Description
Creativity refers to the phenomenon whereby something new is created which has some kind of subjective value. It is also the qualitative impetus behind any given act of creation, and it is generally perceived to be associated with intelligence and cognition.
HOW DOES CREATIVITY OCCUR IN TEAMS?
ABSTRACT Organizations benefit when workteams produce more rather than less creativity. What actions in organizations help this to occur - on the part of team leaders and team members? This is the primary question that my dissertation aims to answer. More specifically, I hypothesize that team leaders' behaviors (e.g., transformational, empowering, and boundary-working behaviors) lead to team members' affective and cognitive experiences (e.g., positive group affective tone, team empowerment) that in turn lead to teamwork processes (e.g., information sharing and boundary-spanning among team members) that ultimately lead to team creativity. Thus, my dissertation attempts to explain how and why team creativity occurs. Results from 52 organizational R&D teams suggest support for these hypothesized relationships and for the theoretical model overall. I conclude by discussing my findings' implications for managers and management scholars interested in enhancing team creativity.
HOW DOES CREATIVITY OCCUR IN TEAMS? AN EMPIRICAL TEST
By
Sirkwoo Jin
Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Maryland, College Park, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy 2010
Advisory Committee: Professor Debra L. Shapiro, Chair Associate Professor Myeong-Gu Seo Professor Paul E. Tesluk Professor M. Susan Taylor Professor Cheri Ostroff
© Copyright by Sirkwoo Jin 2010
Table of Contents
Table of Contents.......................................................................................................... ii List of Tables ................................................................................................................ v List of Figures .............................................................................................................. vi CHAPTER 1: Introduction ........................................................................................... 1 The Dissertation's Purpose and Potential Contribution ........................................... 7 Overview of Chapters ............................................................................................ 10 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESES................................ 12 Team Process-Related Behaviors Likely to Influence Team Creativity................ 14 The Likely Positive Effect of Information-Sharing on Team Creativity.......... 15 The Likely Positive Effect of Team Boundary-Spanning on Team Creativity 16 Two Emergent States Likely to Influence Team Creativity .................................. 20 Why Might Group Positive Affective Tone Increase Creativity-Enhancing Behaviors in Teams?......................................................................................... 20 The Likely Effect of Positive Group Affective Tone on Team Information-Sharing........................................................................... 20 The Likely Effect of Positive Group Affective Tone on Team Boundary-Spanning ........................................................................... 22 Why Might Team Empowerment Increase Creativity-Enhacing Behaviors in Teams? .......................................................................................................... 24 The Likely Effect of Team Empowerment on Team Information-Sharing ...... 24 The Likely Effect of Team Empowerment on Team Boundary-Spanning....... 25 Do Team Process-Behaviors Mediate Team Emergent State-Effects on Team Creativity?............................................................................................... 26 Possible Antecedents to Team Emergent States that Influence Team Creativity.. 28 The Likely Effect of Transformational Leadership on Team Emergent States 29 The Likely Effect of Empowering Leadership on Team Emergent States ....... 31 The Likely Effect of Leader's Boundary-Spanning Behaviors on Team Emergent States ................................................................................. 33 The Likely Effect of Organizational Support for Creativity on Team Creativity.. 35 Do Team Leader Behaviors Influence Organizational Support for Team Creativity? .............................................................................................. 36 CHAPTER 3: METHODS.......................................................................................... 38 Research Setting and Sample................................................................................. 38 General Procedure.................................................................................................. 43 Survey for Team Members versus Team Leaders ................................................. 45 Measures ................................................................................................................ 46 Team Leader's Behaviors.................................................................................. 46 Team leaders' transformational behaviors ................................................... 46 Team leaders' boundary-spanning behaviors ............................................... 47 Team leaders' empowering behaviors.......................................................... 48
ii
Team Emergent State Factors .......................................................................... 49 Team's level of positive affective tone ........................................................ 49 Team's level of empowerment ..................................................................... 50 Team Process Factors ....................................................................................... 51 Team's level of information-sharing ............................................................ 51 Team's level of boundary-spanning ............................................................. 51 Contextual Factors ............................................................................................ 53 Team's level of organizational support for team creativity.......................... 53 Team Outcome Variable ................................................................................... 54 Team's level of creativity............................................................................. 54 Control Variables .............................................................................................. 56 Team composition factors............................................................................ 56 Task design factors ...................................................................................... 58 Individual differece factors - Team members' and team leaders' cultural values..................................... 59 Analytic Strategy ................................................................................................... 60 Pre-Hypothesis Testing Analyses ..................................................................... 60 Test of cultural differences .......................................................................... 61 Test of aggregation appropriateness ............................................................ 61 Test of measurement model validity ........................................................... 63 Power Analysis ...................................................................................................... 66 CHAPTER 4: RESULTS............................................................................................ 67 Descriptive Statistics.............................................................................................. 67 Measurement Model Evaluation ............................................................................ 67 Hypothesis Test Results......................................................................................... 70 Team Process Behavior-Effects on Team Creativity........................................ 71 Team Emergent State-Associations with Team Process Behaviors ................. 72 Team Leader Behavior Effects on Group Affective Tone and Team Empowerment......................................... 74 Do Team Process Behaviors Mediate Team Emergent State-Effects on Team Creativity?.......................................................................................... 75 Organizational Support for Team Creativity Effect on Team Creativity ......... 79 Team Leader Boundary-Spanning Behavior Effects on Organizational Support for Team Creativity ............................................... 79 CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION...................................................................................... 81 Limitations of the Study......................................................................................... 87 Implications for Management Scholars ................................................................. 91 Implications for Managers ..................................................................................... 93
APPENDIX A: The Third Survey for Team Leaders & Members in the U.S............ 96 APPENDIX B: The Third Survey for Team Leaders & Members in South Korea.... 97
iii
APPENDIX C: The First Survey for Team Leaders in the U.S.................................. 98 APPENDIX D: The First Survey for Team Members in the U.S............................. 100 APPENDIX E: The First Survey for Team Leaders in South Korea........................ 105 APPENDIX F: The First Survey for Team Members in South Korea ..................... 107 APPENDIX G: The Second Survey for Team Leaders in the U.S. .......................... 112 APPENDIX H: The Second Survey for Team Members in the U.S. ....................... 114 APPENDIX I: The Second Survey for Team Leaders in South Korea ................... 116 APPENDIX J: The Second Survey for Team Members in South Korea................. 118
REFERENCES ......................................................................................................... 148
iv
List of Tables
