idea Generation, Solution Creativity, and Leadership Effectiveness </title> <p>This investigation evaluated the degree to which creativity training, idea generation instruction, and creative process impacted idea production, creativeness of solutions, and leadership effectiveness. Three sets of hypotheses were tested with a 114 groups of adults. First, groups whose members had some (i.e., one CPS course) or advanced training (i.e., graduate‐level study in creativity or creativity professionals) were significantly more effective at idea generation than groups without training. Furthermore, leaders with some and advanced training were perceived to be significantly more effective than those with no creativity training. With respect to creativeness of solutions, the advanced training groups outperformed all others. The second set of hypotheses focused on the effectiveness of idea generation instruction (i.e., instructions without brainstorming, brainstorming, and brainstorming with criticism). Analysis revealed no significant difference for idea generation instruction relative to idea production or creativeness of solutions. The final set of hypotheses examined the use of a simple process structure for groups without prior creativity training (i.e., distinct phases for idea generation and solution development). Analysis revealed that those meetings that followed a simple process structure out performed groups that did not follow a process for both idea generation and creativeness of solutions. Further results are presented and implications discussed.</p> <p>Keywords: creativity training; creative problem solving; small group problem solving; brainstorming; leadership effectiveness</p> <p>While creative thinking and creative problem‐solving have always been innate human survival skills (Puccio, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref1">25</reflink>]), since the beginning of the new millennium these same skills have consistently been cited as essential workplace skills (Puccio, Keller‐Mathers, Acar, & Cayirdag, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref2">26</reflink>]). Sadly, while touted for their importance in the 21st century workplace, a gulf exists between the clarion call for creativity skills and the degree to which educational practices and organizational training programs promote creative thinking and creative problem‐solving abilities (Casner‐Lotto & Barrington, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref3">6</reflink>]; Lichtenberg, Woock, & Wright, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref4">16</reflink>]; National Center on Education and the Economy, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref5">20</reflink>]; Yudess, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref6">42</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0143822920-2">Past Studies of Creativity Training</hd> <p>Despite the paucity of creativity education and training, the evidence is clear<bold>—</bold>creativity capabilities can be enhanced through teaching and training. The first large‐scale investigation of the impact of creativity training was the Creative Studies Project carried out at SUNY Buffalo State (Reese, Parnes, Treffinger, & Kaltsounis, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref7">29</reflink>]). The Creative Studies Project adopted an experimental design in which undergraduate students randomly assigned to the experimental group received up to four semester‐long creativity courses. Results showed positive and significant gains for the creativity students on measures of divergent thinking, cognition, convergent production, and semantic ability. The success of this study led to the creation of the graduate program in creativity hosted at Buffalo State that was the main subject of investigation in the present study. Since this landmark study, interest in the efficacy of creativity training has grown leading to a number of meta‐analytic investigations (Ma, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref8">17</reflink>]; Scott, Leritz, & Mumford, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref9">35</reflink>]; Scott, Leritz, & Mumford, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref10">36</reflink>]; Rose & Lin, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref11">33</reflink>]). Scott et al. ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref12">35</reflink>]), for example, conducted a meta‐analytic review of 70 such studies. Based on their findings, Scott et al. ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref13">35</reflink>]) offered the following unequivocal view of creativity training, "Taken as a whole, these observations lead to a relatively unambiguous conclusion. Creativity training works" (p. 382).</p> <p>Further content analysis by Scott et al. ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref14">35</reflink>]) revealed that the most effective creativity training programs were based on cognitive models. Such content engages learners in the cognitive mechanisms that are foundational to creative thought, such as information gathering, problem identification, idea generation, solution development, and implementation planning. Among the most successful programs, these researchers cited the effectiveness of training based on the Creative Problem Solving (CPS) model. Similarly, Rose and Lin's ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref15">33</reflink>]) earlier meta‐analysis highlighted what they referred to as the "substantial impact of the Osborn and Parnes CPS on verbal creativity" (p. 21).</p> <p>Creative Problem Solving, first introduced by Osborn ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref16">22</reflink>]) in his pioneering book <emph>Applied Imagination</emph>, has undergone more than 60 years of research and development. For a comprehensive review see Puccio, Murdock, and Mance ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref17">28</reflink>]). The current version of CPS, called the Thinking Skills Model (Puccio, Mance, & Murdock, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref18">27</reflink>]), features seven steps (i.e., Assessing the Situation, Exploring the Vision, Formulating the Challenges, Exploring Ideas, Formulating Solutions, Exploring Acceptance, and Formulating a Plan). While each step involves specific cognitive and affective skills, all steps feature a balance between divergent thinking, a search for many original options, and convergent thinking, the selection and development of the most promising options.</p> <p>Most investigations of the impact of creativity training generally, and CPS specifically, have focused on training effects on individuals (e.g., Basadur, Graen, & Green, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref19">4</reflink>]; Birdi, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref20">5</reflink>]; Im, Hokanson, & Johnson, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref21">11</reflink>]; Wang & Horng, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref22">41</reflink>]). Comparatively fewer studies have explored the impact of CPS training on groups (Baruah & Paulus, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref23">3</reflink>]; Firestien & McCowan, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref24">9</reflink>]; Fontenot, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref25">10</reflink>]). The relative lack of research aimed at understanding the benefits of creativity training for group work represents a gap in creativity studies, especially as collaboration is often touted as a catalyst for creative breakthroughs (Sawyer, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref26">34</reflink>]). Within organizations, one of the main tools used for creative collaboration comes in the form of meetings. According to Kinlaw ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref27">14</reflink>]) meetings are commonly used to share information and ideas, set goals, solve problems, make decisions, evaluate performance, and carry out projects. In the work world meetings are ubiquitous. Indeed, it has been reported that there are more than 11 million work meetings held each day in the US alone (Rogelberg, Scott, & Kello, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref28">31</reflink>]). To be sure, meetings serve as a valuable collaboration tool; however, ineffective meetings have been shown to negatively impact employee well‐being and engagement. It has also been reported that poor meetings result in loss of money, time, productivity, and yield suboptimal outcomes (Rogelberg, Leach, Warr, & Burnfield, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref29">30</reflink>]; Rogelberg, Shanock, & Scott, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref30">32</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0143822920-3">Purpose of the Present Study</hd> <p>The goal of the present study was to extend the line of research into CPS training by examining the effects of such training on group problem‐solving meetings. The present investigation departed from past research into creativity training in three distinct ways. First, where past studies were generally limited to training programs of a short duration, a few hours to a single semester‐long course, the present study included participants with advanced training, that is individuals who held a Master of Science degree in creativity or had years of experience as creativity professionals. Our comparison of training effects across a range of experiences (i.e., no, some, and advanced training), provided a unique opportunity to test whether increasing levels of training produced commensurate levels of benefit. Second, where past research mainly focused on divergent thinking skills, the present study included an examination of convergent thinking (i.e., the selection and development of creative solutions). As Cropley ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref31">8</reflink>]) rightly cautioned, divergent thinking that is not guided by effective convergent thinking runs the risk of producing "reckless novelty." Past studies have established that training improves the ability to produce many original options, but does training enhance the extent to which individuals, working collaboratively, can transform such novel thinking into creative solutions? Third, since several scholars have argued that creative problem‐solving skills are crucial to leadership effectiveness (Mumford, Zaccaro, Harding, Jacobs, & Fleishman, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref32">19</reflink>]; Puccio et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref33">27</reflink>]), the present study also examined whether CPS training improved an individual's effectiveness in leading problem‐solving meetings.</p> <p>The unique features of the present study, as described above, led to the formation of three distinct sets of hypotheses. The first set of hypotheses focused on the positive gains associated with creativity training in general.</p> <p>Hypothesis 1a. Since past research has demonstrated significant gains in individual divergent production after creativity training, it was predicted that groups with CPS training would generate significantly more ideas (fluency), more original ideas (originality), and a greater diversity of ideas (flexibility). Furthermore, it was predicted that divergent production would increase across levels of training (i.e., no, some, and advanced training).</p> <p>Hypothesis 1b. With respect to convergent thinking, it was predicted that those groups whose members had experienced CPS training would select and develop solutions judged to be significantly more creative when compared to the solutions recommended by groups whose members had no prior CPS training. Furthermore, it was predicted that the creativity level of solutions would increase across levels of training (i.e., no, some, and advanced training).</p> <p>Hypothesis 1c. As creative problem‐solving capabilities are imperative for effective leadership, it was predicted that those individuals randomly selected to lead group problem‐solving efforts who were trained in CPS would be perceived by their group members as being significantly more effective than those without training.</p> <p>The creativity literature features an array of creative thinking tools that purport to enhance group creativity. Among these procedures, perhaps the most widely used tool for group creativity is brainstorming. Since its introduction, the effectiveness of brainstorming has received much attention (e.g., Meadow, Parnes, & Reese, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref34">18</reflink>]; Paulus & Brown, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref35">24</reflink>]; Sutton & Hargadon, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref36">38</reflink>]; Taylor, Berry, & Block, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref37">39</reflink>]). More recent research has challenged the fundamental principle of brainstorming, the strict elimination of judgment, suggesting it is more effective to allow brainstorming participants to simultaneously generate and critique ideas (Nemeth, Personnaz, Personnaz, & Goncalo, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref38">21</reflink>]). To further explore creative problem‐solving in groups, the present study examined three different sets of idea generation instruction (no instructions, brainstorming instructions, and instructions to use brainstorming while concurrently critiquing) across levels of training. With this purpose in mind, a second set of hypotheses was established.</p> <p>Hypothesis 2a. Among three different idea generation instructional sets, it was predicted that groups following brainstorming instruction, within each level of creativity training (no, some and advanced), would generate significantly more ideas (fluency), more original ideas (originality), and a greater diversity of ideas (flexibility).</p> <p>Hypothesis 2b. Osborn ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref39">22</reflink>]) asserted that a quantity of ideas breeds quality of ideas. Since the brainstorming instructions were predicted to generate the greatest number of ideas, it was further hypothesized that the brainstorming instructional set would result in yielding solutions judged to be more creative when compared to the other two idea generation instructional conditions (i.e., no instructions and brainstorming with criticism).</p> <p>The third purpose of this study was to isolate the value of the most basic form of the creative process for group problem‐solving. A hallmark of CPS is the tenet that effective creative thinking separates the functions of divergent and convergent thinking. In every step of CPS individuals are asked to first withhold judgment and generate as many options as possible (divergent thinking), then to shift into a selection and development phase (convergent thinking). Little attention is given to the separation of divergent and convergent thinking in traditional meetings. Generally, these two forms of thinking occur in a haphazard and unguided fashion. It has long been argued that those groups that follow a basic creative process structure, that is first a divergent phase followed by a convergent phase, are much more productive than those that do not use this explicit framework. To isolate the value of the separation of divergent and convergent thinking, it was necessary to focus exclusively on individuals with no prior creativity training. With this goal in mind, the following hypotheses were tested:</p> <p>Hypothesis 3a. Groups provided with a simple process structure to follow, that is separate phases for divergent and convergent thinking, will generate significantly more ideas (fluency), more original ideas (originality), and a greater diversity of ideas (flexibility) than those groups who are not instructed to follow this simple process.</p> <p>Hypothesis 3b. Groups provided with a simple process structure to follow, that is separate phases for divergent and convergent thinking, will produce recommended solutions that are significantly more creative than groups that do not follow this creative process.</p> <p>In summary, the present investigation had three goals: one, to examine the impact of creativity training on creative problem‐solving efforts in groups, relative to idea production, creativity of solutions, and leadership effectiveness; two, to compare the relative effectiveness of different idea generation methods; three, to examine the degree to which a simple creative process structure improves team problem‐solving when individuals in those teams have no prior creativity training.</p> <hd id="AN0143822920-4">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0143822920-5">Participants</hd> <p>A total of 559 participants (211 males, 332 females, 16 unreported) took part in this study. Table  provides a breakout of the samples for age and education. Participants were organized into small groups of four or five members. In total there were 114 groups with an average size of 4.90 (<emph>SD</emph> = 0.46). Due to missing data relative to the demographic form, the total sample size reflected in Table  does not match the total number of individuals who participated in the data collection sessions.</p> <p>Distribution for Age and Education Level</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="top"><tr><th align="left" /><th align="center">Age</th><th align="center">Education Level</th></tr><tr><th align="center"><italic>n</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>M</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>SD</italic></th><th align="left">High School</th><th align="left">Bachelor's</th><th align="left">Master's</th><th align="left">Doctorate</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left">No training with process</td><td align="char" char=".">171</td><td align="char" char=".">39.57</td><td align="char" char=".">12.93</td><td align="char" char=".">19</td><td align="char" char=".">93</td><td align="char" char=".">49</td><td align="char" char=".">14</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Some training with process</td><td align="char" char=".">150</td><td align="char" char=".">41.69</td><td align="char" char=".">12.48</td><td align="char" char=".">2</td><td align="char" char=".">76</td><td align="char" char=".">60</td><td align="char" char=".">20</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Adv. training with process</td><td align="char" char=".">116</td><td align="char" char=".">47.28</td><td align="char" char=".">13.40</td><td align="char" char=".">3</td><td align="char" char=".">54</td><td align="char" char=".">81</td><td align="char" char=".">11</td></tr><tr><td align="left">No training no process</td><td align="char" char=".">60</td><td align="char" char=".">31.58</td><td align="char" char=".">11.15</td><td align="char" char=".">4</td><td align="char" char=".">46</td><td align="char" char=".">14</td><td align="char" char=".">0</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0143822920-6">Instruments</hd> <p>The same creative problem‐solving task was presented to all groups. All received a briefing sheet that presented the problem for which they were to generate solutions (i.e., How to get more people to ride the bus in Buffalo, New York, and the greater Buffalo area?), along with some background information (See Appendix A).</p> <p>After working on this task in groups, participants completed a post‐session survey. This included demographic questions and an assessment of participants' reactions to the creative problem‐solving session. Specifically, these questions related to overall level of enjoyment, what they enjoyed the most, what they enjoyed the least, self‐censorship, post‐session ideas, leadership, and interest in future participation (see Appendix B).</p> <hd id="AN0143822920-7">Procedures</hd> <p>Participants were invited to take part in this study via e‐mail, social media posts, conference announcements, and as part of class activities. Participation was on a voluntary basis and no incentive was offered. Convenience sampling procedure was followed and data were collected over a 3‐year period. Volunteers were organized based on level of training and then randomly assigned to groups of four or five. Those who had no prior training in creativity formed "no‐training" groups. Those who had taken an introduction to CPS course within the Master's Degree in Creativity, or completed a 3‐day CPS training course, were defined as the "some‐training" groups (i.e., range of training between 20 and 45 hours). Those who had completed an 18‐credit certificate program in Creativity and Change Leadership, a Master's Degree in Creativity (33‐credit hours), and individuals with extensive experience as creativity professionals were defined as the "advanced‐training groups" (i.e., minimum of 270 hours of creativity instruction or experience). With respect to the latter group, a small subset of the advanced training group (approximately 20 participants) worked as creativity consultants. These creativity facilitators and trainers were part of a select group that served as workshop leaders at an annual international creativity conference.</p> <p>Once groups were formed the researcher randomly selected a group leader and handed this individual a large envelope containing the briefing sheet, Post‐it<sups>®</sups> notes, markers, and flipchart paper. One of the research team members then provided an overview and oral instructions to all groups (see Appendix C). Participants had 20 min to generate ideas (divergent thinking) and 30 min to select and develop what they believed were the two best solutions (convergent thinking).</p> <hd id="AN0143822920-8">Idea generation Instructions</hd> <p>Adapting the research framework used by Nemeth et al. ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref40">21</reflink>]), there were three experimental conditions for explicit idea generation instructions. Some groups received no explicit idea generation instructions, referred to as the control condition. The written instructions, included as part of their brief, asked participants "to come up with as many solutions as possible." The instruction sheet is provided in Appendix D. Some groups received traditional brainstorming instructions. In addition to the instructions in Appendix D, they received the following guidelines for the 20‐min idea generation phase:</p> <p>Most research and advice suggest that the best way to come up with good solutions is to come up with many solutions. Freewheeling is welcome; don't be afraid to say anything that comes to mind. In addition, most studies suggest that you should rule out criticism. You should NOT criticize anyone else's ideas. Your goal is during this phase is to come up with as many solutions as you can to the problem by following the guidelines.</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Suspending judgment</item> <p></p> <item> Striving for quantity</item> <p></p> <item> Building on others' ideas, and</item> <p></p> <item> Allowing for novelty</item> </ulist> <p>Finally, some groups received brainstorming instructions along with criticism. In addition to the instructions in Appendix D, these groups were given the following advice for the idea generation phase of their session:</p> <p>Most research and advice suggest that the best way to come up with good solutions is to come up with many solutions. Freewheeling is welcome; don't be afraid to say anything that comes to mind. However, in addition, many studies suggest that you should debate and even criticize each other's ideas. Your goal is to come up with as many solutions as you can to the problem.</p> <hd id="AN0143822920-9">Baseline Groups: No Process Structure</hd> <p>The analyses testing the impact of training (hypotheses 1a, 1b, and 1c) and instructions (hypotheses 2a and 2b) were based on the process where divergent and convergent thinking were explicitly separated by asking participants to generate ideas for 20 min (i.e., divergent phase) and then to select and develop the two best solutions within 30 min (i.e., convergent phase). To examine the impact of this explicit process, groups without prior CPS training were isolated (hypotheses 3a and 3b). To test the hypotheses 3a and 3b, the researchers provided untrained groups with same amount of time for the creative problem‐solving activity (i.e., 50 min), but were not given the explicit direction to separate the idea generation from the solution development phase of the process.</p> <p>To further isolate the value of this simple creative process structure, these groups did not receive instructions on how to generate ideas (i.e., neither brainstorming nor brainstorming with criticism). It was believed that this condition would better reflect what happens in problem‐solving meetings in the "real world" as most individuals do not have the benefit of creativity training, do not follow a meta‐process in which they explicitly separate divergent from convergent thinking, nor follow deliberate idea generation methods. It was hypothesized that the separation of divergent and convergent thinking would elevate both idea generation skills (hypothesis 3a) and the creativity level of recommended solutions (hypothesis 3b). To test these hypotheses, we compared this baseline group (no training, no meta‐process, no idea generation instructions) to no training groups that were given no idea generation instructions but were directed to separate the idea generation phase from the solution development phase.</p> <p>Again, group leaders were randomly selected and received the envelope containing the same briefing material as all other groups. One of the researchers delivered orally an overview of the study with the exception of the direction on how to separate the ideation phase of the process from the selection phase. In other words, these groups could use their time as they wished. In summary, participants in the baseline groups had no prior creativity training, received no meta‐process directions, and no idea generation instructions. As with all groups, the baseline groups were asked to collect and submit all ideas and to recommend two specific solutions.</p> <hd id="AN0143822920-10">Data Coding</hd> <p>All ideas from each group were reviewed and redundant ideas were removed. The total number of ideas for each group was counted and coded as the fluency score. Then, two of the researchers developed a category list from the ideas of five randomly selected groups. Usefulness of this category list was tested on ideas from other groups through independent judgment of ideas for categories. Points of discrepancy were resolved by clarifying the definition and boundaries of each category. When an idea did not fit any of the categories, a new category was added to the list. Sample categories included: promotion, cleanliness, technology, routes, and partnerships. The total number of categories was calculated and used as the flexibility score for each group. Similar procedures are used to score flexibility for the Torrance Tests of Creativity (Torrance, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref41">40</reflink>]). Then, originality of the ideas was determined based on statistical infrequency. To this end, an idea pool was developed that allowed the researchers to determine if more than one group generated the same idea. Only unique ideas (ideas generated by one group only) were considered original. Examples of original ideas included: all night buses, free car washes, convertible buses (open air), and don't call it a bus.</p> <p>Based on the Consensual Assessment Technique (Amabile, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref42">1</reflink>]), the research team used experts in the domain of creativity to rate the two final solutions (i.e., output of the convergent phase) suggested by each group along a 10‐point creativity scale (1 = not creative; 10 = extremely creative). As experts in this field, the term 'creativity' was not defined for them. As for expertise relative to public transportation, other researchers have successfully utilized quasi‐experts as judges of creative work (Kaufman, Baer, & Cole, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref43">12</reflink>]; Kaufman, Baer, Cropley, Reiter‐Palmon, & Sinnett, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref44">13</reflink>]). Eight creativity experts were selected among graduate students enrolled in the capstone course of a Master of Science degree in creativity. The suggested ideas from each group were randomized and experts did not know which groups generated which recommended solutions. The overall creativity ratings of one expert were not consistent with the others, and therefore this expert's ratings were not included in the final analyses. Using the two‐way mixed effects model, intraclass correlation (ICC; Shrout & Fliess, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref45">37</reflink>]) of the seven raters was.73, with the eighth judge the ICC was.65. After the average creativity ratings were calculated for each individual solution, the creativity score for each group was calculated as the average creativity of the two solutions recommended by that group.