Creative Personality, Team Conflict Profiles, and Team Outcomes
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We develop theory using a novel conceptualization of creative personality to explain how implicit creative personality predicts the development of conflict in teams. Specifically, we contend that implicit creative personality is useful for predicting differing profiles of team conflict that subsequently predict important team outcomes, including performance. Informed by the complexity perspective on conflict, we demonstrate that higher team average levels of implicit creative personality are associated with functional profiles of team conflict that are indicative of team norms of ‘lively debate’ and a robust work ethic, both of which are ultimately beneficial to multiple aspects of team effectiveness. The findings from two samples (including more than 900 individuals in over 240 teams) of undergraduate students largely support our theory. This investigation of the influence of implicit aspects of creative personality on team effectiveness through team conflict offers clarity regarding the way in which creative personality affects team processes and team outcomes. Implications for theory and practice are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it