TABLE 1: Empirical Studies of the Antecedents of Creativity from 1990 to 2008 in Management Literatures ..................................... 121 TABLE 2: Conclusions from Previous Studies on Team Creativity ....................... 126 TABLE 3: The Demographic Characteristics of Initial Sample.............................. 128 TABLE 4: The Demographic Characteristics of Final Sample ............................... 129 TABLE 5: Reliability-Within-Group (rwg), ICC(1) and ICC(2) .............................. 130 TABLE 6: Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations for Study Variables ............................................... 131 TABLE 7: Internal and Crossloadings of the Items................................................. 133 TABLE 8: Internal Consistency Index .................................................................... 141 TABLE 9: Results for the Hypothesized Paths (Hypotheses 1-6 and Hypotheses 9-15) ................................................. 142 TABLE 10: Results of the Mediation Testing (Hypotheses 7-8) ............................. 143 TABLE 11: Conclusions from My Dissertation in need of Future Research ........... 144
v
List of Figures
FIGURE 1: Theoretical Model of Team Creativity.................................................. 146 FIGURE 2: Empirical Model of Team Creativity .................................................... 147
vi
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
The theme of the World Economy Forum's 2006 annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland, was "The Creative Imperative" in which creativity was identified as a "must" for businesses who wish to become and remain viable. According to the definition of "creativity" offered by Amabile (1996), businesses are creative when they develop and generate ideas that are novel and useful. The need for doing this— hence the need for being creative— has been identified by Ford and Gioia (1995) and Kim and Mauborgne (2005) as urgent in light of business trends such as globalization, technology advancement, and the knowledge-based economy that increase the speed of changes that engulf businesses today. Businesses cannot be creative without employees who help them generate novel and useful ideas (e.g., Amabile, 1988; Oldham & Cummings, 1996; Woodman, Sawyer, & Griffin, 1993). Consistent with this, West and Anderson (1996) found that, in top management teams, innovation (which is the implementation of creative ideas, cf. Amabile, 1996; West & Farr, 1990; Woodman, Sawyer, & Griffin, 1993) was significantly positively associated with the proportion of team members who suggested improved workrelated procedures. West and Anderson's finding that team innovation is generally higher when procedural improvements are suggested by a higher proportion of team members suggests that it organizations' creativity may similarly be higher when more of their members are suggesting creative ideas. This may be partly why organizations have gradually transformed from an individual based-structure to a team-based structure
1
(cf. Ilgen, 1999; Kozlowski & Bell, 2003). Consistent with this explanation, there is a tendency for organizations when seeking creative ideas, such as new products, to assign employees to crossfunctional teams, or teams comprised of members from various functional backgrounds (cf. Lovelace, Shapiro, & Weingart, 2001). My dissertation's focus is on team creativity, not team innovation, due to the fact that it can take years before creative ideas get implemented, hence for innovation to occur, and because my theorizing pertains to the process by which teams are creative, hence to team creativity (cf. Amabile, 1996)— that is, to the process by which team members' collective efforts result in novel and useful ideas (e.g., Gilson & Shalley, 2004; Taggar, 2002). But does creativity happen in teams? And if so, how? Surprisingly, we know relatively little about how to obtain creativity from employee teams since, as Shalley, Zhou, and Oldham (2004) concluded after extensively reviewing the creativity literature, the bulk of empirical attention has been devoted to understanding the creativity and/or creative processes of individuals. This conclusion is evident in Table 1 where it can be seen that relatively few studies available from 1990 to 2010 from the database Business Source Complete have examined antecedents to team creativity.. Importantly, some of the studies shown in Table 1 were published after Shalley and colleagues' (2004) review of the creativity literature. Therefore, some progress in the last few years (although still little) has been made toward understanding antecedents to team creativity. Table 2 shows some of the conclusions provided by the findings of studies listed in Table 1. The conclusions selected for
2
Table 2 were those that appeared with highest frequency in the relatively sparse studies of natural ongoing teams in organizational settings. ----------------------------------------------Insert Tables 1 and 2 about here ----------------------------------------------As a set, the conclusions shown in Table 2 suggest that managers who wish to have team creativity ought to consider numerous team-related attributes, including: (1) team composition factors, (2) task design factors, (3) team emergent-state factors, (4) team process factors, and (5) team leader behavior factors. In my dissertation, team composition factors will be captured via the extent to which members' share similar creative ability, their preference for workgroup, and tenure on the team, task design factors will be captured via the extent to which members are interdependent in their task-related needs, team emergent-state factors will be captured via how much team members report feeling that the team has a positive tone and is empowered, team process factors will be captured via the extent to which members share information and engage in boundary-spanning behaviors in the team, and team leader behavior factors will be captured via the extent to which leaders' actions are transformational, empowering, and boundary-spanning in nature. Since "team emergent-states" and "team processes" each share the role of "process factors" within the classic Input-Process-Outcome team model proposed by Hackman (1987), it is important to note how these two concepts differ from each other. By team processes, I mean "interactions such as communication and conflict that occur among group members and external others" (Cohen & Bailey, 1997, p.244) such as team members'
3
collective behaviors and interactions with other members to achieve their collective goals. These processes typically become routine and, as such, may be experienced daily, as illustrated by behaviors such as informing each other about new workrelated issues and coordinating activities with other groups. In contrast to this routinequality, team emergent-states are dynamic in nature, and are team-related properties, such as the level of positive affect felt by team members at any particular moment, that "?vary as a function of team context, inputs, processes, and outcomes" (Marks, Mathieu, Zaccaro, 2001, p.357). The likelihood that team creativity is influenced by the five team-related attributes named above is consistent with conclusions made by Hülsheger, Anderson, and Salgado (2009) guided by their meta-analysis of literature pertaining to antecedents to team-level innovation. Additionally, the likelihood that the five teamrelated attributes will have important interrelationships with each other in addition to directly influencing the team outcome-variable (i.e., team creativity) is consistent with the theorizing of team scholars who characterize team outcomes as ultimately due to dynamics associated with "team-inputs" and "team-mediators" such as team emergent-states and/or team-processes (cf. Cohen & Bailey, 1997; Hackman, 1987; Ilgen, Hollenbeck, Johnson, & Jundt, 2005). The more recent teamwork model, IMOI (input-mediator-output-input) theorized by Ilgen and colleagues (2005), assumes that team input factors lead to team mediator factors (including team emergent state factors and team process factors) that in turn lead to team outcome factors, is especially influential in guiding the theoretical model I propose as antecedents to team creativity. My reliance on the IMOI model for theoretical guidance is due to the
4
fact that this model is similar to the traditional IPO (input-process-output) model proposed by Hackman (1987) yet improves on it by capturing a broader range of variables like team emergent-state factors (e.g., emergent cognitive or affective states) that reflect the complex and dynamic characteristics of teamwork. As can be seen in Figure 1, my theoretical model proposes that team creativity is influenced by variables that represent the three of the five fundamental team-related attributes named above— specifically: (1) team-emergent state factors (e.g., positive group affective tone and team empowerment), (2) team process factors (e.g., team information sharing, team boundary-spanning), and (3) team leader behaviors (e.g., transformational behaviors, empowering behaviors, boundary-spanning behaviors.) My selection of the latter three variable-categories is guided by the following reasons. First, team mediator factors (hence team emergent- and team process-factors) have been identified as the most proximal cause of team outcomes (e.g., Ilgen et al., 2005; Marks et al., 2001). Second, and relatedly, Hülsheger and colleagues's (2009) metaanalysis of the team creativity literature found team mediator factors to indeed be more influential than team composition- or task design- factors in explaining team creativity. Third, Zaccaro, Rittman, and Marks (2001: 452) theorized that leaderrelated attributes "?represent perhaps the most critical factor in the success of organizational teams." They explain the critical role of leaders as likely due to the influence leaders have on the degree of "coherence" among team members' behaviors, such as achieving shared goals, that typically enhance team success. This may thus hold true for teams whose assignments are to be creative, such as Research and Development (R&D) Teams, which will be the focus of my dissertation study.
5
Consistent with Zaccaro et al.'s view, Keller (1992, 2006) found in his longitudinal studies of R&D teams' performance that team leader behaviors were indeed a significant predictor. On the other hand, for reasons I explain in the literature review guiding my hypotheses (in Chapter 2), the importance of leader-behavior in influencing team creativity may be less in teams whose members have a higher (rather than lower) frequency of positive emergent states such as positive grouprelated affect and high levels of team empowerment, and a higher (rather than lower) frequency of positive team-processes (e.g., information-sharing among team members) due to the possibility that the latter feelings and actions on the part of team members may act as "substitutes for leadership" (Kerr & Jermier, 1978) and be more proximal to team creativity. As such, I am expecting the role of leader-behaviors in influencing team creativity to be less proximal than the mediating variables (e.g., team emergent-states and team-processes) that I will be investigating. Importantly, my dissertation does not ignore team composition factors and task design factors; rather, as I noted above, these factors are also measured in my dissertation but treated as control variables since I do expect them to have some (albeit smaller) influence on team creativity. In summary, then, my theoretical model highlights key determinants of team creativity that I will be hypothesizing. ------------------------------------Insert Figure 1 about here -----------------------------------Although I agree that multiple team-attributes, such as those described above, are likely to influence team creativity, the meta-analysis findings of Hülsheger et al.
6
(2009) as well as the findings of studies shown in Table 1 cannot explain how and why these team-attributes relate to team creativity. The inability of past work to explain these variables' interrelationships is due to several reasons. First, most past studies have examined the effect of only one or, at most, two of the five teamattributes named above and represented in my theoretical model. Although Hülsheger et al.'s (2009) meta-analysis is an exception, their methodology prevents empirical tests of these five team-attributes' potential moderating- and/or mediatingrelationships. Although Shin and Zhou (2007) is the other exception, their model excluded team-attributes associated with team process factors. Thus, although Shin and Zhou (2007) measured more team-attributes than is typical in studies examining antecedents to team creativity, their findings are still vulnerable to the rival explanation that the team creativity they observed may have been due to the unmeasured variable of team process behaviors such as information sharing or boundary-spanning behaviors by team members.
This Dissertation's Purpose and Potential Contributions The purpose of my dissertation is to theoretically and empirically examine how and why team creativity occurs. Toward this goal, I will test the theoretical model shown in Figure 1; this means that, at a minimum, I will be assessing the variables comprising Figure 1. Importantly, I will be assessing as control variables the team-attributes associated with team composition- and task design-factors, for reasons I explained above. As such, the theoretical model I test improves upon those tested in previous work and, thereby, promises to extend conclusions associated with antecedents to team creativity. The test I make of this theoretical model will involve a
7
sample of team members on natural ongoing, not artificially-created, teams in a business organization whose members are fulltime employees with assigned teamtasks that require them to be creative (i.e., to create new products) and to coordinate their actions in order to do so. As a result, the teams I study are likely to experience the variables that my theoretical model will assess, a possibility that seems less likely when studies involve artificially-created, temporary teams comprised of undergraduates who often lack work-related team experiences (for an elaboration of this view, see Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006; McGrath, Arrow, & Berdahl, 2000). My study of ongoing natural teams helps fill the void identified by George (2008: 466) regarding how little is known in the group creativity literature "? about the creativity of ongoing groups in organizations." By studying natural ongoing teams comprised of fulltime employees, my dissertation also enables me to build upon the empiricallyguided conclusions of Shin and Zhou (2007) whose study is one of the few to also study team creativity dynamics in a natural organizational setting. With regard to the team leader-related attributes (leaders' degree of transformational leadership behaviors, team-empowering behaviors, and boundaryspanning behaviors), each of these have been linked to other variables shown in my theoretical model in ways that I explain in Chapter 2. By testing all of these leaderrelated behaviors in one study in a manner that includes mediating variables, my findings also promise to illuminate the relative importance of different leadership behaviors in influencing team creativity and the processes by which each leadership behavior may help teams be creative. More specifically with regard to how leaders' behavior may influence team creativity, as can be seen in Figure 1, I will be
8
theorizing that team leaders' transformational, empowering, and boundary-spanning behaviors are essential for creating team members' positive affective, cognitive, and behavioral experiences in teams that ultimately enhance teams' creativity. Importantly, and also shown in Figure 1, I will be theorizing that the leaders who span boundaries in their organization (e.g., talk with people who are outside of the team they are leading in efforts to obtain resources the team needs to do its work, cf. Ancona & Caldwell, 1992) will be more likely to obtain support from the broader organization for team creativity-related needs; and that this organizational support in turn aids teams in being creative. Because my dissertation assesses these variables as well, these relationships can be empirically examined in my dissertation. My biggest theoretical contribution is highlighting the key role that team emergent-states and team processes play in influencing team creativity. More specifically, as shown in Figure 1, my theoretical model suggests that team emergentstates (e.g., team members' experience of positive group-affect and empowerment in teams) lead to team processes (e.g., members' behaviors associated with information sharing and spanning boundaries) that ultimately enhance the degrees of creativity in teams. These specific relationships are not found in models that have previously been offered as antecedents to "team effectiveness," though the team-effectiveness models do tend to refer to the importance of emergent-states and team processes (e.g., Ilgen et al., 2005; Kozlowski, Gully, Salas, & Cannon-Bowers, 1996). Since high levels of team creativity does not guarantee high levels of team effectiveness, and it can even lower the levels of team effectiveness (Gilson, Mathieu, Shalley, & Ruddy, 2005), general team effectiveness models seem unlikely to apply to team creativity. Thus,
9
one potential contribution of my dissertation is that it, unlike models of team effectiveness, provides theoretically specific reasons why and how team emergentstates and team processes lead to high levels of team creativity (as explained in Chapter 2). For several reasons my dissertation promises to expand the thinking of managers interested in team creativity, not only management scholars. First, my dissertation can help sensitize managers to the fact that leadership behaviors, such as behaviors that may enhance emergent states that are conducive to team creativity as suggested by my theoretical model, can be developed and trained (Bass, 1990; Latham, 1988), and may need to be emphasized in managerial training programs whose purpose is meant to increase teams' creativity. Second, my dissertation can help sensitize managers to the fact that team members' positive affective, motivational, and behavioral experiences in teams are critical factors to increase team creativity. The potential importance of these emergent states suggests that leaders' behaviors alone are unlikely to be sufficient for assisting teams in reaching creative performance goals.