</p> <p>Answers to post‐survey questions were coded. Options were coded on a range of 0 (not enjoyable at all) to 4 (very enjoyable) for the level of enjoyment, and on a 0 (not effective at all) to 3 (highly effective) scale for leadership effectiveness. Other questions had categorical responses, which were coded with a numeric value.</p> <hd id="AN0143822920-11">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0143822920-12">Analysis of Divergent Output (H1a & H2a)</hd> <p>The first set of analyses tested the impact of training (hypotheses 1a and 1b) and instructions for idea generation (hypotheses 2a, 2b) on divergent output. To do so, fluency, flexibility, originality, and creativity scores were compared in terms of training and instructions in a 3 (training groups = no, some, advanced) by 3 (instructions = brainstorming, brainstorming with criticism, none) design. Analyses used data collected from 494 participants in 100 groups. Because group size could influence the outcomes, it was used as a covariate. A two‐way ANCOVA indicated a significant main effect for training [<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref46">2</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref47">90</reflink>)  = 41.75, <emph>p </emph><<emph> </emph>.001, <ephtml> <math altimg="urn:x-wiley:00220175:media:jocb381:jocb381-math-0001" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi mathvariant="normal">η</mi><mi>p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup><mo>=</mo><mo>.</mo><mn>481</mn></mrow></math> </ephtml> ] on fluency. Group size was also significant [<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref48">1</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref49">90</reflink>) = 6.18, <emph>p </emph>=<emph> </emph>.015, <ephtml> <math altimg="urn:x-wiley:00220175:media:jocb381:jocb381-math-0002" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi mathvariant="normal">η</mi><mi>p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup><mo>=</mo><mo>.</mo><mn>064</mn></mrow></math> </ephtml> ], but instruction main effect [<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref50">2</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref51">90</reflink>) = 1.48, <emph>p </emph>=<emph> </emph>.234, <ephtml> <math altimg="urn:x-wiley:00220175:media:jocb381:jocb381-math-0003" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi mathvariant="normal">η</mi><mi>p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup><mo>=</mo><mo>.</mo><mn>032</mn></mrow></math> </ephtml> ] and interaction effect (training by instructions) were not [<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref52">4</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref53">90</reflink>) = .138, <emph>p </emph>=<emph> </emph>.968, <ephtml> <math altimg="urn:x-wiley:00220175:media:jocb381:jocb381-math-0004" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi mathvariant="normal">η</mi><mi>p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup><mo>=</mo><mo>.</mo><mn>006</mn></mrow></math> </ephtml> ]. Pairwise comparisons across three levels of training indicated that both some‐ and advanced‐training groups produced significantly more ideas than no‐training groups, but the difference between some‐ and advanced‐training groups was not significant. Mean values for each group are presented in Table .</p> <p>Descriptive Values for Creativity Outputs by Training and Instructional Groups</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="top"><tr><th align="left">Training</th><th align="center">Instructions</th><th align="center">Fluency</th><th align="center">Flexibility</th><th align="center">Originality</th><th align="center">Creativity</th><th align="center"><italic>n</italic></th></tr><tr><th align="center"><italic>M</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>SD</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>M</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>SD</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>M</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>SD</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>M</italic></th><th align="center"><italic>SD</italic></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left">Baseline (No process)</td><td align="char" char=".">22.00</td><td align="char" char=".">15.13</td><td align="char" char=".">11.43</td><td align="char" char=".">5.40</td><td align="char" char=".">13.57</td><td align="char" char=".">10.20</td><td align="char" char=".">4.33</td><td align="char" char=".">0.82</td><td align="char" char=".">14</td></tr><tr><td align="left">No Training</td><td align="left">B/S traditional</td><td align="char" char=".">45.36</td><td align="char" char=".">22.29</td><td align="char" char=".">18.29</td><td align="char" char=".">4.81</td><td align="char" char=".">30.07</td><td align="char" char=".">16.58</td><td align="char" char=".">4.76</td><td align="char" char=".">0.65</td><td align="char" char=".">14</td></tr><tr><td align="left">B/S w/criticism</td><td align="char" char=".">35.73</td><td align="char" char=".">28.68</td><td align="char" char=".">15.82</td><td align="char" char=".">6.35</td><td align="char" char=".">23.91</td><td align="char" char=".">19.79</td><td align="char" char=".">5.11</td><td align="char" char=".">0.56</td><td align="char" char=".">11</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Control</td><td align="char" char=".">38.27</td><td align="char" char=".">15.80</td><td align="char" char=".">17.36</td><td align="char" char=".">4.46</td><td align="char" char=".">27.64</td><td align="char" char=".">13.01</td><td align="char" char=".">4.99</td><td align="char" char=".">0.89</td><td align="char" char=".">11</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Total</td><td align="char" char=".">40.25</td><td align="char" char=".">22.56</td><td align="char" char=".">17.25</td><td align="char" char=".">5.18</td><td align="char" char=".">27.44</td><td align="char" char=".">16.40</td><td align="char" char=".">4.94</td><td align="char" char=".">0.70</td><td align="char" char=".">36</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Some </td><td align="left">B/S traditional</td><td align="char" char=".">107.25</td><td align="char" char=".">50.16</td><td align="char" char=".">24.67</td><td align="char" char=".">4.44</td><td align="char" char=".">71.83</td><td align="char" char=".">36.09</td><td align="char" char=".">5.05</td><td align="char" char=".">0.70</td><td align="char" char=".">12</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Training</td><td align="left">B/S w/criticism</td><td align="char" char=".">87.18</td><td align="char" char=".">47.87</td><td align="char" char=".">22.45</td><td align="char" char=".">4.34</td><td align="char" char=".">58.64</td><td align="char" char=".">38.90</td><td align="char" char=".">5.33</td><td align="char" char=".">0.75</td><td align="char" char=".">11</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Control</td><td align="char" char=".">100.80</td><td align="char" char=".">43.26</td><td align="char" char=".">24.10</td><td align="char" char=".">3.96</td><td align="char" char=".">71.40</td><td align="char" char=".">34.57</td><td align="char" char=".">4.97</td><td align="char" char=".">0.88</td><td align="char" char=".">10</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Total</td><td align="char" char=".">98.61</td><td align="char" char=".">46.71</td><td align="char" char=".">23.76</td><td align="char" char=".">4.24</td><td align="char" char=".">67.30</td><td align="char" char=".">36.00</td><td align="char" char=".">5.12</td><td align="char" char=".">0.77</td><td align="char" char=".">33</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Advanced</td><td align="left">B/S traditional</td><td align="char" char=".">122.36</td><td align="char" char=".">28.38</td><td align="char" char=".">24.55</td><td align="char" char=".">1.92</td><td align="char" char=".">89.45</td><td align="char" char=".">19.57</td><td align="char" char=".">5.45</td><td align="char" char=".">0.89</td><td align="char" char=".">11</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Training</td><td align="left">B/S w/criticism</td><td align="char" char=".">111.60</td><td align="char" char=".">32.36</td><td align="char" char=".">25.90</td><td align="char" char=".">2.85</td><td align="char" char=".">79.10</td><td align="char" char=".">26.80</td><td align="char" char=".">5.39</td><td align="char" char=".">0.86</td><td align="char" char=".">10</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Control</td><td align="char" char=".">100.40</td><td align="char" char=".">27.19</td><td align="char" char=".">24.50</td><td align="char" char=".">3.87</td><td align="char" char=".">72.70</td><td align="char" char=".">19.56</td><td align="char" char=".">5.42</td><td align="char" char=".">1.22</td><td align="char" char=".">10</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Total</td><td align="char" char=".">111.81</td><td align="char" char=".">29.81</td><td align="char" char=".">24.97</td><td align="char" char=".">2.93</td><td align="char" char=".">80.71</td><td align="char" char=".">22.54</td><td align="char" char=".">5.42</td><td align="char" char=".">0.98</td><td align="char" char=".">31</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Total</td><td align="left">B/S traditional</td><td align="char" char=".">88.32</td><td align="char" char=".">48.61</td><td align="char" char=".">22.22</td><td align="char" char=".">5.01</td><td align="char" char=".">61.27</td><td align="char" char=".">35.53</td><td align="char" char=".">5.06</td><td align="char" char=".">0.79</td><td align="char" char=".">37</td></tr><tr><td align="left">B/S w/criticism</td><td align="char" char=".">77.13</td><td align="char" char=".">48.33</td><td align="char" char=".">21.25</td><td align="char" char=".">6.28</td><td align="char" char=".">53.09</td><td align="char" char=".">36.80</td><td align="char" char=".">5.27</td><td align="char" char=".">0.71</td><td align="char" char=".">32</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Control</td><td align="char" char=".">78.48</td><td align="char" char=".">42.25</td><td align="char" char=".">21.84</td><td align="char" char=".">5.22</td><td align="char" char=".">56.29</td><td align="char" char=".">31.57</td><td align="char" char=".">5.13</td><td align="char" char=".">0.99</td><td align="char" char=".">31</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Total</td><td align="char" char=".">81.69</td><td align="char" char=".">46.46</td><td align="char" char=".">21.79</td><td align="char" char=".">5.46</td><td align="char" char=".">57.11</td><td align="char" char=".">34.60</td><td align="char" char=".">5.15</td><td align="char" char=".">0.83</td><td align="char" char=".">114</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 Note:</p> <p>3 B/S traditional = Brainstorming traditional; B/S w/criticism = Brainstorming with criticism.</p> <p>Analysis, with flexibility as the dependent variable, revealed a similar pattern. Training was significant [<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref54">2</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref55">90</reflink>) = 31.78, <emph>p </emph><<emph> </emph>.001, <ephtml> <math altimg="urn:x-wiley:00220175:media:jocb381:jocb381-math-0005" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi mathvariant="normal">η</mi><mi>p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup><mo>=</mo><mo>.</mo><mn>414</mn></mrow></math> </ephtml> ] but instructions [<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref56">2</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref57">90</reflink>) = .474, <emph>p </emph>=<emph> </emph>.624, <ephtml> <math altimg="urn:x-wiley:00220175:media:jocb381:jocb381-math-0006" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi mathvariant="normal">η</mi><mi>p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup><mo>=</mo><mo>.</mo><mn>010</mn></mrow></math> </ephtml> ] and the interaction effect [<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref58">4</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref59">90</reflink>) = .502, <emph>p </emph>=<emph> </emph>.735, <ephtml> <math altimg="urn:x-wiley:00220175:media:jocb381:jocb381-math-0007" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi mathvariant="normal">η</mi><mi>p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup><mo>=</mo><mo>.</mo><mn>022</mn></mrow></math> </ephtml> ] were not. Differently from fluency, group size was not significant [<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref60">1</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref61">90</reflink>) = 2.80, <emph>p </emph>=<emph> </emph>.098, <ephtml> <math altimg="urn:x-wiley:00220175:media:jocb381:jocb381-math-0008" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi mathvariant="normal">η</mi><mi>p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup><mo>=</mo><mo>.</mo><mn>030</mn></mrow></math> </ephtml> ]. Pairwise comparisons indicated that both some‐ and advanced‐training groups had significantly higher flexibility scores than no‐training groups. The difference between the some‐ and advanced‐training groups was not significant.</p> <p>Originality scores also varied significantly by training [<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref62">2</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref63">90</reflink>) = 37.686, <emph>p </emph><<emph> </emph>.001, <ephtml> <math altimg="urn:x-wiley:00220175:media:jocb381:jocb381-math-0009" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi mathvariant="normal">η</mi><mi>p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup><mo>=</mo><mo>.</mo><mn>456</mn></mrow></math> </ephtml> ], but not by instructions [<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref64">2</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref65">90</reflink>) = 1.13, <emph>p </emph>=<emph> </emph>.327, <ephtml> <math altimg="urn:x-wiley:00220175:media:jocb381:jocb381-math-0010" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi mathvariant="normal">η</mi><mi>p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup><mo>=</mo><mo>.</mo><mn>025</mn></mrow></math> </ephtml> ]. Group size, which was controlled, was significant [<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref66">2</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref67">90</reflink>) = 6.867, <emph>p </emph>=<emph> </emph>.010, <ephtml> <math altimg="urn:x-wiley:00220175:media:jocb381:jocb381-math-0011" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi mathvariant="normal">η</mi><mi>p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup><mo>=</mo><mo>.