PRIDe - Prejudice Related Innovativeness Determinants

Maurício Manhães, GC | Dr. INNOVATION AND PREJUDICE: DESIGNING A DIVERSITY LANDSCAPE FOR KNOWLEDGE CREATION

PRIDe: Prejudice Related Innovativeness Determinants Maurício Manhães Doctoral Student Knowledge Management mauricio@egc.ufsc.br

Supervisor: Gregório Varvakis, PhD Co-Supervisor: Tarcísio Vanzin, Dr

Maurício Manhães, GC | Dr. INNOVATION AND PREJUDICE: DESIGNING A DIVERSITY LANDSCAPE FOR KNOWLEDGE CREATION

Index 1. Summary 2. Important Need 3. Approach – PhD Research

4. Benefits 5. Competition 6. Contacts

Slide 3 Slide 4 Slide 5

Slides 9 to 24 Slide 6 Slide 7 Slide 8

This file presents some of the findings of the doctoral research on Knowledge and Engineering Management at the Federal University of Santa Catarina – Brazil. This research is supported by CAPES foundation, an agency under the Ministry of Education of Brazil, and SEDES - Center for Service Design Research at the Köln International School of Design / University of Applied Sciences in Cologne, Germany.

2

Maurício Manhães, GC | Dr. INNOVATION AND PREJUDICE: DESIGNING A DIVERSITY LANDSCAPE FOR KNOWLEDGE CREATION

Summary • Innovation Teams with 60% higher innovativeness – Groups that are designed based on the NFC scale create products that are perceived as 60% more innovative

• Assess the innovativeness potential of groups – Based on scientific research, a robust and straightforward framework was developed to help organizations to assess the innovativeness potential of their teams

• Increase the innovativeness potential of groups – Through custom training programs, and embedding diversity and innovation driven governance structures 3

Maurício Manhães, GC | Dr. INNOVATION AND PREJUDICE: DESIGNING A DIVERSITY LANDSCAPE FOR KNOWLEDGE CREATION

1. Important Need • Innovation is a social process of value creation started by groups and for groups.

• Literature suggests that Innovation Teams should be:

Diverse; Open minded; Collaborative; Communicative; Results oriented; and Sharing a Vision.

– Easy said than done!

• Important Need: – An effective and straightforward process to significantly increase the potential innovativeness capacity of groups

4

Maurício Manhães, GC | Dr. INNOVATION AND PREJUDICE: DESIGNING A DIVERSITY LANDSCAPE FOR KNOWLEDGE CREATION

2. Approach • Research suggest that different motivated cognitive styles exert greater influence on groups results than surface level differences (color, sex, education, nationality, etc) • High performance Innovation Teams have a special governance structure to productively channel intergroup frictions – Respectful communication

• Approach: – Design Innovation Teams based on • Need for Closure (NFC) as the Motivated Cognitive Basis of Prejudice (Kruglanski, 2004; Roets & Van Hiel, 2011) • Integroup contact theory (Allport, 1954; Petigrew, 1998)

• Further details: PhD Research 5

Maurício Manhães, GC | Dr. INNOVATION AND PREJUDICE: DESIGNING A DIVERSITY LANDSCAPE FOR KNOWLEDGE CREATION

3. Benefits • Enabling organization to effectively: – Design Innovation Teams • Based on the simple and validated asessment of the motivated cognitive styles of candidates it is possible to define which ones are the best fits for specific innovative effort

– Assess Groups Innovative Potential • Assess the innovative potential of established groups • Recomend the addition of specific motivated cognitive styles individuals to increase the innovativeness capacity of specific groups

– Customize Training Programs • Based on previous assessment it is possible to recomend custom training programs to increase the innovativeness capacity of specific groups

– Adopt Innovativeness Governance • Define a specific governance structure to increase the innovativeness capacity of specific groups

6

Maurício Manhães, GC | Dr. INNOVATION AND PREJUDICE: DESIGNING A DIVERSITY LANDSCAPE FOR KNOWLEDGE CREATION

4. Competition • •

The main competition is the Innovator’s DNA offering, developed by Jeffrey H. Dyer, Hal B. Gregersen, and Clayton M. Christensen The main differences are below: Innovator’s DNA

PRIDe

Focus

Individuals

Groups

Goal

Individual conformation

Diversity integration

Operational measures developed since

2008

• •

Intergroup Contact: 1954 Need For Closure: 1990

Recomend

Individuals and Groups’ standard training programs

• • •

Groups’ custom training programs Design of Diversity Groups Innovation driven governance

Ethics

• • •

• • •

Socio-cultural foundations Innovation Teams Collectivism

Results

Biological Metaphor Innovation Champion Individualism

60% increase in perceived innovativeness

7

Maurício Manhães, GC | Dr. INNOVATION AND PREJUDICE: DESIGNING A DIVERSITY LANDSCAPE FOR KNOWLEDGE CREATION

5. Contact Mauricio Manhães mauricio@egc.ufsc.br

+55 (48) 9814-4080 br.linkedin.com/in/manhaes/ twitter.com/mcmanhaes

8

Maurício Manhães, GC | Dr. INNOVATION AND PREJUDICE: DESIGNING A DIVERSITY LANDSCAPE FOR KNOWLEDGE CREATION

2.1 PRIDe: a PhD Research • PRIDe: Prejudice Related Innovativeness Determinants – Prejudice is a historical vantage point where human finite understanding is situated, and which may result on judgments that are rendered before a fair amount of elements have been examined (Dobrosavljev, 2002; Gadamer, 2004)

• Enablers to action: – Need for Closure (NFC) as the Motivated Cognitive Basis of Prejudice (Kruglanski, 2004; Roets & Van Hiel, 2011); – Intergroup contact theory (Allport, 1979; Petigrew, 1998); – Consensual Assessment Technique (Amabile, 1982, Magnusson, 2003).

Back to 2. Approach

9

Maurício Manhães, GC | Dr. INNOVATION AND PREJUDICE: DESIGNING A DIVERSITY LANDSCAPE FOR KNOWLEDGE CREATION

2.1 Need For Closure • Need for Closure (NFC) as the Motivated Cognitive Basis of Prejudice (Roets & Van Hiel, 2011): – NFC is a concept developed around 1990 by Professor Arie W. Kruglanski. Basically, it “refers to individual’s desire for a firm answer to a question and an aversion towards ambiguity” (Kruglanski & Webster, 1996, p. 264). It is a motivated tendency to act as soon as possible, given the pressure that time and the lack of information and other resources may impose to an individual. To some individuals, this tendency is high. To others, it is low. In a simple way, it is the level of closed mindedness of a person.

– The NFC level of an individual is assessed through a 41 items validated questionnaire (Kruglanski, 2004; Roets & Van Hiel, 2011b) Back to 2. Approach

10

Maurício Manhães, GC | Dr. INNOVATION AND PREJUDICE: DESIGNING A DIVERSITY LANDSCAPE FOR KNOWLEDGE CREATION

2.2 Research Experiments

Back to 2. Approach

11

Maurício Manhães, GC | Dr. INNOVATION AND PREJUDICE: DESIGNING A DIVERSITY LANDSCAPE FOR KNOWLEDGE CREATION

2.2.1 Experiments’ Part 1 • Creativity workshops – Brazil, Ecuador, Germany, India, Italy and Poland

• Assessment of participants’ NFC (NFCH1 to NFC-Hn) – 44 workshop participants from Brazil, Canada, China, Ecuador, Germany, India, Italy and Poland

• Create groups (G1 to Gn) – Mean NFC (NFC-G1E1 to NFC-GnEn) – NFC’s Coefficient of Variation

• Each group creates a product (P1 to Pn)

Back to 2. Approach

12

Maurício Manhães, GC | Dr. INNOVATION AND PREJUDICE: DESIGNING A DIVERSITY LANDSCAPE FOR KNOWLEDGE CREATION

2.2.2 Experiments’ Part 2 • Independent Panel of Judges – 15 persons divided into 3 independent panels of judges coming from Brazil, Colombia, Croatia, Germany, Italy, Sweden and United Kingdom

• Assessment of products’ OUP • Assessment of judges’ NFC (NFC-J1 to NFC-Jn) • Judge’s OUP Rank (OUPJ1RE1 to NFCHn) • Panel’s OUP Rank (OUP-P1 to OUP-Pn)

Back to 2. Approach

13

Maurício Manhães, GC | Dr. INNOVATION AND PREJUDICE: DESIGNING A DIVERSITY LANDSCAPE FOR KNOWLEDGE CREATION

2.2.3 Results • The relations between the two types of levels were established through bivariate two-tailed Spearman rank correlation, using the IBM SPSS Statistics version 21 (IBM Corp., 2012) • The resulting correlations between the perceived innovativeness of the products and the NFC levels of the groups are above 0.8, and probabilities values (p-value) are below the level of significance (0.01).

• The groups within specific ranges of NFC levels had their products’ perceived innovativeness rated up to 64,38% higher than the other ones through the consensual assessment technique.

Back to 2. Approach

14

Maurício Manhães, GC | Dr. INNOVATION AND PREJUDICE: DESIGNING A DIVERSITY LANDSCAPE FOR KNOWLEDGE CREATION

2.3 Findings • The highest perceived innovativeness ratings (7,18 points as the OUP Cluster Center, in a 10 points scale) were obtained by products that were created by groups with NFC levels around 57,90 (the NFC Mean Cluster Center, in a 90 points scale).

• The lowest perceived innovativeness ratings were obtained by groups with NFC levels around 46,42 (the NFC Mean Cluster Center, in a 90 points scale).

Back to 2. Approach

15

Maurício Manhães, GC | Dr. INNOVATION AND PREJUDICE: DESIGNING A DIVERSITY LANDSCAPE FOR KNOWLEDGE CREATION

2.3.1 Findings

Innovation Team Sweet Spot

Perceived Innovativeness

Low NFC

High NFC

Back to 2. Approach

16

Maurício Manhães, GC | Dr. INNOVATION AND PREJUDICE: DESIGNING A DIVERSITY LANDSCAPE FOR KNOWLEDGE CREATION

2.3.3 Innovativeness Production Groups •

Base on that data, it is possible to abductively define some ideal ranges of references for designing groups that are potentially better at creating innovative propositions. Those reference ranges are presented on the following table.