Overview of Chapters This dissertation proceeds as follows. In the next chapter (Chapter 2) I review the literature that has guided the hypotheses I will test whose visual summary is shown in Figure 1. In Chapter 3, I describe the method I have used to test my hypotheses, including the measures used to assess variables in the theoretical model in Figure 1, tests to verify that aggregating members' perceptions is conceptually and empirically warranted, and model-related tests whose purpose is to ensure that my
10
theoretical model is valid for testing. In Chapter 4 I describe the results of modelrelated tests and the dissertation study's findings; and in Chapter 5 I identify key conclusions that are guided by my dissertation's findings, limitations of this dissertation and implications for future research needs, and implications for managers as well as management scholars interested in enhancing team creativity.
11
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESES
In this chapter I review literature guiding the theoretical model that this dissertation tests, shown in Figure 1. More specifically, I start by reviewing literature leading me to posit that the most proximal variables to team creativity are team process-related behaviors associated with the extent to which members share information with each other and/or span boundaries, called "information-sharing" and "boundary-spanning," respectively. An example of information-sharing in teams is exchanging unique ideas and solutions to finish their project. Consistent with this, De Dreu (2007) describes information-sharing in teams to consist of behaviors such as sharing work-related issues with other members and exchange new and unique perspective and opinions with other members. An example of boundary-spanning in teams is meeting potential customers and understanding their needs, as well as negotiating project deadline with employees of other teams or organization. Consistent with this, Ancona and Caldwell (1992) describe boundary-spanning in teams to consist of behaviors such as understanding the external context, taskcoordinating, persuading external stakeholders, and protecting the teams. Since people's behaviors are influenced by people's affective states (cf. Frijda, 1986; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) and motivational states (cf. Locke & Latham, 1990; Vroom, 1964), and affective and motivational states in teams are often emergent in nature (cf. Chen & Kanfer, 2006; Kelly & Barsade, 2001), my hypothesizing next takes me to the emergent states in teams likely to influence the extent to which members will behave in information-sharing and/or boundary-spanning ways.
12
Specifically, I will review literature leading me to hypothesize that information sharing and boundary-spanning are each more likely to occur when team members experience higher levels of positive team affect (or feelings of being excited, strong, enthusiastic, and proud, cf. George, 1996; Barsade, 2002) and team empowerment (or believing in team's capability to accomplish goals, importance of their tasks, and team's ability to set the goals and determine work procedures, cf., Kirkman & Rosen, 1999). Cumulatively, at this point my initial set of hypotheses suggest that teams characterized by the emergent states of greater positive affect and empowerment will probably be more creative due to the greater likelihood of information-sharing and boundary-spanning that ought to occur in such teams. As a result, my hypothesizing next leads me to identify the team process behaviors as mediators of the emergent states' likely effect on team creativity. A key question that emerges at this point is what enables some teams, perhaps more than other teams, to experience emergent states associated with higher levels of positive affect and empowerment? I will hypothesize that team leader-behaviors (i.e., those relating to transformational leadership, empowering leadership, and boundaryspanning) trigger these emergent states; importantly, however, this is likely only if the teams' members have significant interaction with their leader, which may not always be the case. As a result, although I expect leader behaviors to potentially influence team creativity, I view these as less proximal than the teams' emergent states or team process-behaviors, hence potentially less influential. This is especially true in teams that feel highly empowered since such teams are, by definition, "self-managing" and
13
thereby less dependent on leaders to set goals and/or make decisions (cf., Kirkman & Rosen, 1999). My reason for presenting hypotheses about leader-influences last in my dissertation thus reflects my expectation that leader-influences may be less proximal in influencing team creativity relative to the influence that will probably be shown for team processes (teams' level of information-sharing and empowerment) and team emergent states (i.e., teams' degree of positive affect and empowerment). One leadership behavior that I conceptually treat differently than the others pertains to the leader's degree of boundary-spanning behavior. This is because boundary-spanning, unlike the other leader-behaviors, pertains to leaders' interacting with outsiders of the team for the purposes of obtaining resources that their team may need. The variable of "organizational support for creativity," shown in Figure 1, regards support from others in the organization—hence outsiders. If leaders have been successful at boundary-spanning, then they ought to gain more organizational support for creativity which, in turn, ought to help their teams to indeed be creative. Next, I provide the literature reviews leading me to the hypotheses described above, each in turn.
Team Process-Related Behaviors Likely to Influence Team Creativity There are two team process-related behaviors that I posit are likely to increase teams' creativity: (1) the extent to which team members experience informationsharing in the team, and (2) the extent to which team members experience boundaryspanning behaviors among its members. My reasons for expecting each of these positive relationships are reviewed next, each in turn.
