Synthesis in Action: Response to Chen and Adamson

Abstract

Academy of Management ReviewVol. 40, No. 3 DialogueSynthesis in Action: Response to Chen and AdamsonSarah HarveySarah HarveyUniversity College LondonPublished Online:12 Jan 2015https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2014.0555AboutSectionsView articleView Full TextPDF/EPUB ToolsDownload CitationsAdd to favoritesTrack Citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail View articleREFERENCESAstley W. G. 1985. The two ecologies: Population and community perspectives on organizational evolution. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30: 224–241. Google ScholarChen J., Adamson C. 2015. Innovation: Integration of random variation and creative synthesis. Academy of Management Review, 40: 000–000. Google ScholarDiehl M., Stroebe W. 1987. Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward the solution of a riddle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53: 497–509. Google ScholarHarvey S. 2014. Creative synthesis: Exploring the process of extraordinary group creativity. Academy of Management Review, 39: 324–343.Link , Google ScholarHarvey S., Kou C. Y. 2013. Collective engagement in creative tasks: The role of evaluation in the creative process in groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 58: 346–386. Google ScholarRietzschel E. F., Nijstad B. A., Stroebe W. 2006. Productivity is not enough: A comparison of interactive and nominal brainstorming groups on idea generation and selection. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42: 244–251. Google ScholarVan de Ven A. H., Poole M. S. 1995. Explaining development and change in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 20: 510–540.Link , Google ScholarFiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Vol. 40, No. 3 Permissions Metrics in the past 12 months History Published online 12 January 2015 Published in print 1 July 2015 Information© Academy of Management ReviewDownload PDF