Indexes NFC Mean NFC Coefficient of Variation

References 55 to 60 0,14 to 0,24

Back to 2. Approach

17

Maurício Manhães, GC | Dr. INNOVATION AND PREJUDICE: DESIGNING A DIVERSITY LANDSCAPE FOR KNOWLEDGE CREATION

Potentially Innovative Groups 60% higher perception of potentially innovative

Low NFC

High NFC

Back to 2. Approach

18

Maurício Manhães, GC | Dr. INNOVATION AND PREJUDICE: DESIGNING A DIVERSITY LANDSCAPE FOR KNOWLEDGE CREATION

2.3.4 Innovativeness Perception Judges •

On the innovativeness rating part of the experiment, the judges that generated rating rankings closer to the Independent Panel of Judges final ones were the judges with NFC levels that clustered (K-Means) around 40 (see Table 19).

Indexes

NFC

References

34 to 47

Back to 2. Approach

19

Maurício Manhães, GC | Dr. INNOVATION AND PREJUDICE: DESIGNING A DIVERSITY LANDSCAPE FOR KNOWLEDGE CREATION

Potentially Innovative Judges Better ranking of innovative propositions

Low NFC

High NFC

Back to 2. Approach

20

Maurício Manhães, GC | Dr. INNOVATION AND PREJUDICE: DESIGNING A DIVERSITY LANDSCAPE FOR KNOWLEDGE CREATION

2.3.5 Innovativeness Governance • Positive effects of intergroup contact occur only in situations marked by four key conditions (Petigrew, 1998): – equal group status within the situation; – common goals; – intergroup cooperation; and – the support of authorities, law, or custom.

Back to 2. Approach

21

Maurício Manhães, GC | Dr. INNOVATION AND PREJUDICE: DESIGNING A DIVERSITY LANDSCAPE FOR KNOWLEDGE CREATION

2.4 References Allport, G. (1979). The Nature of Prejudice: 25th Anniversary Edition (p. 576). Perseus Books Publishing, L.L.C. Alvesson, M., & Karreman, D. (2007). CONSTRUCTING MYSTERY : EMPIRICAL MATTERS IN THEORY DEVELOPMENT. Academy of Management Review,

32(4), 1265–1281.

Alvesson, M., & Karreman, D. (2011). Qualitative Research and Theory Development: Mystery as Method (p. 132). London: Sage Publications. Retrieved from http://books.google.com.br/books?id=oaGLdNzk7OQC Alvesson, M., & Sköldberg, K. (2009). Reflexive methodology: new vistas for qualitative research. Journal of Advanced Nursing (Vol. 33, p. 361). Sage.

Retrieved from http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=JrxxHr3LksQC Amabile, T. M. (1982). Social psychology of creativity: A consensual assessment technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(5), 997–1013. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.43.5.997 Back to 2. Approach

22

Maurício Manhães, GC | Dr. INNOVATION AND PREJUDICE: DESIGNING A DIVERSITY LANDSCAPE FOR KNOWLEDGE CREATION

2.4 References Kruglanski, A. W. (2004). The Psychology of Closed Mindedness (Essays in Social Psychology) (p. 208). New York: Psychology Press.

Kruglanski, A. W., Friedman, I., & Zeevi, G. (1970). The effects of extrinsic incentive on some qualitative aspects of task performance. Journal of Personality, (717800).

Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.14676494.1971.tb00066.x/abstract Kruglanski, A. W., & Webster, D. M. (1996). Motivated closing of the mind: “seizing” and “freezing”. Psychological Review, 103(2), 263–83. Retrieved from

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8637961 Magnusson, P. (2003). Customer-oriented product development: experiments involving users in service innovation. STOCKHOLM SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS. Retrieved from http://hhs.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2:221388

Back to 2. Approach

23

Maurício Manhães, GC | Dr. INNOVATION AND PREJUDICE: DESIGNING A DIVERSITY LANDSCAPE FOR KNOWLEDGE CREATION

2.4 References Pettigrew, T. F. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 65–85. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.65 Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751–83.

doi:10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751 Roets, A., & Van Hiel, A. (2007). Separating ability from need: clarifying the dimensional structure of the Need for Closure Scale. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(2), 266–80. doi:10.1177/0146167206294744 Roets, A., & Van Hiel, A. (2011a). Allport’s Prejudiced Personality Today: Need for Closure as the Motivated Cognitive Basis of Prejudice. Current Directions in

Psychological Science, 20(6), 349–354. doi:10.1177/0963721411424894 Roets, A., & Van Hiel, A. (2011b). Item selection and validation of a brief, 15-item version of the Need for Closure Scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(1), 90–94. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.09.004 Back to 2. Approach

24