Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-nr592 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-25T07:47:18.886Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THE IMPACT OF STATUS ANONYMITY ON TEAM DYNAMICS IN CO-CREATION WORKSHOPS

Part of: Human Behaviour and Design

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2020

A. Lecuna Aguerrevere ,
J. Alleblas ,
R. M. Mueller ,
M. Graves  and
K. Thoring
A. Lecuna Aguerrevere*
Affiliation:
Hochschule für Technik und Wirtschaft Berlin, Germany Anhalt University of Applied Sciences, Germany
J. Alleblas
Affiliation:
Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
R. M. Mueller
Affiliation:
Berlin School of Economics and Law, Germany University of Twente, The Netherlands
M. Graves
Affiliation:
phi360, Germany
K. Thoring
Affiliation:
Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands Anhalt University of Applied Sciences, Germany
*
*alejandrolecuna@gmail.com

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

This paper looks at the positive effects of partial status anonymity in face-to-face co-creation workshops. Results suggest that especially during the early phases of co-creation, i.e. idea generation, participants experience more freedom to express themselves without self-imposed barriers. We observed positive effects in terms of (1) lowering or even suspending the perceived status among team members, (2) increased motivation, (3) freedom to speak and positive disposition to listen, (4) willingness to consider perspectives from other team members.

Keywords

design thinkingcollaborative designdesign teamsinnovation managementteam dynamics

Information

Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society: DESIGN Conference , Volume 1 , May 2020 , pp. 1465 - 1474
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

References

Bassett-Jones, N. (2005), “The Paradox of Diversity Management, Creativity and Innovation”, Creativity and Innovation Management, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 169–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradbury, H. (2015), The SAGE Handbook of Action Research: Edited by Hilary Bradbury, Third edition, SAGE Publications, Los Angeles.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caniëls, M.C.J. and Rietzschel, E.F. (2015), “Organizing Creativity: Creativity and Innovation under Constraints: Organizing Creativity”, Creativity and Innovation Management, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 184–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, W.H. et al. (1998), “Some liberating effects of anonymous electronic brainstorming”, Small Group Research, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 147–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Dreu, C.K.W. and Weingart, L.R. (2003), “Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 4, pp. 741–749.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Durugbo, C. and Pawar, K. (2014), “A unified model of the co-creation process”, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 41 No. 9, pp. 4373–4387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hogg, M.A. and Tindale, S. (2008), Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology: Group Processes, John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Hollingshead, A.B. (1996), “Information Suppression and Status Persistence in Group Decision Making The Effects of Communication Media”, Human Communication Research, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 193–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, S.E. (1996), “The consequences of diversity in multidisciplinary work teams”, In: West, M. A. (Ed.), Handbook of Work Group Psychology, pp. 53–75.Google Scholar
Jackson, S.E., May, K.E. and Whitney, K. (1995), “Understanding the dynamics of diversity in decision-making teams”, Team Effectiveness and Decision Making in Organizations, Vol. 204, pp. 261.Google Scholar
Kaufman, J.C. and Sternberg, R.J. (2010), The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity, Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keum, D.D. and See, K.E. (2014), “The Influence of Hierarchy on Innovation and Idea Selection: A Process View”, Academy of Management Proceedings, Vol. 2014 No. 1, p. 10283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLeod, P.L. (2011), “Effects of Anonymity and Social Comparison of Rewards on Computer-Mediated Group Brainstorming”, Small Group Research, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 475–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mele, C. (2011), “Conflicts and value co-creation in project networks”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 40 No. 8, pp. 1377–1385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neulen, S. (2016), Co-Creation between Citizens and the Government: The Influence of Settings on the Intention to Join Co-Creation, Master's Thesis, University of Twente.Google Scholar
Osborn, A. (1953), Applied Imagination - Principles and Procedures of Creative Writing, Read Books Ltd.Google Scholar
Paulus, P. (2000), “Groups, Teams, and Creativity: The Creative Potential of Idea-generating Groups”, Applied Psychology, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 237–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pissarra, J. and Jesuino, J.C. (2005), “Idea generation through computer-mediated communication: The effects of anonymity”, edited by Gil, F. Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 20 No. 3/4, pp. 275–291.Google Scholar
Rowe, P.G. (1987), Design Thinking, MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sanders, E.B.-N. and Stappers, P.J. (2008), “Co-creation and the new landscapes of design”, CoDesign, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 5–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sauder, M., Lynn, F. and Podolny, J.M. (2012), “Status: Insights from organizational sociology”, Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 38, pp. 267–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, G.F. (1998), “Idea-Generation Techniques: A Formulary of Active Ingredients”, The Journal of Creative Behavior, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 107–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sosik, J.J., Avolio, B.J. and Kahai, S.S. (1998), “Inspiring group creativity: Comparing anonymous and identified electronic brainstorming”, Small Group Research, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 3–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trischler, J., Pervan, S.J. and Scott, D.R. (2017), “Exploring the ‘black box’ of customer co-creation processes”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 265–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tschimmel, K. (2012), “Design Thinking as an effective Toolkit for Innovation”, ISPIM Conference Proceedings, The International Society for Professional Innovation Management (ISPIM), p. 1.Google Scholar