</mo><mn>071</mn></mrow></math> </ephtml> ]. Again, the interaction effect (training by instructions) was not significant [<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref68">4</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref69">90</reflink>) = .244, <emph>p </emph>=<emph> </emph>.913, <ephtml> <math altimg="urn:x-wiley:00220175:media:jocb381:jocb381-math-0012" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi mathvariant="normal">η</mi><mi>p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup><mo>=</mo><mo>.</mo><mn>011</mn></mrow></math> </ephtml> ]. Similar to the results of the previous pairwise comparisons, significantly more original ideas were generated by those in the some‐ and advanced‐training groups than no‐training groups, and the difference between the some‐ and advanced‐training groups was not significant.</p> <p>The above analyses provided support for the impact of training on indices of divergent thinking (hypothesis 1a); however, the impact of instructions (hypothesis 2a) for the outcomes of the divergent phase did not show significant differences for fluency, flexibility or originality. The next set of analyses focused on the convergent phase outcomes and tested the impact of training and instructions (hypotheses 1b and 2b) on the creativity of the two recommended solutions.</p> <hd id="AN0143822920-13">Analysis of Convergent Output (H1b & H2b)</hd> <p>A two‐way ANCOVA used creativity ratings as the dependent variable by controlling group size. There was a marginally significant main effect for training [<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref70">2</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref71">90</reflink>) = 2.788, <emph>p </emph>=<emph> </emph>.067, <ephtml> <math altimg="urn:x-wiley:00220175:media:jocb381:jocb381-math-0013" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi mathvariant="normal">η</mi><mi>p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup><mo>=</mo><mo>.</mo><mn>058</mn></mrow></math> </ephtml> ]. Instructions [<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref72">2</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref73">90</reflink>) = .43, <emph>p </emph>=<emph> </emph>.65, <ephtml> <math altimg="urn:x-wiley:00220175:media:jocb381:jocb381-math-0014" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi mathvariant="normal">η</mi><mi>p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup><mo>=</mo><mo>.</mo><mn>010</mn></mrow></math> </ephtml> ], group size [<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref74">1</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref75">90</reflink>) = .50, <emph>p </emph>=<emph> </emph>.481, <ephtml> <math altimg="urn:x-wiley:00220175:media:jocb381:jocb381-math-0015" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi mathvariant="normal">η</mi><mi>p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup><mo>=</mo><mo>.</mo><mn>006</mn></mrow></math> </ephtml> ], and the interaction effects [<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref76">4</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref77">90</reflink>) = .23, <emph>p </emph>=<emph> </emph>.92, <ephtml> <math altimg="urn:x-wiley:00220175:media:jocb381:jocb381-math-0016" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi mathvariant="normal">η</mi><mi>p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup><mo>=</mo><mo>.</mo><mn>010</mn></mrow></math> </ephtml> ] were not significant. Pairwise comparisons indicated that groups with advanced training developed and recommended significantly more creative solutions than the no‐training groups. The differences between the some‐ and advanced‐training groups, as well as the differences between those with no‐ and some‐training were not significant. The descriptive values are provided in Table . These findings supported hypothesis 1b but not hypothesis 2b. Figure  illustrates the effects of training and idea generation instruction on the creativity ratings of the recommended solutions.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/3U7/01jun20/jocb381-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="jocb381-fig-0001.jpg" title="Advanced training's effect on creativity of recommended solutions" /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0143822920-15">Analysis of Untrained Groups with and Without Process (H3a & H3b)</hd> <p>In the above analyses, all groups followed a process in which they engaged in distinct idea generation and selection phases. Additional data were collected among untrained participants to test the impact of this particular process strategy on ideas generated (hypothesis 3a) and the creativity of recommended solutions (hypothesis 3b). Training and instructions are not part of the analyses because all participants in the baseline group had no formal creativity training and received neither brainstorming nor brainstorming with criticism instructions. Therefore, 14 baseline groups were compared, controlling for group size, with the untrained control groups that received no specific instructions regarding idea generation.</p> <p>A one‐way ANCOVA analysis indicated that there was a significant difference in fluency between the two groups [<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref78">1</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref79">22</reflink>) = 6.46, <emph>p </emph>=<emph> </emph>.019, <ephtml> <math altimg="urn:x-wiley:00220175:media:jocb381:jocb381-math-0017" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi mathvariant="normal">η</mi><mi>p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup><mo>=</mo><mo>.</mo><mn>227</mn></mrow></math> </ephtml> ]. Group size was not significant [<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref80">1</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref81">22</reflink>) = .023, <emph>p </emph>=<emph> </emph>.881, <ephtml> <math altimg="urn:x-wiley:00220175:media:jocb381:jocb381-math-0018" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi mathvariant="normal">η</mi><mi>p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup><mo>=</mo><mo>.</mo><mn>001</mn></mrow></math> </ephtml> ]. As seen in Table , fluency was lower in the baseline group than the control group. The second one‐way ANCOVA compared the same groups for flexibility. A significant difference was found [<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref82">1</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref83">22</reflink>) = 8.12, <emph>p </emph>=<emph> </emph>.009, <ephtml> <math altimg="urn:x-wiley:00220175:media:jocb381:jocb381-math-0019" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi mathvariant="normal">η</mi><mi>p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup><mo>=</mo><mo>.</mo><mn>270</mn></mrow></math> </ephtml> ], even when group size was controlled [<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref84">1</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref85">22</reflink>) = 0.024, <emph>p </emph>=<emph> </emph>.877, <ephtml> <math altimg="urn:x-wiley:00220175:media:jocb381:jocb381-math-0020" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi mathvariant="normal">η</mi><mi>p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup><mo>=</mo><mo>.</mo><mn>001</mn></mrow></math> </ephtml> ], and again the control group was higher than the baseline group. The same analysis was repeated for originality and a significant difference was found [<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref86">1</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref87">22</reflink>) = 8.73, <emph>p </emph>=<emph> </emph>.007, <ephtml> <math altimg="urn:x-wiley:00220175:media:jocb381:jocb381-math-0021" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi mathvariant="normal">η</mi><mi>p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup><mo>=</mo><mo>.</mo><mn>284</mn></mrow></math> </ephtml> ]. Group size was not significant [<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref88">1</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref89">22</reflink>) = 0.046, <emph>p </emph>=<emph> </emph>.831, <ephtml> <math altimg="urn:x-wiley:00220175:media:jocb381:jocb381-math-0022" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi mathvariant="normal">η</mi><mi>p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup><mo>=</mo><mo>.</mo><mn>002</mn></mrow></math> </ephtml> ]. Ideas were more original when people separated divergence and convergence. This analysis provided support for hypothesis 3a, that is when group problem‐solving efforts are separated into distinct divergent and convergent phases the result is significantly greater levels of divergent thinking.</p> <p>The last ANCOVA analysis compared creativity ratings of the selected solutions. Again, there was a marginally significant difference in creativity ratings [<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref90">1</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref91">22</reflink>) = 4.10, <emph>p </emph>=<emph> </emph>.055, <ephtml> <math altimg="urn:x-wiley:00220175:media:jocb381:jocb381-math-0023" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi mathvariant="normal">η</mi><mi>p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup><mo>=</mo><mo>.</mo><mn>157</mn></mrow></math> </ephtml> ] and the control group was higher than the baseline group. Group size was not significant [<emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref92">1</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref93">22</reflink>) = .508, <emph>p </emph>=<emph> </emph>.484, <ephtml> <math altimg="urn:x-wiley:00220175:media:jocb381:jocb381-math-0024" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msubsup><mi mathvariant="normal">η</mi><mi>p</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup><mo>=</mo><mo>.</mo><mn>023</mn></mrow></math> </ephtml> ]. This finding supports hypothesis 3b.</p> <hd id="AN0143822920-16">Individual Level Analyses: Leadership Effectiveness (H1c)</hd> <p>The final set of analyses shifted the focus to individual level differences rather than groups for all participants from 114 groups. Because participants completed the realistic task in groups and the questions on the post‐survey were about their experience in this group activity, their judgments could be influenced by group dynamics, which might create dependency. To avoid that, we conducted multilevel analyses for the ratings of leadership effectiveness and overall experience (level of enjoyment). Both dependent variables were individual level (Level 1) factors along with the independent variables of training and instructions. The groups in which participants worked together represented Level 2.</p> <p>To test hypothesis 1c, the first analyses compared the leadership effectiveness as rated by individuals in each group. There were fewer ratings in the advanced‐training group because of missing data. Therefore, advanced‐ and some‐training groups were merged and the ratings of the leaders in these two groups were compared with those in the no‐training groups within a two‐level design. Because missing data was not an issue in enjoyment, all three training groups were included in those analyses.</p> <p>Using SAS PROC Mixed procedure with the maximum likelihood (ML) estimation method, the first unconditional model was tested for leadership ratings. Covariance estimate for the intercept <ephtml> <math altimg="urn:x-wiley:00220175:media:jocb381:jocb381-math-0025" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><msubsup><mi mathvariant="normal">σ</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">group</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></math> </ephtml> was.096 (<emph>SE</emph> = 0.026, <emph>p </emph><<emph> </emph>.001) and the covariance estimate for the residual was.367 (<emph>SE</emph> = 0.029, <emph>p </emph><<emph> </emph>.001). Interclass correlation (ICC) coefficient was.207. Therefore, 20.7% of variance in leadership ratings was accounted for at the group level. We tested the multilevel model with two categorical predictors (two levels of training and three levels of instructions) to explain variations in leadership effectiveness and then enjoyment (dependent variables). Analysis of the leadership ratings from 440 individuals in 106 groups indicated that leadership effectiveness was significantly different between the trained and untrained groups (β = 0.208, <emph>SE </emph>= 0.091, <emph>p </emph>=<emph> </emph>.025), but not between the instructional groups (see Table ). Trained leaders received significantly higher leadership ratings than the untrained leaders, supporting hypothesis 1c.</p> <p>Multilevel Models for Leadership and Enjoyment Ratings</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="top"><tr><th align="left">Parameters</th><th align="center">Leadership</th><th align="center">Enjoyment</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left">Fixed effects</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Intercept</td><td align="char" char=" ">0.413 (0.088)***</td><td align="char" char=" ">3.419 (0.140)***</td></tr><tr><td align="left">No training</td><td align="char" char=" ">−0.208 (0.091)*</td><td align="char" char=" ">−0.449 (0.148)**</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Some training</td><td align="char" char=" ">–</td><td align="char" char=" ">−0.241 (0.151)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Baseline (no process)</td><td align="char" char=" ">−0.188 (0.144)</td><td align="char" char=" ">0.225 (0.211)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">B/S traditional</td><td align="char" char=" ">0.023 (0.110)</td><td align="char" char=" ">−0.109 (0.147)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">B/S w/criticism</td><td align="char" char=" ">−0.102 (0.114)</td><td align="char" char=" ">−0.068 (0.152)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Random effects</td></tr><tr><td align="left"> Level 1</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Residual</td><td align="char" char=" ">0.367 (0.028)***</td><td align="char" char=" ">0.599 (0.041)***</td></tr><tr><td align="left"> Level 2</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Intercept</td><td align="char" char=" ">0.085 (0.025)***</td><td align="char" char=" ">0.238 (0.049)***</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Model summary</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Deviance statistic</td><td align="char" char=" ">875.9</td><td align="char" char=" ">1390.6</td></tr><tr><td align="left">AIC</td><td align="char" char=" ">889.9</td><td align="char" char=" ">1406.6</td></tr><tr><td align="left">BIC</td><td align="char" char=" ">909.1</td><td align="char" char=" ">1428.5</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>2 Note:</item> <item>4 Standard errors are in parentheses.</item> <item>5 <emph>*p </emph><<emph> </emph>.05, **<emph>p </emph><<emph> </emph>.01, ***<emph>p</emph> < .001.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0143822920-17">Individual Level Analyses: Additional Findings from Post‐Session Survey</hd> <p>To better understand participants' experience of the small group problem‐solving session, additional questions from the post‐session survey were analyzed (see Appendix B). This analysis began by comparing the degree to which participants enjoyed the experience (546 individuals in 114 groups). Again, we first tested the unconditional model. The covariance estimate for the intercept <ephtml> <math altimg="urn:x-wiley:00220175:media:jocb381:jocb381-math-0026" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><msubsup><mi mathvariant="normal">σ</mi><mi mathvariant="normal">group</mi><mn>2</mn></msubsup></math> </ephtml> was.270 (<emph>SE</emph> = 0.053, <emph>p </emph><<emph> </emph>.001) and the covariance estimate for the residual was.599 (<emph>SE</emph> = 0.041, <emph>p </emph><<emph> </emph>.001). The intraclass correlation (ICC) coefficient was.311. In other words, 31.1% of variance in enjoyment ratings was accounted for by the groups of the individual respondents. A significant difference was found between no‐training groups and advanced‐training groups (β = −0.449, <emph>SE</emph> = 0.148, <emph>p </emph>=<emph> </emph>.003). This finding indicates that those in the advanced‐training groups were more likely to say they enjoyed the experience than those in the no‐training groups. The difference between some‐ and advanced‐training groups was not significant (β = −0.241, <emph>SE </emph>= 0.151, <emph>p </emph>=<emph> </emph>.113).</p> <p>To understand what participants liked most and least, their responses were compared in terms of training and instructions. Chi‐square analyses testing the relationship between training and four options (see Table ) provided for the question of "What did you enjoy the most?" found no significant relationship (χ<sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref94">6</reflink>, _I_N _i_=_I_ _i_540) = 8.34, <emph>p </emph>=<emph> </emph>.22). When this question was phrased differently (What did you like the least?), a significant relationship was found (χ<sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref95">6</reflink>, _I_N _i_=_I_ _i_529) = 31.36, <emph>p </emph><<emph> </emph>.001) between training groups and the four response options. When the expected and observed counts were compared (Table ), more untrained participants than expected indicated difficulty with the idea that "all ideas were OK" whereas less than the expected number of people felt this way in the some‐ and advanced‐training groups.</p> <p>Contingency Table for Training and Enjoyment Categories</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="top"><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left" /><th align="center">What did you enjoy the most?</th></tr><tr><th align="center">Working with my team</th><th align="center">Generating ideas</th><th align="center">Converging on the best solutions</th><th align="center">That all ideas were OK</th><th align="center">Total</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left">No training</td><td align="left">Count</td><td align="char" char=".">64</td><td align="char" char=".">116</td><td align="char" char=".">40</td><td align="char" char=".">18</td><td align="char" char=".">238</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Expected Count</td><td align="char" char=".">71.8</td><td align="char" char=".">104</td><td align="char" char=".">45</td><td align="char" char=".">17.2</td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Some training</td><td align="left">Count</td><td align="char" char=".">46</td><td align="char" char=".">63</td><td align="char" char=".">34</td><td align="char" char=".">14</td><td align="char" char=".">157</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Expected Count</td><td align="char" char=".">47.4</td><td align="char" char=".">68.6</td><td align="char" char=".">29.7</td><td align="char" char=".">11.3</td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Advanced training</td><td align="left">Count</td><td align="char" char=".">53</td><td align="char" char=".">57</td><td align="char" char=".">28</td><td align="char" char=".">7</td><td align="char" char=".">145</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Expected Count</td><td align="char" char=".">43.8</td><td align="char" char=".">63.4</td><td align="char" char=".">27.4</td><td align="char" char=".">10.5</td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Total</td><td align="left">Count</td><td align="char" char=".">163</td><td align="char" char=".">236</td><td align="char" char=".">102</td><td align="char" char=".">39</td><td align="char" char=".">540</td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="center">What did you enjoy the least?</td></tr><tr><td align="left">No training</td><td align="left">Count</td><td align="char" char=".">19</td><td align="char" char=".">26</td><td align="char" char=".">106</td><td align="char" char=".">81</td><td align="char" char=".">232</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Expected Count</td><td align="char" char=".">22.4</td><td align="char" char=".">27.2</td><td align="char" char=".">127.2</td><td align="char" char=".">55.3</td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Some training</td><td align="left">Count</td><td align="char" char=".">20</td><td align="char" char=".">21</td><td align="char" char=".">91</td><td align="char" char=".">24</td><td align="char" char=".">156</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Expected Count</td><td align="char" char=".">15</td><td align="char" char=".">18.3</td><td align="char" char=".">85.5</td><td align="char" char=".">37.2</td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Advanced training</td><td align="left">Count</td><td align="char" char=".">12</td><td align="char" char=".">15</td><td align="char" char=".">93</td><td align="char" char=".">21</td><td align="char" char=".">141</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Expected Count</td><td align="char" char=".">13.6</td><td align="char" char=".">16.5</td><td align="char" char=".">77.3</td><td align="char" char=".">33.6</td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Total</td><td align="left">Count</td><td align="char" char=".">51</td><td align="char" char=".">62</td><td align="char" char=".">290</td><td align="char" char=".">126</td><td align="char" char=".">529</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Training was not related to self‐censorship (χ<sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref96">2</reflink>, _I_N _i_=_I_ _i_542) = .22, <emph>p </emph>=<emph> </emph>.898), but there was a significant relationship with post‐session ideas (χ<sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref97">2</reflink>, _I_N _i_=_I_ _i_537) = 23.29, <emph>p </emph><<emph> </emph>.001). As seen in Table , higher than the expected number of people showed that they had more ideas after the session ended within the no‐training groups, whereas fewer than the expected people in the trained groups, both some and advanced, indicated that they had more ideas after the session. No significant relationship was found between training and the question that related to future participation (χ<sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref98">2</reflink>, _I_N _i_=_I_ _i_527) = 3.29, <emph>p </emph>=<emph> </emph>.19).</p> <p>Contingency Table for Training and Post‐session Ideation, Self‐censorship, and Future Participation</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="top"><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left" /><th align="center">Post‐session Ideation</th></tr><tr><th align="center">No</th><th align="center">Yes</th><th align="center">Total</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left">No training</td><td align="left">Count</td><td align="left">122</td><td align="left">113</td><td align="left">235</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Expected Count</td><td align="left">147.9</td><td align="left">87.1</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Some training</td><td align="left">Count</td><td align="left">105</td><td align="left">49</td><td align="left">154</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Expected Count</td><td align="left">96.9</td><td align="left">57.1</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Advanced training</td><td align="left">Count</td><td align="left">111</td><td align="left">37</td><td align="left">148</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Expected Count</td><td align="left">93.2</td><td align="left">54.8</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Total</td><td align="left">Count</td><td align="left">338</td><td align="left">199</td><td align="left">537</td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="center">Self‐censorship</td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left">No</td><td align="left">Yes</td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">No training</td><td align="left">Count</td><td align="left">182</td><td align="left">56</td><td align="left">238</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Expected Count</td><td align="left">181.8</td><td align="left">56.2</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Some training</td><td align="left">Count</td><td align="left">120</td><td align="left">35</td><td align="left">155</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Expected Count</td><td align="left">118.4</td><td align="left">36.6</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Advanced training</td><td align="left">Count</td><td align="left">112</td><td align="left">37</td><td align="left">149</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Expected Count</td><td align="left">113.8</td><td align="left">35.2</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Total</td><td align="left">Count</td><td align="left">414</td><td align="left">128</td><td align="left">542</td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="center">Future Participation</td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left">No</td><td align="left">Yes</td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">No training</td><td align="left">Count</td><td align="left">18</td><td align="left">212</td><td align="left">230</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Expected Count</td><td align="left">13.5</td><td align="left">216.5</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Some training</td><td align="left">Count</td><td align="left">8</td><td align="left">142</td><td align="left">150</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Expected Count</td><td align="left">8.8</td><td align="left">141.2</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Advanced training</td><td align="left">Count</td><td align="left">5</td><td align="left">142</td><td align="left">147</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Expected Count</td><td align="left">8.6</td><td align="left">138.4</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Total</td><td align="left">Count</td><td align="left">31</td><td align="left">496</td><td align="left">527</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>The same analyses were repeated across instructional groups. The only significant relationship was with post‐session ideation (χ<sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref99">3</reflink>, _I_N _i_=_I_ _i_537) = 9.87, <emph>p </emph>=<emph> </emph>.02). The baseline groups, no training and no process, were much more likely to report having further ideas after the conclusion of the creative problem‐solving session (see Table ). In contrast, the traditional brainstorming and control groups reported having fewer ideas than expected. The idea generation instructions showed no relationship with high enjoyment categories (χ<sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref100">9</reflink>, _I_N _i_=_I_ _i_540) = 5.29, <emph>p </emph><<emph> </emph>.809), low enjoyment categories (χ<sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref101">9</reflink>, _I_N _i_=_I_ _i_529) = 7.50, <emph>p </emph>=<emph> </emph>.585), or self‐censorship (χ<sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref102">3</reflink>, _I_N _i_=_I_ _i_542) = .68, <emph>p </emph>=<emph> </emph>.879).</p> <p>Contingency Table for Instructions and Post‐session Ideation</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="top"><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left" /><th align="center">Post‐session Ideation</th></tr><tr><th align="center">No</th><th align="center">Yes</th><th align="center">Total</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left">Baseline (no process)</td><td align="left">Count</td><td align="char" char=".">29</td><td align="char" char=".">35</td><td align="char" char=".">64</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Expected Count</td><td align="char" char=".">40.3</td><td align="char" char=".">23.7</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Traditional brainstorming</td><td align="left">Count</td><td align="char" char=".">117</td><td align="char" char=".">61</td><td align="char" char=".">178</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Expected Count</td><td align="char" char=".">112.0</td><td align="char" char=".">66.0</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Brainstorming with criticism</td><td align="left">Count</td><td align="char" char=".">94</td><td align="char" char=".">53</td><td align="char" char=".">147</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Expected Count</td><td align="char" char=".">92.5</td><td align="char" char=".">54.5</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Control</td><td align="left">Count</td><td align="char" char=".">98</td><td align="char" char=".">50</td><td align="char" char=".">148</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Expected Count</td><td align="char" char=".">93.2</td><td align="char" char=".">54.8</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Total</td><td align="left">Count</td><td align="char" char=".">338</td><td align="char" char=".">199</td><td align="char" char=".">537</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0143822920-18">Discussion</hd> <p>The present study examined the impact of CPS training on group problem‐solving efforts. Unlike most past investigations, we mirrored the conditions most akin to the kind of creative collaboration that occurs in organizational environments. Namely, rather than studying undergraduate students engaged in fantasy problems, this study involved adult professionals working collaboratively on a real challenge. While meetings are common in today's organizations, results from the present study, and most employees' experiences, would indicate that the typical meeting does not provide the optimal mechanism for creative collaboration.