14
The Likely Positive Effect of Information-Sharing on Team Creativity. Team information sharing, or information exchange among team members, involves conscious and deliberate attempts on the part of team members to exchange workrelated information, keep one another appraised of activities, and inform one another of key developments (Bunderson & Sutcliffe, 2002; Stasser & Titus, 1987), such as "informing other members about work-related issues," and "getting new fact, insights, and ideas from others" (De Dreu, 2007). Past studies on team creativity have found that higher levels of information sharing among team members tends to be significantly positively associated with teams' creativity (e.g., Hargadon & Bechky, 2006; Rhee, 2006). The types of "information sharing behaviors" that past studies have linked to greater team creativity include, in the case of Hargadon and Bechky (2006), the following actions: (1) active search of the assistance of others (i.e., helpseeking), (2) devotion of time and attention to assisting others (i.e., help-giving), (3) respectful attention to, and building upon, the comments and actions of others (i.e., reflective reframing), (and 4) active support of these behaviors (i.e., reinforcing). Similarly, the information-sharing actions examined by Rhee (2006) include: moralebuilding communication (e.g., exchanging positive and encouraging comments with other team members), active affirmation (e.g., support for other members' ideas and opinions), and building on ideas (e.g., developing and expanding others' original ideas). These actions thus seem to encompass interpersonal supportiveness with regard to how information is, both, given and received. The positive linkage that these information-sharing behaviors have with team creativity is therefore consistent with the tendency for employees to be more willing to share ideas, even expressions
15
of concern, in environments that they perceive as receptive, or safe (cf. Dutton & Ashford, 1993). Another reason why I expect teams with more information-sharing to be more creative is due to the information-specific benefits that scholars have linked to the availability of greater (presumably non-redundant) levels of information sharing in teams, and the fact that these information-related benefits (listed next) have each been identified as necessities of creativity (Amabile, 1996; Torrance, 1988). Specifically, in the presence of more rather than less information, numerous scholars have theorized that team members ought to be better able to: identify different aspects of their tasks including potential problems and issues, broaden the available job-related knowledge and skills by their team members' understanding of others' expertise, and be exposed to diverse perspectives that may then, with the supportiveness associated with information-sharing behaviors, be integrated (e.g., Donnellon, Gray, & Bougon, 1986; Liang, Moreland, & Argote, 1995; Mathieu, Heffner, Goodwin, Salas, & Cannon-Bowers, 2000). The informational benefits of information-sharing, coupled with the interpersonal sensitivity associated with descriptions of this construct, thus lead me to predict:
Hypothesis 1: Teams' engagement in team information sharing is positively associated with the degree to which teams are creative, as illustrated by Arrow A in Figure 1.
The Likely Positive Effect of Team Boundary-Spanning on Team Creativity. Team boundary-spanning is defined as the activities that a team engages in to
16
establish and maintain relationships and interactions with external actors (i.e., customers or potential customers, members of other teams or departmental or divisional areas in the organization whose knowledge, skills, and/or authority may be needed) that enable the team to meet its overall goals (Ancona & Caldwell, 1992; Faraj & Yan, 2009; Joshi, Pandey, & Han, 2009; Marrone, Tesluk, & Carson, 2007), such as "exporting information and/or resources to outsiders" to persuade external actors to support the team (i.e., "ambassador" activities; Ancona & Caldwell, 1988, p.475), "bringing information and/or resources need by the team in across the boundary" (i.e., "scout" activities; Ancona & Caldwell, 1988, p.472), and "policing the boundary by controlling the information and resources that external agents want to send into the group" to protect the team against uncertainties and disturbances from competing external demands (i.e., "sentry" activities; Ancona & Caldwell, 1988, p.477). More specifically, ambassador activities involve building formal and/or informal channel to communicate with outsiders ("building channels"), informing other groups about the team's progress ("informing"), resolving the issues of interdependent schedules ("coordinating"), and shaping the beliefs and behaviors of outsiders to support the team ("molding") (Ancona & Caldwell, 1988, 1992). Activities such as presenting the team's accomplishments to upper level management, persuading others to support the team, and seeking information regarding the political and strategic terrain of the organization constitute ambassadorial activities (Ancona & Caldwell, 1992). Scout activities involve mapping or understanding the characteristics of external environment ("modeling"; e.g., "who supports us and who
17
doesn't?," "what do people want us to do?"), gathering information and/or equipment for task-related issues ("gathering information and resources"), seeking information about events that might occur and might have relevance to the group ("scanning"), and collecting other groups' perceptions of the team's progress, product, members, or functioning ("feedback seeking") (Ancona & Caldwell, 1988, 1992). Sentry activities involve translating outsider's message into words that members would understand and accept ("translating"), and taking information from outsiders and delivering a smaller amount to the group ("filtering") (Ancona & Caldwell, 1988, 1992). Numerous studies have demonstrated that positive team outcomes tend to occur when team members engage in boundary-spanning, such as high team performance (Marrone, Tesluk, & Carson, 2007; Hirst & Mann, 2004; Tushman & Katz, 1980), and high team viability (Marrone et al., 2007; Ancona & Caldwell, 1992; Katz & Tushman, 1983). For two reasons, I expect the outcome of team creativity to also be greater in such teams. First, there is empirical support for greater team creativity to occur in teams whose members engage in more boundary-spanning. Specifically, in their case study of video game-developing teams, Cohendet and Simon (2007) qualitatively observed greater creativity (indicated by reviews by the critiques and customers as well as the degree of commercial success) in teams whose members more rather than less frequently engaged in boundary-spanning behaviors, such as interactions with local community, communication with customers and critics, and participation in professional associations. Similarly, in studies by Ancona and Caldwell (1992) of new product development teams and by Hülsheger and colleagues (2009) of numerous types of teams in their meta-analysis, a higher quality of team
18
innovation (indicated by measures of quality of technical innovation as well as adherence to budget and schedule) was generally found in teams whose members had engaged in more rather than fewer boundary-spanning behaviors, such as persuading external stakeholders (i.e., upper management team members, other teams at comparable or lower levels in the organization) to support the team and provide the team with resources as well as protecting the team from outside interference. The latter findings document that team members' boundary-spanning positively influence team creativity but do not explain why. My reason for expecting this positive relationship is that team members who engage in boundary-spanning behaviors are able to inform outsiders, who may be potential) customers, about their team's progress and outcomes, and thereby shape outsiders' beliefs and behaviors toward the team (e.g., Ancona & Caldwell, 1992; Woodman et al., 1993). If the beliefs and/or behaviors that boundary-spanning team members shape include the appropriateness of giving the team requested resources, then members who achieve this ought to have the support that is needed to be creative (e.g., Perry-Smith & Shalley, 2003). Additionally, if the beliefs and/or behaviors that boundary-spanning team members shape the usefulness of the product and idea they develop, then members who achieve this ought to be considered creative (cf. Csikszentmihalyi, 1996, 1999). Thus, I predict:
19
Hypothesis 2: Teams' engagement in team boundary-spanning is positively associated with the degree to which teams are creative, as illustrated by Arrow B in Figure 1.
