The Korean Journal of Coaching Psychology (한국심리학회지 : 코칭)

Korean Association of Coaching Psychology (한국코칭심리학회)
권호 표지

The effect of the 1:1 coaching and the example ideas with the GROW model on the creativity of new product development ideas

GROW모델을 활용한 1:1 코칭과 예시 아이디어가 신제품 개발 아이디어 창의성에 미치는 영향

  • Received : 2021.12.08
  • Accepted : 2021.12.15
  • Published : 2021.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study is an experimental study to examine the effect of the 1:1 coaching and example ideas with the GROW model on the creativity of new product ideas. Participants were composed of 32 adults who did not know coaching and were not related to new product development-related industries, and the experiment was randomly assigned to 1:1 coaching group, example idea group, and control group. The ideas answered by the participants were evaluated by measuring novelty, appropriateness, and willingness to pay after the experiment, and 30 experimental data and 3 expert group evaluation data were used for the final analysis. As a result of the study, the 1:1 coaching using the GROW model had a significant effect on the creativity of new product ideas, and in particular, had a positive effect on novelty. The example idea group received the lowest score among the three groups, including the control group, in novelty and suitability, and was found to have a negative effect on idea creativity. Based on these results, implications and limitations for the use of coaching in the work or situation of presenting creative ideas were discussed, and suggestions for follow-up studies were made.

본 연구는 GROW모델을 활용한 1:1코칭과 예시 아이디어가 신제품 아이디어 창의성에 미치는 영향을 살펴보기 위한 실험 연구이다. 참여자는 신제품 개발 관련 업종과 관계가 없는 성인 32명으로 구성하였으며, 1:1 코칭 그룹, 예시 아이디어 그룹, 통제 그룹으로 무작위 배정하여 실험을 진행하였다. 참가자가 답변한 아이디어는 실험 후 전문가 집단 4인이 참신성, 적합성, 지불의사가격을 측정해 아이디어 창의성을 평가하였으며, 최종분석에는 30명의 실험자료와 3명의 전문 평가 자료가 사용되었다. 연구 결과 GROW 모델을 활용한 1:1 코칭은 신제품 아이디어 창의성에 유의미한 영향을 미쳤으며, 특히 참신성에 긍정적인 영향을 미쳤다. 예시 아이디어 그룹은 참신성과 적합성에서 통제집단을 포함한 세 그룹 중 가장 낮은 점수를 받아 아이디어 창의성에 부정적인 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났다. 이러한 결과를 바탕으로 창의적인 아이디어를 제시하는 업무나 상황에서 코칭 활용에 대한 시사점과 제한점을 논의하였으며, 후속 연구에 대한 제언을 하였다.