</p> <p>In the present investigation, groups that relied solely on past experience, and did not employ a specific process methodology to guide their efforts—likely to characterize most business meetings—were significantly less effective at engaging in divergent thinking and in producing creative solutions (hypotheses 3a and 3b). In clear contrast, creative problem‐solving sessions conducted within the same time parameters that adhered to the CPS methodology, even in its simplest form, resulted in much more positive outcomes. Specifically, even without prior training, groups that followed a process framework in which they engaged in separate phases for idea generation and idea selection were significantly more fluent, flexible and original and their recommended solutions were judged to be significantly more creative, than those groups that engaged in what could be considered a "typical" problem‐solving meeting. In practical terms, this finding indicates that adopting a simple process framework that follows separate phases for ideation and evaluation is likely to immediately improve a creative problem‐solving meeting.</p> <p>Next, we turn our attention to the level of training necessary to engage in productive creative collaboration. As noted earlier, there is a chasm between the demand for creative thinking and creative problem‐solving as crucial workplace skills and the provision for creativity training in schools, universities, and organizations. Given the gap between demand and provision, there should be no surprise that most individuals engage in problem‐solving meetings with little experience in deliberate creative thinking knowledge, skills, and tools—a deficit that was apparent in the no‐training groups. The present findings highlight the fact that this lack of training serves as a clear impediment to leveraging the creative potential of individuals who work together to develop creative solutions (hypotheses 1a and 1b). More specifically, this study showed that even with a single course or workshop in CPS (i.e., some training), groups were significantly better at divergent thinking than groups without training, most notably doubling the number of ideas generated overall, as well as the number of original ideas produced. It is interesting to note that the some‐training groups, who followed a creative process, generated four times the number of total ideas and original ideas when compared to groups without training and no formal process framework to follow. These results highlight the fact that while it may not be practical for most organizations to put employees through training equivalent to a graduate certificate or Master of Science degree in creativity, just a three‐day course in CPS is sufficient to significantly enhance fluency, flexibility, and originality in thinking.</p> <p>Two unique aspects of the present study were the examination of the impact of advanced creativity training and the inclusion of the convergent phase within the creative problem‐solving session (i.e., recommendation of the two most promising solutions). In contrast, most studies of the impact of CPS training are based on programs of much shorter duration and almost always limit the dependent variable to divergent thinking. Here, the added value of sustained training is highlighted by the fact that the advanced groups converged on the most creative solutions. As illustrated in Figure , those with advanced training, regardless of the idea generation instructions provided, developed the most creative recommendations. Where past research on the impact of CPS training has demonstrated that such training improves the ability to produce novel ideas, the present study highlights the fact that it may take advanced training and practice to produce ideas that are perceived as both novel and valuable—truly creative solutions. Furthermore, in examining individuals' post‐session responses, it was the advanced‐training groups who enjoyed the creative problem‐solving session the most, perhaps an indicator that well‐run problem‐solving meetings might also enhance morale and engagement.</p> <p>Puccio et al. ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref103">27</reflink>]) argued that effective creative problem‐solving involves the interplay between cognitive and affective skills. Elsewhere, Puccio et al. ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref104">26</reflink>]) reported the significant improvement in preference for ideation and reduction in premature critical evaluation when comparing pre‐ and post‐test scores for students enrolled in a graduate program in creativity. In the present study, some evidence for the positive impact of training on attitude can be seen in the significant difference between trained groups relative to the concept that "all ideas are OK." The willingness to suspend judgment while engaged in divergent thinking is a foundational principle in CPS. The findings of the post‐session survey showed that in comparison untrained groups were significantly less likely to embrace the attitude that all ideas should be entertained, perhaps explaining in part why the cognitive abilities of fluency and originality were meager when compared to the trained groups. Moreover, since many of the trained participants were months, years and decades removed from their educational experiences in creativity, it would seem that training has a long‐lasting effect on individuals' willingness to resist premature criticisms and to remain open to all ideas.</p> <p>The post‐session survey also revealed that individuals in the trained groups, both some and advanced, were less likely to report having more ideas after the ideation phase of the session concluded. This might be another key indicator of the interplay between affect and cognitive output. During CPS training, individuals are taught to suspend their judgment, a creative attitude, and in doing so to strive to produce as many ideas as they can, a cognitive skill. Taken together, the attitude among trained participants that all ideas are ok, and the fact that they significantly out‐produced the untrained groups with respect to divergent thinking, could indicate that they came close to exhausting all possible options during the ideation phase of the session. As the popular expression goes, the trained participants seemed to have "left it on the field."</p> <p>Within leadership studies, a recent line of thought suggests that creative problem‐solving is a core leadership capacity. This study's findings contribute to the growing link between creativity and leadership. Namely, the present study demonstrates that creativity training significantly improves individuals' ability to lead small group creative problem‐solving sessions (hypothesis 1c). The training associated with the creativity curriculum experienced by the randomly selected leaders in the some and advanced training groups included extensive practice in CPS, facilitation skills, small group climate building, leadership theory, and meeting‐management skills. Furthermore, those with advanced training were also exposed to numerous creativity theories, models, and research. It would seem that this curricular content enhanced the abilities and confidence on the part of these individuals to manage small group problem‐solving efforts. While this study focused strictly on leadership in small group problem‐solving meetings, we would argue that such skills contribute to leadership overall. As Mumford et al. ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref105">19</reflink>]) offered, "The available evidence, however, indicates that creative problem‐solving skills may indeed represent an important influence on leader performance" (pp. 17–18).</p> <p>This study followed a similar time frame and set of idea generation instructions as Nemeth et al. ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref106">21</reflink>]), and like Nemeth et al., analysis across groups showed no significant main effect for the nature of instruction (hypotheses 2a and 2b). Despite the lack of statistical difference across idea generation instruction, findings from the Nemeth et al. ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref107">21</reflink>]) study have been widely cited in popular press books and articles as evidence for the ineffectiveness of brainstorming (e.g., Bails, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref108">2</reflink>]; Clark, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref109">7</reflink>]; Lehrer, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref110">15</reflink>]). Curiously, the mean number of ideas generated in the no‐training condition in the present study (control = 38.27, brainstorming = 45.36, and brainstorming with criticism = 35.73) was dramatically higher than the results for Nemeth et al. ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref111">21</reflink>]) (minimal/control = 16.2, brainstorming = 18.7, debate/brainstorming with criticism = 21.7). The fact that untrained groups in the present study dramatically out‐produced those in Nemeth et al. ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref112">21</reflink>]) may highlight a procedural error in the latter's investigation of brainstorming. Namely, included in their idea generation instructions, across all conditions (control, traditional brainstorming, and brainstorming with criticism), was the direction to generate "good" ideas. The charge to generate good ideas runs contrary to the main principle of brainstorming, which is to suspend judgment altogether. Early research conducted by Parnes and Meadow ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref113">23</reflink>]) established that individuals following brainstorming instructions generated significantly more ideas than individuals asked to generate good ideas. Given the dramatic difference in the number of ideas generated between the present study and the Nemeth et al. study (2004), we would argue that the improper use of the brainstorming methodology, the request to generate good ideas, may have encouraged evaluation and therefore suppressed divergent thinking within the groups studied by Nemeth et al. ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref114">21</reflink>]).</p> <p>Since Osborn ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref115">22</reflink>]) introduced brainstorming to the world in his classic book <emph>Applied Imagination</emph>, a debate has raged about the effectiveness of this creativity procedure. Given the results of the present study, perhaps the primary concern should be about the level of training possessed by the problem solvers rather than the tools they choose to use. After all, any tool, whether for carpentry or problem‐solving, is likely only to be as good as the individual wielding it. Far too many brainstorming studies do not apply brainstorming properly, and generally provide no training to their research participants. As Table  shows, the effects of different idea generation instructions for those without training are meager when compared to the gains in quality of both divergent and convergent thinking associated with training.</p> <p>The present study reinforces one of Osborn's ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref116">22</reflink>]) key suggestions for effective brainstorming sessions: that group leaders should participate in a course in creative thinking to be prepared to lead such sessions. Most studies of brainstorming either provide no leader whatsoever or a leader who has received very little training. Studies that provide no or minimal training, both for the participants and group leaders, do nothing more than muddle the debate about the effectiveness of brainstorming as they do not test this idea generation method in the manner outlined for best practice (Osborn, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref117">22</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0143822920-19">Future Research and Conclusions</hd> <p>To continue the examination of the impact of idea generation instruction, future research might wish to isolate the degree to which the separate phases for divergent and convergent thinking impact idea generation skills. That is, comparing the three sets of instructions between groups who work only under the idea generation phase for 20 min, with groups that are provided with an idea generation phase (20 min) and an idea selection phase (30 min). Such a study would help to isolate whether this simple process structure reinforces suspension of judgment during the idea generation phase. While the present study provides clear evidence for the value of creativity training with respect to divergent thinking, creativity levels of proposed solutions, and small group leadership effectiveness, future studies might wish to see if the same outcomes hold true when trained groups are not given a process structure to follow. This would assess the degree to which this crucial component of CPS, as well as other CPS concepts and tools, have been internalized by the participants and thus improve group effectiveness.</p> <p>The present study extends the line of research into the efficacy of creativity training by demonstrating how such training enhances the efficiency, effectiveness, and affective experience associated with problem‐solving meetings. Specifically, the results of this study illustrate how creativity training improves the number of ideas, the range of ideas, the originality of ideas, and the creativity of solutions produced during a collaborative meeting. In addition, creativity training enhances the quality of small group leadership, the level of enjoyment when working in collaborative groups, the willingness to remain open to all ideas, and the degree to which individuals contribute all their ideas during a problem‐solving meeting. Given the demands for creativity in the age of innovation, along with the frustration so readily associated with traditional problem‐solving meetings, it is surprising that training in creative problem‐solving is not in greater demand in schools, universities, and organizations.