Two Emergent States Likely to Influence Team Creativity There are two team emergent states that seem likely to increase the extent to which teams will experience the creativity-enhancing behaviors just described in the previous section-- namely: (1) the extent to which team members experience positive affectivity in the team, hereafter called "positive group affective tone" (cf. George, 1996); and (2) the extent to which members experience empowerment as a team. My reasons for expecting each of these positive relationships are reviewed next, each in turn. Why Might Group Positive Affective Tone Increase Creativity-Enhancing Behaviors in Teams? People's behaviors are influenced by people's affective states (cf. Frijda, 1986; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984); it is thus not surprising that the extent to which creativity-enhancing behaviors occurs in teams is influenced by the extent to which members of the team feel a shared degree of team-affect. But why might information-sharing and boundary-spanning behaviors, in particular, be more likely to occur in teams with more (rather than less) group positive affective tone? Next, I review literature that guides my expectation for these positive relationships to occur, each in turn. The Likely Effect of Positive Group Affective Tone on Team InformationSharing. For two reasons, I expect a higher frequency of information-sharing to occur
20
in teams with higher rather than lower levels of positive group affective tone. First, greater levels of proactivity (cf. Crant, 2000), including more information-related giving and seeking in particular, have been found to occur among individuals and in teams who feel higher levels of positive affect (Barsade, 2002; Fredrickson & Joiner, 2002; George, 1991; Rhee, 2006). For example, George (1991) found that positive affective experiences in salespeople led to greater information sharing behaviors with customers, such as "informing a customer of the important features of an item." While this description may seem like individual-level phenomena, team members tend to reciprocate the behaviors they see others in their team engaging in (cf. Seers, 1989); and therefore, when a positively affected team member behaves proactively, for example, by sharing information, this is likely to become a team norm, hence a team-level information sharing phenomenon. My second reason for expecting more information-sharing to occur in teams with a positive group affective tone, is that previous studies have found that when team members share similar affective experiences or reactions with other members, they are more rather than less likely to feel attached to the other members (George, 1995; Walter & Bruch, 2008), and thus, to engage in cooperative behaviors like sharing information and knowledge more rather than less frequently (e.g., Barsade, Ward, Turner, & Sonnenfeld, 2000; Reagans & McEvily, 2003). For example, Barsade and colleagues (2000) found that, when team members experienced different emotions, their level of cooperation tended to be less. Importantly, the logic here suggests that any shared affective state, hence even a negative one, will probably increase team members' attachment to each other, hence likelihood to engage in
21
cooperative (e.g., information-sharing) behavior. However, since idea-sharing is generally greater in situations that communicators perceive as "safe" (Alge, Ballinger, Tangirala, & Oakley, 2006; Dutton & Ashford, 1993), it is likely that the nature of shared team-affect that will lead to increased levels of information-sharing will be positive in nature. Thus, I predict:
Hypothesis 3: Teams' degree of group positive affective tone is positively associated with the frequency of information-sharing behaviors in the team, as illustrated by Arrow C in Figure 1.
The Likely Effect of Positive Group Affective Tone on Team BoundarySpanning. Why might teams with higher levels of positive group affective tone engage in more frequent team boundary-spanning behaviors? In short, similar to the case of team information sharing behaviors, I believe this is because team boundaryspanning behaviors are proactive in nature. As explained above, greater levels of proactivity have been found among individuals who feel higher levels of positive affect (e.g., Fredrickson & Joiner, 2002; George, 1991), and team members' proactive (and thus desirable, cf. Crant, 2000) behaviors tend to be copied and replicated by other team members through vicarious learning or modeling (e.g., Bandura, 1987) and via role-making among team members or team-member exchange (e.g., Seers, 1989). More specifically, Bandura (1997) theorized that people can replicate others' behaviors when they can see the others' behaviors and when they believe those behaviors are relevant and desirable. With regard to "seeing" other team members'
22
behaviors, this is likely given the typically interdependent nature of teams that, in turn, usually means that team members need to interact or coordinate with each other with a nontrivial frequency. With regard to believing that proactive behaviors, such as boundary-spanning, are desirable in teams, this is likely since boundary-spanning behaviors typically ease teams' ability to obtain needed resources from people outside the team (cf. Ancona & Caldwell, 1992). Another reason why teams with higher levels of positive group affective tone are likely to engage in more frequent team boundary-spanning behaviors is because the recent broaden-and-build theory of positive affective experiences suggests that positive affective experiences broaden actors' scope of attention and action, as well as build enduring physical, social, and psychological resources (Fredrickson, 1998, 2001). Consistent with this theory, Fredrickson and Joiner (2002) showed that individuals experiencing positive affect dealt with a problem using a wider range of perspectives and potential courses of actions such as thinking of different ways to deal with the problem or approaching to others and getting different perspectives from their owns in solving the problem (i.e., gathering information and resources, scanning). Also, because individuals with positive affective experiences are more rather than less likely to engage in cooperative behaviors (e.g., Barsade, 2002), and cooperative behaviors may help them to build friendships, they may develop relationships with others and influence their perception more rather than less easily (i.e., building channels, molding). Therefore, through modeling and team-member exchange, when team members experience positive affect more frequently, they may engage in higher levels of team boundary-spanning behaviors. Thus, I predict:
23
Hypothesis 4: Teams' degree of group positive affective tone is positively associated with the frequency of boundary-spanning behaviors in the team, as illustrated by Arrow D in Figure 1.
