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

Padgett, J. F., & Powell, W. W. (2012). The problem of emergence. In J. F. Padgett & W. W. Powell (Eds.), The Emergence of Organizations and Markets (pp. 1–29). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Porter et al., p. 10

Porter et al. p. 24.

Frey, K., Lüthje, C., & Haag, S. (2011). Whom should firms attract to open innovation platforms? The role of knowledge diversity and motivation. Long Range Planning, 44(5), 397–420; Cohen, W., & Levinthal, D. (1990). Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. (Technology, Organizations, and Innovation). Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152; Tsoukas, H. (2002). Introduction: Knowledge-based perspectives on organizations: situated knowledge, novelty, and communities of practice. Management Learning, 33(4), 419–426; Mitchell, R., & Nicholas, S. (2006). Knowledge creation in groups: The value of cognitive diversity, transactive memory and open-mindedness norms. The Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, 4(1), 67–74; Solomon, M. (2006). Groupthink versus the wisdom of crowds: The social epistemology of deliberation and dissent. Southern Journal of Philosophy, 44, 28–42; Malhotra, A., Majchrzak, A., & Niemiec, R. (2017). Using public crowds for open strategy formulation: Mitigating the risks of knowledge gaps. Long Range Planning, 50(3), 397–410.

Cronin, M., & Weingart, L. (2007). Representational gaps, information processing, and conflict in functionally diverse teams. The Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 761–773; Baer, M., Dirks, K., & Nickerson, J. (2013). Microfoundations of strategic problem formulation. Strategic Management Journal, 34(2), 197–214; Smith, G. (1989). Defining managerial problems: A framework for prescriptive theorizing. Management science, 35(8), 963–98; Firth, B., Hollenbeck, J., Miles, J., Ilgen, D., & Barnes, C. (2015). Same page, different books: Extending representational gaps theory to enhance performance in multiteam systems. Academy of Management Journal, 58(3), 813–835.

Kohn, N., & Smith, S. (2011). Collaborative fixation: Effects of others’ ideas on brainstorming. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25(3), 359–371; Smith, S. (2003). The constraining effects of initial ideas. In Group Creativity: Innovation Through Collaboration (pp. 15–31). Oxford University Press; Smith, S., Linsey, J., & Kerne, A. (2011). Using evolved analogies to overcome creative design fixation. In Design Creativity 2010 (pp. 35–39). Springer, London; Michinov, N., Jamet, E., Métayer, N., & Le Hénaff, B. (2015). The eyes of creativity: Impact of social comparison and individual creativity on performance and attention to others’ ideas during electronic brainstorming. Computers in Human Behavior, 42(C), 57–67.

Kohn, N. W., & Smith, S. M. (2011). Collaborative fixation: Effects of others’ ideas on brainstorming. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25(3), 359–371.

Perttula, M., & Sipilä, P. (2007). The idea exposure paradigm in design idea generation. Journal of Engineering Design, 18(1), 93–102; Sio, U., Kotovsky, K., & Cagan, J. (2015). Fixation or inspiration? A meta-analytic review of the role of examples on design processes. Design Studies, 39, 70–99; Goldschmidt, G. (2011). Avoiding design fixation: Transformation and abstraction in mapping from source to target. Journal of Creative Behavior, 45(2), 92–100; Viswanathan, V., & Linsey, J. (2013). Examining design fixation in engineering idea generation: the role of example modality. International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation, 1(2), 109–129.

Harvey, S. (2014). Creative synthesis: Exploring the process of extraordinary group creativity. Academy of Management. The Academy of Management Review, 39(3), 324–342; Putnam, L., Fairhurst, G., & Banghart, S. (2016). Contradictions, dialectics, and paradoxes in organizations: A constitutive approach. The Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 65–171; Massa, S., & Testa, S. (2008). Innovation and SMEs: Misaligned perspectives and goals among entrepreneurs, academics, and policy makers. Technovation, 28(7), 393–407.

Leimeister, J., Huber, M., Bretschneider, U., & Krcmar, H. (2009). Leveraging crowdsourcing: Activation-supporting components for it-based ideas competition. Journal of Management Information Systems, 26(1), 197–224; Poetz, M., & Schreier, M. (2012). The value of crowdsourcing: Can users really compete with professionals in generating new product ideas? Journal of Product Innovation Management, 29(2), 245–256; Bayus, B. L. (2013) Crowdsourcing New Product Ideas over Time: An Analysis of the Dell IdeaStorm Community. (2013). Management Science, 59(1), 226–244; Schemmann, B., Herrmann, A., Chappin, M., & Heimeriks, G. (2016). Crowdsourcing ideas: Involving ordinary users in the ideation phase of new product development. Research Policy, 45(6), 1145–1154; Di, P., Wasko, M., & Hooker, R. (2010). Getting customers’ ideas to work for you: Learning from dell how to succeed with online user innovation communities. MIS Quarterly Executive, 9(4), 213–228; Füller, J., Jawecki, G., & Mühlbacher, H. (2007). Innovation creation by online basketball communities. Journal of Business Research, 60(1), 60–71.

