개인과 집단의 창의성 비교와 집단의 보상 효과 연구 = Study on the creativity of an individual and a group level, and the effects of rewards in a group level

국문 초록 (Abstract)

본 연구는 개인 창의성과 집단 창의성의 효과를 비교하고, 팀별보상이 집단의 창의성에 미치는 영향을 검증하기 위하여 실시되었다. 연구내용은 첫째, 집단 창의성의 효과를 밝히기 위하여 집단구성을 개인 수준과 집단 수준으로 나누어 창의적 아이디어의 수를 비교ㆍ검증하였으며, 둘째, 팀별보상의 효과를 밝히기 위하여 팀별보상을 약속한 집단과 팀별보상을 약속하지 않은 집단 간에 아이디어의 수가 차이가 나는 지를 비교ㆍ검증하였다. 연구 결과 첫째, 상호작용이 있는 집단(집단 수준)이 상호작용이 없는 집단(개인 수준)보다 창의적 아이디어 점수가 유의미하게 높았으며, 둘째, 팀별 보상을 약속받은 집단이 팀별 보상을 약속받지 못한 집단보다 창의적인 아이디어를 유의미하게 많이 내는 것으로 나타났다. 본 연구는 개인 창의성과 집단 창의성에 대한 국내의 유일한 실증연구로 집단 창의성 프로그램이 창의적 아이디어 생산에 더욱 효과적이라는 점과 더불어 팀별 보상이 창의적 아이디어 생산에 효과적이라는 것을 밝혀냈다는 데 의의가 있다.

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The purpose of this study is to verify the creativity of an individual and a group level, and the effect of rewards in a group level.
With the purpose of the study, two hypotheses established and verified are as follows :
In testing Hypothesis I, group members were classified into a non-interaction group (individual level) and an interaction group (group level), and then creative ideas of the groups were analyzed with a view to comparing the creativity of an individual level and that of a group level. The subject groups being randomly consisted of 4~6 persons were 16 teams of an individual level, and 27 teams of a group level. The testing result was that the scores of creative ideas of an interaction group (group level) were significantly higher than a non-interaction group (individual level), which was t=2.l29, p＜.05.
In testing Hypothesis 2, subjects groups were divided into a group of promised to group rewards and a group of non-promised to group rewards, and then creative ideas of the groups were analyzed with intent to verify the effect of rewards on each group. The subject groups were analyzed as divided into 13 teams of promised to group rewards and 14 teams of non-promised to group rewards. The testing result was that a group of promised to group rewards produced creative ideas significantly more than a group of non-promised to team rewards, which was t=3.713, p＜.01.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Ⅰ. 서론
• Ⅱ. 이론적 배경
• Ⅲ. 연구문제 1
• Ⅳ. 연구문제 2
• Ⅵ. 논의 및 제언
• 참고문헌
• 〈ABSTRACT〉

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 유영만, "팀워크 2.0 시대가 열리고 있다" (625) : 44-51, 2008

2 김왕동, "창의적 프론티어 연구 환경조성에 대한 탐색" 16-23, 2008

3 곽금주, "창의성도 협동에서 일어난다"

4 이정규, "창의성 연구에 있어서 영역성과 측정에 대한 문제점 분석연구" 한국교육심리학회 17 (17): 315-335, 2003

5 최종인, "집단창의성의 결정 요인에 관한 연구" 고려대학교 1995

6 김은환, "조직창의성을 여는 암호 조직문화" SERI 전망 009 2009

7 성은현, "보상이 창의성에 미치는 영향" 2006

8 정지혜, "르네상스적 집합 창의성의 조건" LG Business Insight 2008

9 Lepper, M. R., "Undermining children’'s intrinsic interest with extrinsic rewards: A test of the overjustification hypothesis" 28 : 129-137, 1973

10 Gallupe, R. B., "Unblocking Brainstorms" 76 : 131-142, 1991

11 Woodman, R. W., "Toward a Theory of Organizational Creativity" 18 : 293-321, 1993

12 Camacho, L. M., "The role of social anxiousness in group brainstorming" 27 : 215-247, 1995

13 Amabile,T.M., "The Social psychology of creativity" Spinger-Verlag 1983

14 Sethia,N.K., "The Shaping of Creativity in Organizations" 224-228, 1989

15 Mednick,S.A., "The Associative basis of the creative process" 69 (69): 220-232, 1962

16 Puccio,G.J., "Teams in Encyclopedia of creativity. San Diego" Academic Press 1999

17 Diehl, W., "Productivity loss in idea-generating groups: Tracking down the blocking effect" 61 : 392-403, 1991

18 Diehl, W, "Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: The solution of a riddle" 53 : 497-509, 1987

19 Robbins,S.P., "Organization Behavior" 1989

20 Drazin, Robert, "Multilevel Theorizing about Creativity in Organizations: A Sensemaking Perspective" 24 (24): 286-307, 1999

21 Eisenberg,R., "Learned industriousness" 99 : 248-267, 1992

22 King, N., "Innovation in working groups. in West & Farr" Innovation & Creativity at Work 81-100, 1990

23 Paulus,P., "Group, teams and creativity: the creative potential of idea generating groups" 49 (49): 237-262, 2000

24 Nijstad, B. A., "Group creativity: Common themes and future directions. In Group creativity" Oxford Press 2003

25 Csikzentmihalyi,M., "Flow: The psychology of optimal experience" Harper & Row 1990

26 Eisenberger, R., "Detrimental effects of reward: Reality or myth" 51 : 1153-1166, 1996

27 Levitt,T., "Creativity is not enough" Harvard Business Review 2002

28 Simonton,D.K., "Creativity in science" Cambridge University Press 2004

29 EU, "Creativity Capabilities and the Promotion of Highly Innovative Research in Europe and the United States" 2007

30 Sutton, R. I., "Brainstorming groups in context" 41 : 685-718, 1996

31 Osborn,A.F, "Applied imagination(2nd ed.)" Scribner 1963

32 Hollingsworth J. R., "A Path-Dependent Perspective on Institutional and Organizational Factors Shaping Major Scientific Discoveries. in Innovation, Science, and Institutional Change: A Research Handbook" Oxford University Press 423-442, 2006