Why Might Team Empowerment Increase Creativity-Enhancing Behaviors in Teams? People's behaviors are influenced by the extent to which they feel confident about their abilities to do things and, relatedly, confident that others will respond positively to what they do— that is, by their motivational states (cf. Locke & Latham, 1990; Vroom, 1964). Since the extent to which people feel confident in their abilities is a key aspect of feeling empowered (cf. Kirkman & Rosen, 1999), it is natural that teams who feel greater confidence in their creativity-related abilities, or empowered to act creatively, will more frequently engage in creativity-enhancing behaviors. But why might information-sharing and boundary-spanning behaviors, in particular, be more likely to occur in teams with more (rather than less) team empowerment? Next, I review literature that guides my expectations for these positive relationships, each in turn. The Likely Effect of Team Empowerment on Team Information-Sharing. Why might information sharing be greater in teams with higher levels of team empowerment? This is because when team members believe they can positively influence positively their organization, they are more rather than less likely to speak up, or "voice" in general (e.g., Dailey & Morgan, 1978; Hansen, 1999; Jackson & King, 1983), and even be more likely to express concerns that they have, termed
24
"issue-selling" (Ashford & Dutton, 1993). Employees who believe that they can "make a difference" in their organization—that is, have impact—are characterized as feeling "empowered" (Spreitzer, 1995). As such, team members who perceive their team as highly empowered are also more likely to speak up, or share information with each other. Additionally, information sharing is a form of proactive behavior (cf., Crant 2000); and more empowered employees typically behave more proactively (cf. Kirkman & Rosen, 1999). Cumulatively, these reasons lead me to predict:
Hypothesis 5: Teams' degree of team empowerment is positively associated with the frequency of information-sharing behaviors in the team, as illustrated by Arrow E in Figure 1.
The Likely Effect of Team Empowerment on Team Boundary-Spanning. My reason for expecting a higher frequency of boundary-spanning in teams with higher rather than lower levels of team empowerment is, again, due to the fact that boundary-spanning (since it includes help-seeking) is proactive behavior (cf. Crant, 2000); and as just noted, more empowered employees tend to behave more proactively. Consistent with my thinking, building channels to outsiders and persuading them to support the team, collecting information and resources needed by the team and bringing them to the team have been found to occur among teams that experience higher levels of empowerment (Kirkman, Rosen, Tesluk, & Gibson, 2004; Marrone, Tesluk, & Carson, 2007). More specifically, Marrone and colleagues (2007) found that when team members felt more confident (especially in boundary-spanning behaviors), they tended to more frequently engage in boundary-spanning behaviors. 25
Similarly, although they did not empirically assess teams' boundary-spanning behaviors, Kirkman et al. (2004) found that empowered teams tended to have higher levels of process improvement, and they speculated that this was due to the more empowered teams having a greater amount of actions relating to members integrating with other teams inside and outside organization, and influencing organization-level strategy and direction. Thus, I predict:
Hypothesis 6: Teams' degree of team empowerment is positively associated with the frequency of boundary-spanning behaviors in the team, as illustrated by Arrow F in Figure 1.
Do Team Process-Behaviors Mediate Team Emergent State-Effects on Team Creativity? In summary, my hypothesizing to this point suggests that greater team creativity will occur in teams with a higher frequency of team process-behaviors associated with information-sharing and boundary-spanning, and that each of the latter behaviors will probably be more frequent in teams that have higher levels of positive group affective tone and team empowerment. This suggests, then, that teams with a more positive group affective tone and team empowerment will be more creative, and that the latter relationships are mediated by such teams' greater level of information sharing- and boundary spanning-behaviors. I know of no studies that have tested the mediation relationship I have just posited. However, empirical evidence exists to support a direct positive relationship between teams' level of
26
empowerment and their degree of process improvement, hence creativity (cf. Kirkman et al., 2004), as noted above; and to support a direct positive relationship between groups' level of positive affect and their degree of creativity. With regard to the latter relationship, in two laboratory studies involving undergraduate students, Grawitch, Munz, and Kramer (2003) and then later Grawitch, Munz, Elliott, and Mathis (2003) found that the teams who reported stronger levels of positive affect tended to produce more creative outcomes, as judged by independent raters of students' ideas relating to the design of a building in the first study and to ways to improve the quality of student life in the second study. And my theorizing in the previous section suggests that the reason why teams' positive affect and team empowerment influences creativity is because each of these emergent states evoke creativity-enhancing team process behaviors. Thus, I predict:
Hypothesis 7: Teams' degree of group positive affective tone is positively associated with their degree of team creativity due to two mediating processes: (1) the tendency for more positively affected teams' tendency to engage in more frequent information-sharing behaviors (represented in Figure 1 via arrows A and C); and (2) the tendency for more positively affected teams' tendency to engage in more frequent boundary-spanning behaviors (represented in Figure 1 via arrows B and D).
Hypothesis 8: Teams' degree of team empowerment is positively associated with their degree of team creativity due to two mediating processes: (1) the
27
tendency for more positively affected teams' tendency to engage in more frequent information-sharing behaviors (represented in Figure 1 via arrows A and E); and (2) the tendency for more positively affected teams' tendency to engage in more frequent boundary spanning behaviors (represented in Figure 1 via arrows B and F).
It is because one of my dissertation's primary aims is to illuminate understanding about why and how team emergent-states and team processes lead to high levels of team creativity that I have chosen to isolate the latter two mediating relationships from other possible mediating relationships in my theoretical model (e.g., team leader behaviors to team emergent states to team processes). As I note in my final chapter, future research is needed to examine a host of other possible mediating relationships that my model suggests may influence team creativity.