Keywords

References

  1. 고현숙 (2014). 코칭의 모델과 프로세스의 비교. 리더십연구, 5, 39-67.
  2. 김근배 (2018). 끌리는 컨셉 만들기. 중앙북스.
  3. 김옥남 (2009). 고객 통찰력 확보를 위한 소비자 조사 기법. LG Business Insight, 25, 2-19.
  4. 김은정 (2015). 코칭의 심리학. 학지사.
  5. 김종익, 이상진, 김근배 (2019). 사용상황 관찰이 신제품 아이디어의 창의성에 미치는 영향. 대한경영학회지, 32(12), 2157-2175.
  6. 송두호 (2006). 함께 뛰는 코칭; 크리스천 코칭리더십. 활천, 636(11), 14-19.
  7. 이상진 (2018). 유추와 체계적 발명사고가 아이디어의 창의성에 미치는 영향. 숭실대학교 대학원 박사학위논문.
  8. 이소희, 길영환, 도미향, 김혜연 (2014). 코칭학 개론. 신정.
  9. 이정민, 도미향 (2018). 상사의 코칭리더십이 부하직원의 개인 창의성에 미치는 영향. 코칭연구, 11(1), 5-27.
  10. 임창현, 심준영 (2016). 코칭의 GROW 기법 진행 시 두뇌 영역별 뇌파 변화 및 특성 연구. 코칭능력개발지, 18(3), 75-85
  11. 정문선 (2019). 신제품 개발에서 컨셉정의가 아이디어 질에 미치는 영향. 숭실대학교 대학원 박사학위논문.
  12. 조연순, 성진숙, 이혜주 (2008). 창의성 교육. 이화여자대학교출판부.
  13. 탁진국 (2010). 코칭심리의 필요성. 한국심리학회 학술대회 자료집, 2010(1), 344-345.
  14. 하원식, 탁진국 (2012). 코칭리더십이 맥락수행 및 창의적 행동에 미치는 영향: 조직미덕과 학습목표지향성의 조절효과. 한국심리학회지: 산업 및 조직, 25(1), 195-213.
  15. Amabile, T. M. (1983). Social psychology of creativity: A componential A componential conceptualization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 357-376. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.2.357
  16. Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 10(1), 123-167.
  17. Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
  18. Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1154-1184.
  19. Amabile, T. M., Barsade, S. G., Mueller, J. S. & Staw, B. M. (2005). Affect and creativity at work. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(3), 367-403. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.2005.50.3.367
  20. Amabile, T. M., & Mueller, J. S. (2008). Studying creativity, its processes, and its antecedents. In J. Zhou & C. E. Shalley (Eds.), Handbook of Organizational Creativity. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 33-64.
  21. Creusen, M., Hultink, E. J., & Eling, K. (2013). Choice of consumer research methods in the front end of new product development. International Journal of Market Research, 55(1), 81-104. https://doi.org/10.2501/IJMR-2013-008
  22. Coach U. (2005). The coach u personal and corporate coach training handbook. Coach U Inc. Wiley.
  23. Cooper, R. G. (1990). Stage-gate systems: a new tool for managing new products. Business Horizons, 33(3), 44-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/0007-6813(90)90040-I
  24. Cooper, R. G. (2019). The drivers of success in new-product development. Industrial Marketing Management, 76, 36-47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2018.07.005
  25. Couger, J. D. (1995). Creative problem solving and opportunity finding. Danvers, MA: Boyd & Fraser.
  26. Cox, E., Bachkirova, T., & Clutterbuck, D. (2010). The Complete Handbook of Coaching (E. Cox, T. Bachkirova & D. Clutterbuck Eds.). London: Sage Publications Ltd.
  27. Dahl, D. W., & Moreau, P. (2002). The influence and value of analogical thinking during new product ideation. Journal of Marketing Research, 39(1), 47-60. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.39.1.47.18930
  28. Ellinger, A. D., Ellinger, A. E., & Keller, S. B. (2003). Supervisory coaching behavior, employee satisfaction, and warehouse employee performance: A dyadic perspective in the distribution industry. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 14(4), 435-458. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.1078
  29. Graham, S., Wedman, J. F., & Garvin-Kester, B. (1993). Manager coaching skills: Development and application. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6(1), 2-13.
  30. Grant, A. M., & Ashford, S. J. (2008). The dynamics of proactivity at work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 3-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2008.04.002
  31. Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. Amerian Psychologis, 5, 444-454. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0063487
  32. Hargrove, R. (2008). Masterful coaching. John Wiley & Sons.
  33. Heering, M. (2016). Business coaching for creativity at work: towards the development of a 'coaching for creativity'framework that uses intrapersonal factors as mediators. Master's thesis, University of Twente.
  34. Herd, K. B., & Mehta, R. (2019). Head versus heart: the effect of objective versus feelings-based mental imagery on new product creativity. Journal of Consumer Research, 46(1), 36-52. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucy058
  35. Hoffman, D. L., Kopalle, P. K., & Novak, T. P. (2010). The 'right' consumers for better concepts: Identifying consumers high in emergent nature to develop new product concepts. Journal of Marketing Research, 47(5), 854-865. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.47.5.854
  36. Joo, B. K. (2005). Executive Coaching: A Conceptual Framework From and Integrative Review of Practice and Research. Human Resource Development Review, 4(4), 462-88. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484305280866
  37. Katherine Ely, Lisa A., Johnathan K., Stephen J. Z., Gina Hernez-Broome, & Wynne W. (2010). Evaluating leadership coaching: A review and integrated framework. Leadership Quarterly, 21, 585-599. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.06.003
  38. Li, S. M., Chan, F. T., Tsang, Y. P., & Lam, H. Y. (2021). New product idea Selection in the fuzzy front end of innovation: A fuzzy best-worst method and group decision-making process. Mathematics, 9(4), 337. https://doi.org/10.3390/math9040337
  39. Lubart, T. I., & Sternberg, R. J. (1995). An investment approach to creativity: Theory and data. The Creative Cognition Approach, 269-302.
  40. Luo, L., & Toubia, O. (2015). Improving online idea generation platforms and customizing the task structure on the basis of consumers' domain-specific knowledge. Journal of Marketing, 79(5), 100-114. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.13.0212
  41. Mitchell, A. A., & Dacin, P. A. (1996), The assessment of alternative measures of consumer expertise, Journal of Consumer Research, 23(3), 219-239. https://doi.org/10.1086/209479
  42. Moreau, C. P., & Darren W. D. (2005). Designing the solution: The impact of constraints on consumers Creativity. Journal of Consumer Research 32(1) : 13-22. https://doi.org/10.1086/429597
  43. Nijstad, B. A., Diehl, M., & Stroebe, W. (2003). Cognitive stimulation and interference in idea generating groups. Group creativity: Innovation through Collaboration, 137-159.
  44. Nishikawa, H., Schreier, M., & Ogawa, S. (2013). User-generated versus designer-generated products: A performance assessment at Muji. International Journal of Research in Marketing 30(2), 160-167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2012.09.002
  45. Pousa, C., & Mathieu, A. (2015). Is managerial coaching a source of competitive advantage? Promoting employee self-regulation through coaching. Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice, 8(1), 20-35. https://doi.org/10.1080/17521882.2015.1009134
  46. Sellier, A. L., & Dahl, D. W. (2011). Focus! creative success is enjoyed through restricted choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(6), 996-1007. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.10.0407
  47. Shalley, C. E. (1991). Effects of productivity goals, creativity goals, and personal discretion on individual creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 179-185. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.76.2.179
  48. Shalley, C. E. (1995). Effects of coaction, expected evaluation, and goal setting on creativity and productivity. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 483-503. https://doi.org/10.2307/256689
  49. Shalley, C. E., & Perry-Smith, J. E. (2001). Effects of social-psychological factors on creative performance: The role of informational and controlling expected evaluation and modeling experience. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 84(1), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2000.2918
  50. Srivastava, A., Bartol, K. M., & Locke, E. A. (2006). Empowering leadership in management teams: Effects on knowledge sharing, efficacy, and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 49(6), 1239-1251. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2006.23478718
  51. Whitmore, J. (1992). Coaching for performance. London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing.
  52. Whitemore, J. (2002). Coaching for performance: Growing people, performance and purpose. London: Nicholas Brearley.
  53. Zhang, H., Kwan, H. K., Zhang, X., & Wu, L. Z. (2014). High core self-evaluators maintain creativity: A motivational model of abusive supervision. Journal of Management, 40(4), 1151-1174. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206312460681