Carlile, P. (2004). Transferring, translating, and transforming: An integrative framework for managing knowledge across boundaries. Organization Science, 15(5), 555–568; Giaccardi, E., & Fischer, G. (2008). Creativity and evolution: a metadesign perspective. Digital Creativity, 19(1), 19–32; Miron-Spektor, E., Gino, F., & Argote, L. (2011). Paradoxical frames and creative sparks: Enhancing individual creativity through conflict and integration. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 116(2), 229–240; Montag, T., Maertz, C., & Baer, M. (2012). A critical analysis of the workplace creativity criterion space. Journal of Management, 38(4), 1362–1386.

Brabham, D. (2008). Moving the crowd at iStockphoto: The composition of the crowd and motivations for participation in a crowdsourcing application. First Monday, 13(6); Frey, K., Lüthje, C., & Haag, S. (2011). Whom should firms attract to open innovation platforms? The role of knowledge diversity and motivation. Long Range Planning, 44(5), 397–420; Majchrzak, A., & Malhotra, A. (2013). Towards an information systems perspective and research agenda on crowdsourcing for innovation. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 22(4), 257–268; Prpić, J., Shukla, P., Kietzmann, J., & Mccarthy, I. (2015). How to work a crowd: Developing crowd capital through crowdsourcing. Business Horizons, 58(1), 77–85; Stieger, D., Matzler, K., Chatterjee, S., & Ladstaetter-Fussenegger, F. (2012). Democratizing strategy: How crowdsourcing can be used for strategy dialogues. California Management Review, 54(4), 44–68.

Jeppesen, L., & Lakhani, K. (2010). Marginality and problem-solving effectiveness in broadcast search. Organization Science, 21(5), 1016–1033.

Harrison, D., & Klein, K. (2007). What’s the difference? Diversity constructs as separation, variety, or disparity in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1199–1228.

Echterhoff, G., Higgins, E., & Levine, J. (2009). Shared reality: Experiencing commonality with others’ inner states about the world. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(5), 496–521; Ensley, M., & Pearce, C. (2001). Shared cognition in top management teams: Implications for new venture performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 22(2), 145–160; Fiore, S. M., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (2001). Group dynamics and shared mental model development. In M. London (Ed.), How People Evaluate Others in Organizations, (pp. 309–336). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; Hinds, P., & Mortensen, M. (2005). Understanding conflict in geographically distributed teams: the moderating effects of shared identity, shared context, and spontaneous communication. Organization Science, 16(3), 290–307; Lau, R., & Cobb, A. (2010). Understanding the connections between relationship conflict and performance: The intervening roles of trust and exchange. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(6), 898–917; Park, H. (2008). The effects of shared cognition on group satisfaction and performance: Politeness and efficiency in group interaction. Communication Research, 35(1), 88–108; Peterson, E., Mitchell, T., Thompson, L., & Burr, R. (2000). Collective efficacy and aspects of shared mental models as predictors of performance over time in work groups. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 3(3), 296–316; van Ginkel, W., & van Knippenberg, D. (2008). Group information elaboration and group decision making: The role of shared task representations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 105(1), 82–97.

Majchrzak, A., Jarvenpaa, S., & Hollingshead, A. (2007). Coordinating expertise among emergent groups responding to disasters. Organization Science, 18(1), 147–161.

Majchrzak, A., More, P., & Faraj, S. (2012). Transcending knowledge differences in cross-functional teams. Organization Science, 23(4), 951–970.

Harvey, S. (2014). Creative synthesis: exploring the process of extraordinary group creativity. Academy of Management. The Academy of Management Review, 39(3), 324–342.

Harrison, D., Price, K., & Bell, M. (1998). Beyond relational demography: Time and the effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on work group cohesion. Academy of Management Journal, 41(1), 96–107; Mohammed, S., & Angell, L. C. (2004). Surface-and deep-level diversity in workgroups: Examining the moderating effects of team orientation and team process on relationship conflict. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 25(8), 1015–1039; Harrison, D., Price, K., Gavin, J., & Florey, A. (2002). Time, teams, and task performance: Changing effects of surface-and deep-level diversity on group functioning. The Academy of Management Journal, 45(5), 1029–1045; Phillips, K. W., & Loyd, D. L. (2006). When surface and deep-level diversity collide: The effects on dissenting group members. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 99(2), 143–160.