</p> <p>A Appendix Briefing Sheet: Creative Problem Solving Activity on the Greater Buffalo Busing Challenge</p> <p>Challenge Statement: How to get more people to ride the bus in Buffalo and the greater Buffalo area?</p> <p>History and Data Related to the Challenge:</p> <p>Please provide a brief description of how the buses currently operate?</p> <p>First, you must have a need to get somewhere – work, school, health care facility, dentist, and maybe shopping. Likely you do not have a car. You go to a street that has a "bus stop". You wait for the bus. Bus comes and you walk up onto the bus and either insert exact change ($2.00) or you swipe your pass (credit cards are not accepted). The pass would be a monthly pass that you had purchased or it would be a college pass that your received because you are an undergraduate student at a college that pre‐pays the Niagara‐Frontier Transit Authority (NFTA) so that you can ride the bus. You then ride the bus to the closest location to your destination OR you ride the bus to the stop for another bus (transfer) in order to get closer to your destination. The NFTA website provides a trip planner or uses can call the NFTA to seek advise.</p> <p>What is the current level of use of the buses?</p> <p>Approx. 94,000 NFTA Metro passengers per day, 27.4 million annually.</p> <p>What populations/demographic groups currently use the bus most?</p> <p>Working people and students who do NOT own a private vehicle, 77% of riders are transit dependent (i.e., working poor, disabled, people with suspended licenses, etc.). And persons going shopping or traveling to a health care related appointment.</p> <p>Are there particular target groups that you would like to see an increase in bus use?</p> <p>College students, working people who own a car, people going out for an evening, low income people who could choose not to buy a car if there was reliable, convenient public transit, and people who advocate for green technologies and lifestyles, and visitors to Buffalo and Western New York. It would be nice to have more professionals from the suburbs or workers who live, or have a place of employment, on or near a route.</p> <p>What are the major issues that prevent people from taking the bus?</p> <p>Expensive fares, buses come infrequently, really ugly bus shelters, sometimes it seems creepy, lack of timely connections (if you are taking more than one bus), not knowing when the bus will come, not enough buses with bike racks. Also, you cannot take the bus if the bus does have a route that would benefit you. In some cases long waits between buses and those that have infrequent stops will sometimes arrive up to 8 minutes ahead of schedule. Those that own cars want and need convenience and speed.</p> <p>What has already been tried or thought of to increase bus use?</p> <p>A lot of what they have done actually discourages bus ridership: higher rates, fewer routes, and less frequent number of buses on existing routes.</p> <p>On the positive side, the following has occurred:</p> <p>Bus drivers receive some customer service training. You can get bus schedules on the NFTA web site. Parking for cars has been provided for bus users, but more space is required.</p> <p>Why is it a concern to have more people ride the bus? What are the benefits?</p> <p>Ultimately, greater ridership affects pricing, quality, and reliability.</p> <p>A larger concern is that it is a green strategy that promotes lower use of cars and reduces the need for surface parking. Fewer cars on the road benefits the health of a community and is far better for the planet. Also, if students did not need to buy a car possibly they would have less need for working a lot of hours that are required to buy and maintain a car. If they worked less, they would have more time to devote to their studies.</p> <p>How many buses are on the road?</p> <p>324.</p> <p>How many routes are there in Buffalo and the Greater Buffalo area?</p> <p>199, down from 216 after recent route eliminations, many of these routes were vital to users.</p> <p>What are customers' main complaints about the current bus situation/service?</p> <p>The price, excessive external advertising on buses, the state of bus shelters, lack of bike racks, infrequency of buses, not knowing when the bus is coming, lack of bus coverage in certain parts of the community/region, buses in general lack a hip/cool factor.</p> <p>What would be the ideal outcome to this challenge? What you would you like to see happen?</p> <p>Ideally, creative ideas that help increase ridership would be outstanding and ideas that speak to the current challenges facing the transportation authority (NFTA).</p> <p>B Appendix Post‐Session Survey</p> <p>This is anonymous; we need a little more info to complete our study. We are honored that you are participating in our research study. Please continue your assistance by completing the following short questionnaire on the Scantron sheet using the pencil provided:</p> <p>Only complete the following parts – do not enter other information. It is important that you answer all questions.</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> <bold> • _B_ONLY</bold> In the Identification Number section at the bottom left, please just enter your age (2 digits) in A‐B and fill in the bubbles underneath</item> <p></p> <item> • Then complete the following questions by filling in the appropriate bubble next to the number of the question on the right side of the paper:</item> <p></p> <item> My gender is</item> <p></p> </ulist> <p>• Male</p> <p></p> <p>• Female</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> The highest level of education I have completed is</item> <p></p> <item> High School Diploma</item> <p></p> <item> Bachelor's Degree</item> <p></p> <item> Master's Degree</item> <p></p> <item> Doctorate</item> <p></p> <item> I found this experience</item> <p></p> <item> Not enjoyable at all</item> <p></p> <item> A little bit enjoyable</item> <p></p> </ulist> <p>• OK</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Somewhat enjoyable</item> <p></p> <item> Very enjoyable</item> <p></p> <item> What I enjoyed most (even if you disliked everything) was</item> <p></p> <item> Working with my team</item> <p></p> <item> Generating ideas</item> <p></p> <item> Converging on the best solutions</item> <p></p> <item> That all ideas were OK</item> <p></p> <item> What I enjoyed least (even if you liked everything) was</item> <p></p> <item> Working with a team</item> <p></p> <item> Generating ideas</item> <p></p> <item> Converging on the best solutions</item> <p></p> <item> Not feeling comfortable to write every idea I had</item> <p></p> <item> During the idea generation, I had ideas I didn't write</item> <p></p> </ulist> <p>• True</p> <p></p> <p>• False</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> After we stopped generating ideas, I had more ideas</item> <p></p> </ulist> <p>• True</p> <p></p> <p>• False</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> With respect to managing our process in a way that helped our group to be as successful as possible, our group leader was</item> <p></p> <item> Highly effective</item> <p></p> <item> Somewhat effective</item> <p></p> <item> Marginally effective</item> <p></p> <item> Not effective at all</item> <p></p> <item> If I had an opportunity to participate in something like this again I would</item> <p></p> </ulist> <p>• Do it</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Not do it</item> </ulist> <p>C Appendix Oral Instructions</p> <p>"Thank you for volunteering to be part of this study. This study involves an examination of the creative process. The total time for this session is 60 min. I will tell you when to start each section of this session and when to stop.</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> You will have 5 min to review the material in your packets and to complete the consent form.</item> <p></p> <item> Please write the time you begin and the time you end on the packet.</item> <p></p> <item> The person who was handed this envelope will act as the team leader for this session. Instead of participating in the discussion, the team leader will need to oversee the process collecting every single idea the group generates.</item> <p></p> <item> You are to provide the 2 group‐agreed recommended solutions to the challenge in the two boxes on the group sheet provided to you in the packet.</item> <p></p> <item> At the end of this session, you will also have a demographic survey to complete involving your experience directly related to this session. You will have 5 min to complete this survey.</item> <p></p> <item> If you end early, that is okay. Just sit quietly.</item> <p></p> <item> When you are done, make sure everything goes back into your envelope. The team leader will return everything to me.</item> </ulist> <p>Thank you for participating in this study."</p> <p>D Appendix Process Instructions</p> <p>We are generating ideas for the challenge statement: <emph>How to get more people to ride the bus in Buffalo and the Greater Buffalo area</emph>. Your group will have a total of 50 min for your work. This time should be divided into an idea generation phase (20 min) and then a selection phase (30 min). By the end of the 50‐min period you are to provide 2 recommended solutions to the challenge identified above.</p> <p>The person who was handed this envelope will act as the team leader for this session. Instead of participating in the discussion, the team leader will need to oversee the process of collecting every single idea the group generates.</p> <p>Please be sure that everyone in the group has the briefing sheet for the problem to be explored. You will have a few minutes to review this and then the researcher will tell you when to begin generating ideas.</p> <p>Idea Generation Phase (20 min)</p> <p>Your goal is to come up with as many solutions as you can to the problem.</p> <p>To capture your ideas, the envelope contains post‐its and markers. Each person in the team should receive one post‐it pad and one marker. Capture ideas by recording one idea (printing neatly) per post‐it sheet.</p> <p>Once the 20 min is over, you will hear a timer buzz. At that point you need to move to the second phase.</p> <p>Selection Phase (30 min)</p> <p>After the 20‐min generation phase has been completed no more ideas should be generated. Instead, the team should go through a process to select the 2 ideas they feel has the greatest promise with regard to the challenge. You will then have 30 min to select the top two ideas. Please capture these two ideas on the reverse side of this form.</p> <p>Team leader please collect all post‐its with ideas, record the 2 recommended solutions on reverse side of this form, place this material in this envelope and return to the researcher. Thank you for agreeing to participate in this important study on the creative process.</p> <ref id="AN0143822920-20"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref42" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> The authors express their deep appreciation to Hanne Bratsberg, Miriam Kelley, and Julia Figliotti who were invaluable in collecting, inputting and coding the data for this study.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0143822920-21"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> Amabile, T.A. (1982). The social psychology of creativity: A consensual assessment technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 997 – 1013. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.43.5.997</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref46" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Bails, R. (2014, October 8). Brainstorming doesn't work—do this instead. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/rochellebailis/2014/10/08/brainstorming-doesnt-work-do-this-instead/#4d267bf77f20">http://www.forbes.com/sites/rochellebailis/2014/10/08/brainstorming-doesnt-work-do-this-instead/#4d267bf77f20</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref23" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Baruah, J., & Paulus, P.B. (2008). Effects of training on idea‐generation in groups. Small Group Research, 39, 523 – 541. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496408320049</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref19" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Basadur, M., Graen, G.B., & Green, S.G. (1982). Training in creative problem solving: Effects on ideation and problem finding and solving in an industrial research organization. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 30, 41 – 70. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(82)90233-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref20" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Birdi, K.S. (2005). No idea? Evaluating the effectiveness of creativity training. Journal of European Industrial Training, 29, 102 – 111. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090590510585073</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref3" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Casner‐Lotto, J., & Barrington, L. (2006). Are they really ready to work? Employers' perspectives on the basic knowledge and applied skills of new entrants to the 21 st century U.S. workforce (Report No. BED‐06‐Workforce). New York : The Conference Board Research Report.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref109" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Clark, D. (2014, August 14). How to overcome the myth of creativity. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/dorieclark/2014/08/14/how-to-overcome-the-myths-of-creativity/#25b5c65b3807">http://www.forbes.com/sites/dorieclark/2014/08/14/how-to-overcome-the-myths-of-creativity/#25b5c65b3807</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref31" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Cropley, A. (2006). In praise of convergent thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 18, 391 – 404. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1803_13</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref24" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Firestien, R.L., & McCowan, R.J. (1988). Creative problem solving and communication behaviors in small groups. Creativity Research Journal, 1, 106 – 111. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400418809534292</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fontenot, N.A. (1993). Effects of training in creativity and creative problem finding upon business people. The Journal of Social Psychology, 133, 11 – 22. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1993.9712114</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Im, H., Hokanson, B., & Johnson, K.K.P. (2015). Teaching creative thinking skills: A longitudinal study. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 33, 129 – 142. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887302X15569010</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kaufman, J.C., Baer, J., & Cole, J.C. (2009). Expertise, domains, and the consensual assessment technique. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 43, 223 – 233. https://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)2162-6057</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kaufman, J.C., Baer, J., Cropley, D.H., Reiter‐Palmon, R., & Sinnett, S. (2013). Furious activity vs. understanding: How much expertise is needed to evaluate creative work? Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 7, 332 – 340. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034809</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kinlaw, D.C. (1993). Team managed‐facilitation: Critical skills for developing self‐sufficient teams. San Diego, CA : Pfeiffer & Company.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lehrer, J. (2012). Imagine: How creativity works. Boston : Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lichtenberg, J., Woock, C., & Wright, M. (2008). Ready to innovate: Are educators and executives aligned on the creative readiness of the U.S. workforce? Conference Board, Research Report 1424. New York : Conference Board, Inc.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ma, H.H. (2009). The effect size of variables associated with creativity: A meta‐analysis. Creativity Research Journal, 21, 30 – 42. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400410802633400</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Meadow, A., Parnes, S.J., & Reese, H. (1959). Influence of brainstorming instructions and problem sequence on a creative problem solving test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 43, 413 – 416. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043917</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mumford, M.D., Zaccaro, S.J., Harding, F.D., Jacobs, T.O., & Fleishman, E.A. (2000). Leadership skills for a changing world: Solving complex problems. Leadership Quarterly, 11, 11 – 35. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(99)00041-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Center on Education and the Economy (2008). Tough choices or tough times: The report on the new commission on the skills of the American workforce. San Francisco : Wiley.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nemeth, J., Personnaz, B., Personnaz, M., & Goncalo, J.A. (2004). The liberating role of conflict in group creativity: A study of two countries. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34, 365 – 374. https://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)1099-0992</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Osborn, A.F. (1953). Applied imagination: Principles and procedures of creative problem‐solving. New York : Scribner.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Parnes, S.J., & Meadow, A. (1959). Effects of "brainstorming" instructions on creative problem solving by trained and untrained subjects. Journal of Educational Psychology, 50, 171 – 176. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0047223</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Paulus, P.B., & Brown, V.R. (2003). Enhancing ideational creativity in groups: Lessons from research on brainstorming. In P.B. Paulus & B.A. Nijstad (Eds.), Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration (pp. 110 – 136). Oxford, UK : Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195147308.001.0001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Puccio, G.J. (2017). From the dawn of humanity to the 21 st century: Creativity as an enduring survival skill. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 51, 330 – 334. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.203</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Puccio, G.J., Keller‐Mathers, S., Acar, S., & Cayirdag, N. (2016). International Center for Studies in Creativity: Curricular overview & impact of instruction on the creative problem‐solving attitudes of graduate students. In C. Zhou (Ed.), Handbook of research on creative problem‐solving skill development in higher education (pp. 186 – 211). Hershey, PA : IGI‐Global.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Puccio, G.J., Mance, M., & Murdock, M.C. (2011). Creative leadership: Skills that drive change (2nd edn). Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage Publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Puccio, G.J., Murdock, M.C., & Mance, M. (2005). Current developments in creative problem solving for organizations: A focus on thinking skills and styles. Korean Journal of Thinking & Problem Solving, 15, 43 – 76.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reese, H.W., Parnes, S.J., Treffinger, D.J., & Kaltsounis, G. (1976). Effects of a creative studies program on structure‐of‐the‐intellect factors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 401 – 410. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.68.4.401</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rogelberg, S.G., Leach, D.J., Warr, P.B., & Burnfield, J.L. (2006). 'Not another meeting!' Are meeting time demands related to employee well‐being? Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 86 – 96.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rogelberg, S.G., Scott, C., & Kello, J. (2007). The science and fiction of meetings. MIT Sloan Management Review, 48, 18 – 21.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rogelberg, S.G., Shanock, L.R., & Scott, C.W. (2012). Wasted time and money in meetings: Increasing return on investment. Small Group Research, 43, 236 – 245. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496411429170</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rose, L.H., & Lin, H.T. (1984). A meta‐analysis of long‐term creativity training programs. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 18, 11 – 22. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.1984.tb00985.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sawyer, K. (2007). Group genius: The creative power of collaboration. New York : Basic Book</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scott, G.M., Leritz, L.E., & Mumford, M.D. (2004a). The effectiveness of creativity training: A meta‐analysis. Creativity Research Journal, 16, 361 – 388. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400410409534549</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scott, G.M., Leritz, L.E., & Mumford, M.D. (2004b). Types of creativity training: Approaches and their effectiveness. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 38, 149 – 179. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.2004.tb01238.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shrout, P.E., & Fleiss, J.L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 420 – 428.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sutton, R.I., & Hargadon, A. (1996). Brainstorming groups in context: Effectiveness in a product design firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 685 – 718. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393872</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Taylor, D.W., Berry, P.C., & Block, C.H. (1958). Does group participation when using brainstorming facilitate or inhibit creative thinking? Administrative Science Quarterly, 3, 23 – 47. https://doi.org/10.2307/2390603</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Torrance, E.P. (2008). Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking norms‐technical manual: Verbal forms A and B. Bensenville, IL : Scholastic Testing Service.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang, C., & Horng, R. (2002). The effects of creative problem solving training on creativity, cognitive type and R&D performance. R&D Management, 32, 35 – 45. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9310.00237.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yudess, J. (2010). Colleges and universities with degree or certificate bearing programs in creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 44, 139 – 142. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.2010.tb01330.x</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Gerard J. Puccio; Cyndi Burnett; Selcuk Acar; Jo A. Yudess; Molly Holinger and John F. Cabra</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib90" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref110"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref113"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1257066
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Creative Problem Solving in Small Groups: The Effects of Creativity Training on Idea Generation, Solution Creativity, and Leadership Effectiveness
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Puccio%2C+Gerard+J%2E%22">Puccio, Gerard J.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Burnett%2C+Cyndi%22">Burnett, Cyndi</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Acar%2C+Selcuk%22">Acar, Selcuk</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Yudess%2C+Jo+A%2E%22">Yudess, Jo A.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Holinger%2C+Molly%22">Holinger, Molly</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Cabra%2C+John+F%2E%22">Cabra, John F.</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Creative+Behavior%22"><i>Journal of Creative Behavior</i></searchLink>. Jun 2020 54(2):453-471.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley-Blackwell. 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148. Tel: 800-835-6770; Tel: 781-388-8598; Fax: 781-388-8232; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 19
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2020
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Creative+Thinking%22">Creative Thinking</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Problem+Solving%22">Problem Solving</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Brainstorming%22">Brainstorming</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Leadership+Effectiveness%22">Leadership Effectiveness</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Creativity%22">Creativity</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Training%22">Training</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Group+Activities%22">Group Activities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Adults%22">Adults</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1002/jocb.381
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0022-0175
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: This investigation evaluated the degree to which creativity training, idea generation instruction, and creative process impacted idea production, creativeness of solutions, and leadership effectiveness. Three sets of hypotheses were tested with a 114 groups of adults. First, groups whose members had some (i.e., one CPS course) or advanced training (i.e., graduate-level study in creativity or creativity professionals) were significantly more effective at idea generation than groups without training. Furthermore, leaders with some and advanced training were perceived to be significantly more effective than those with no creativity training. With respect to creativeness of solutions, the advanced training groups outperformed all others. The second set of hypotheses focused on the effectiveness of idea generation instruction (i.e., instructions without brainstorming, brainstorming, and brainstorming with criticism). Analysis revealed no significant difference for idea generation instruction relative to idea production or creativeness of solutions. The final set of hypotheses examined the use of a simple process structure for groups without prior creativity training (i.e., distinct phases for idea generation and solution development). Analysis revealed that those meetings that followed a simple process structure outperformed groups that did not follow a process for both idea generation and creativeness of solutions. Further results are presented and implications discussed.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2020
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1257066
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1257066
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1002/jocb.381
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 19
        StartPage: 453
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Creative Thinking
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Problem Solving
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Brainstorming
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Leadership Effectiveness
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Creativity
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Training
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Group Activities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Adults
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Creative Problem Solving in Small Groups: The Effects of Creativity Training on Idea Generation, Solution Creativity, and Leadership Effectiveness
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Puccio, Gerard J.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Burnett, Cyndi
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Acar, Selcuk
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Yudess, Jo A.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Holinger, Molly
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Cabra, John F.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 06
              Type: published
              Y: 2020
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0022-0175
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 54
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Creative Behavior
              Type: main
ResultId 1