Team Creativity Evolution Based on Exploitation and Exploration with Network Structure Perspectives

  • Do Young Choi
  • Kun Chang Lee
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 195)


Even though several researches have been conducted on team creativity and organizational adaptation by the process of exploitation and exploration, few have attempted to address to analyze the direct structure of exploitation and exploration related to the network structure of organizations. This research addresses how team creativity can be revealed through knowledge creation of exploitation and exploration processes with an emphasis on network structure. Several network structures are considered like relational strength, heterogeneity, and knowledge diversity in order to analyze directly knowledge creation structure. We propose logical model defined by the knowledge creation functions of exploitation and exploration and time-dependent simulations were conducted.


Team creativity Knowledge Creation Exploitation Exploration Network Structure 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Amabile, T.M.: A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior 10, 123–167 (1988)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Amabile, T.M.: Creativity in context. Westview, CO (1996)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ancona, D.G., Caldwell, D.F.: Demography and design: Predictors of new product team productivity. Organization Science 3, 321–341 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Andriopoulos, C.: Determinants of organizational creativity: a literature review. Management Decision 39(10), 834–840 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Balkundi, P., Harrison, D.A.: Ties, leaders, and time in teams: Strong inference about the effects of network structure on team viability and performance. Academy of Management Journal 49, 49–68 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Beckman, C.: The influence of founding team company affiliation on firm behavior. Academy of Management Journal 49, 741–758 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Burt, R.S.: Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1992)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Coleman, J.S.: Foundations of Social Theory. Harvard Business Press, Cambridge (1990)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    De Dreu, C.K., West, M.A.: Minority dissent and team innovation: The importance of participation in decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology 86, 1191–1201 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fang, C., Lee, J., Schilling, M.A.: Balancing exploration and exploitation through structural design: The isolation of subgroups and organization learning. Organization Science, 0: orsc. 1090.0468V1 – rsc.1090.0468 (2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Florida, R.: The rise of the creative class: and how it’s transforming work, leisure, community and everyday life. Basic Books, New York (2002)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Garcia, R., Calantone, R., Levine, R.: The role of knowledge in resource allocation to exploration versus exploitation in technologically oriented organizations. Decision Sciences 34(2), 323–349 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hansen, M.T.: The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subteams. Administrative Science Quarterly 44, 82–111 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kane, G.C., Alavi, M.: Information technology and organizational learning: An investigation of exploration and exploitation processes. Organization Science 18(5), 796–812 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kogut, B.: The network as knowledge: Generative rules and the emergence of structure. Strategic Management Journal 21(3), 405–425 (2000)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kurtzberg, T.R., Amabile, T.M.: From Guilford to creative synergy: opening the blackbox of team-level creativity. Creativity Research Journal 13, 285–294 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lazer, D., Friedman, A.: The network structure of exploration and exploitation. Administrative Science Quarterly 52, 667–694 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    March, J.G.: Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science 2(1), 71–87 (1991)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    McGrath, R.G.: Exploratory learning, innovative capacity, and managerial oversight. Academy of Management Journal 44, 118–131 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Milgram, R.M., Rabkin, L.: Developmental test of Mednick’s associative hierarchies of original thinking. Developmental Psychology 16, 157–158 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    O’Reilly, C.A., Caldwell, D.F., Barnett, W.P.: Work group demography, social integration, and turnover. Administrative Science Quarterly 34, 21–37 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Reagans, R., Zuckerman, E.W.: Networks, diversity, and productivity: The social capital of corporate R&D teams. Organization Science 12(4), 502–517 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Taylor, A., Greve, H.R.: Superman or the fantastic four? Knowledge combination and experience in innovative teams. Academy of Management Journal 49(4), 723–740 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Uzzi, B., Spiro, J.: Collaboration and creativity: The small world problem. American Journal of Sociology 111, 447–504 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Van Dyne, L., Saavedre, R.: A naturalistic minority influence experiment: Effects on divergent thinking, conflict, and originality in work-groups. British Journal of Social Psychology 35, 151–172 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Zenger, T.R., Lawrence, B.S.: Organizational demography: The differential effects of age and tenure distributions on technical communication. Academy of Management Journal 32, 353–376 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Do Young Choi
    • 1
  • Kun Chang Lee
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Solution Business UnitLG CNS Co., LtdSeoulRepublic of Korea
  2. 2.SKK Business SchoolRepublic of Korea
  3. 3.Department of Interaction ScienceWCURepublic of Korea
  4. 4.Sungkyunkwan UniversitySeoulRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations