Innovative performance is essential for organizations to remain competitive in today’s rapidly changing environment. While it is often assumed that increasing the number of creative people in a team will naturally lead to better results, new research from Cambridge Judge Business School suggests that this assumption is overly simplistic. In fact, having too many creative members can lead to conflict and hinder team effectiveness.
The right mix
The study, which focused on research and development (R&D) teams in South Korea, found that there is an “inverted U-shaped relationship” between the proportion of creative members in a team and its innovative performance, as measured by the number of patents. Initially, as the number of creative members increases, so does the team’s ability to generate patents. However, after a certain point, having too many creative members can negatively affect performance. This is because excessive creativity can result in conflicts over resources and neglect of critical team maintenance functions, such as organization and administration.
The researchers analyzed data from 120 R&D teams, collected through the Human Capital Corporate Panel (HCCP) dataset, and patent registration data from the Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO) between 2005 and 2007. They discovered that teams with an intermediate level of creative members tend to perform better than those with either a low or high proportion of creative individuals.
Prior studies on team composition suggest that successful teams require a mix of creative experts and members in supportive roles, such as administration and process coordination. When a team is dominated by creative individuals, competition for resources can arise, and essential functions like administration may be overlooked. The right balance is crucial to avoid these pitfalls.
HR matters
The study also explored the impact of human resource management practices on team creativity, specifically focusing on participative management and pay dispersion. Participative management provides team members with greater autonomy and encourages cooperation, while pay dispersion offers extrinsic rewards to motivate individuals. Interestingly, when both participative management and pay dispersion are high, the study observed a curvilinear relationship between creativity and innovation, with conflict among creative members increasing.
Conversely, when participative management or pay dispersion is low, the relationship becomes more linear, with team members functioning more independently and contributing to creative output without significant interaction or competition.
The researchers emphasize that team composition should be carefully managed, with an optimal, rather than maximal, proportion of creative members. HR initiatives like participative management and pay dispersion can be useful, but they must be applied thoughtfully to avoid unintended consequences, such as exacerbating conflicts among creative individuals.
In summary, while creativity is essential to driving innovation, the study reveals that too much creativity within a team can hinder its performance. Managers should aim for a balanced approach, carefully integrating human resource strategies with team composition to foster innovation without causing friction.