Possible Antecedents to Team Emergent States that Influence Team Creativity Until now my theorizing has pertained solely to the actions of team members (e.g., their degree of information-sharing and boundary-spanning) or to the affective states of team members (e.g., their degree of positive affect and their degree of empowerment) that may influence teams' level of creativity. But how do these emergent states, and ultimately team process-behaviors associated with them, come to be? Might teams' leaders influence this? In this section I review literature guiding hypotheses about the effect of team leader-behaviors (i.e., those relating to transformational leadership, empowering
28
leadership, and boundary-spanning) on the emergent states that team members have. I begin by reviewing what is known about the effects of transformational leadership on team emergent states. The Likely Effect of Transformational Leadership on Team Emergent States. How might team leaders' transformational leadership behaviors influence the positivity of teams' affective state? For two reasons I posit that transformational behaviors will increase teams' positivity. My first reason pertains to previous findings of the positive linkage between transformationl leadership behaviors and individual members' positive affective experiences (e.g., Bono, Foldes, Vinson, & Muros, 2007; Cherulnik, Donley, Wiewel, & Miller, 2001). My reason for positing that transformational leadership may similarly positively affect a team's level of positive affectivity is due to the tendency for individual team members to observe other members' public display of affect and, thereby, for individuals' public affective displays to transmit affective experiences to other team members through mood contagion or mechanisms that induce congruent affective states (Hatfield, Cacioppo, & Raptson, 1993; Kelly & Barsade, 2001); ultimately, this social influence of positive affectivity is thus likely to lead to team members' sharing a positive group affective tone (see Barsade, 2002; Sy, Côté, & Saavedra, 2005 for empirical support). My second reason for positing that transformational leadership may positively affect a team's level of positive affectivity is guided by Bono and Ilies's (2006) finding that leaders who engage in more transformational behaviors tend to use more positive affect words (e.g., good, happy) in their written and verbal communications, and thus, tend to have more positive affective experiences. Again, such positive affect, in turn,
29
tends to influence team members' affective experiences in congruent ways (Sy, Côté, & Saavedra, 2005) because team members tend to mimic people's facial expressions, movements, and posture (i.e., mood contagion, cf. Hatfield, Cacioppo, & Rapson, 1994). Indeed, George (1996) suggests that leader's positive affective experiences lead to positive group affective tone. Thus, based on the two reasons above, I predict:
Hypothesis 9: Leaders' degree of transformational leadership behaviors is positively associated with the degree to which teams have a positive affective tone, as illustrated by Arrow G in Figure 1.
Might team leaders' transformational leadership behaviors also influence the extent to which team members feel empowered as a team? For three reasons, this seems likely. First, transformational leaders tend to give followers "idealized influence." When leaders do this, they tend to more frequently express confidence in teams' collective efforts and provide positive feedback to followers. This type of behavior has been shown to enhance the levels of team members' efficacy beliefs (Dvir, Eden, Avolio, & Sharmir, 2002; Kark, Shamir, & Chen, 2003), which is an integral part of descriptions of feeling empowered (Kirkman & Rosen, 1999; Spreitzer, 1995). A second reason why I expect team empowerment to be higher when team leaders engage in more rather than fewer transformational behaviors pertains to Bass's (1985) theorizing that leaders who engage in more transformational behaviors tend to more frequently provide the importance and significance of the tasks (i.e.,
30
idealized influence), which, in turn, may increase team members' beliefs in their responsibility and task-significance. A third reason is because leaders who engage in more transformational behaviors tend to more frequently provide team members opportunity to discover new ideas and experiment new approaches (i.e., intellectual stimulation), which, in turn, may increase team members' beliefs in their autonomy. For example, team members whose leaders are encouraging them to reformulate problems, be imaginative, and/or to experiment with new ways of solving problems seem likely to believe that they have substantial freedom, independence, and discretion in their work. Cumulatively, given team members' beliefs in efficacy in teams, tasksignificance or meaningfulness, and autonomy are led by transformational behaviors, and they are the components of team empowerment (Kirkman & Rosen, 1999), I predict:
Hypothesis10: Leaders' degree of transformational leadership behaviors is positively associated with the degree to which teams feel empowered, as illustrated by Arrow H in Figure 1.
The Likely Effect of Empowering Leadership on Team Emergent States. How might team leaders' empowering leadership behaviors influence the positivity of teams' affective state? Guided by theorizing and empirical findings regarding the effects of empowering leadership, it is likely that leaders who are more (rather than less) empowering will lead team members to believe in their tasks' importance and
31
meaningfulness, their capability and efficacy, and their freedom to choose their own goals and generate solutions when facing problems (e.g., Kirkman & Rosen, 1999; Manz & Sims, 1987; Oldham & Cummings, 1996). These types of beliefs have previously been found to be significantly associated with feeling: interested, excited, proud, and determined (e.g., Deci & Ryan, 1987; McAuley & Courneya, 1992; Smith & Ellsworth, 1987); and all of these feelings have been identified as examples of positive affect (Barrett & Russell, 1998; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988). Thus, I expect that when team leaders engage in more rather than fewer empowering behaviors, team members may have more rather than less positive affective experiences in teams. Therefore:
Hypothesis 11: Leaders' degree of empowering leadership behaviors is positively associated with the degree to which teams feel positive group affective tone, as illustrated by Arrow I in Figure 1.
Might team leaders' empowering leadership behaviors also influence the extent to which team members feel empowered as a team? The findings of past studies suggest that this is indeed likely. More specifically, when leaders engage in more empowering behaviors (e.g., delegating responsibilities, asking for employee input, enhancing personal control), team members are more likely to feel: (1) a higher level of meaning in their work (Hackman, 1987) and (2) a higher level of autonomy and choice in their work (Thomas & Velthouse, 1990) - both of these feelings being used in descriptions of empowerment at the individual-level (cf. Spreitzer, 1995) and
32
team-level (Kirkman & Rosen, 1999). Additionally, it has been found that, when leaders engage in seeking team member's input in decision making, members tend to expand their knowledge, learn from each other, and acquire new skills (Srivastava, Bartol, & Locke, 2006), all of which are likely to enhance feelings of confidence as a team, hence team empowerment. Thus, I predict:
Hypothesis 12: Leaders' degree of empowering leadership behaviors is positively associated with the degree to which teams feel empowered, as illustrated by Arrow J in Figure 1.
The Likely Effect of Leader's Boundary-Spanning Behaviors on Team Emergent States. How might team leaders' boundary-spanning behaviors influence team emergent states? For several reasons I posit that these behaviors will increase teams' sense of empowerment. First, leaders who engage in more boundary-spanning behaviors tend to engage in behaviors that protect their teams from feeling threatened or overwhelmed (e.g., "protecting the team from outside interference," "absorbing outside pressure for the team so it can work free of interference," cf. Ancona & Caldwell, 1992). Typically, people feel a greater sense of efficacy when they feel that the task they are handling is "manageable," hence not too overwhelming. Therefore, greater efficacy (which is a key ingredient of empowerment, cf. Spreitzer, 1995) ought to be felt by those whose leaders engage in boundary-spanning behaviors. Consistent with this, studies in the stress literature consistently demonstrate that employees tend to express higher levels of efficacy (for various tasks) when their
33
stress level is low (e.g., Major, Richards, Cooper, Cozzarelli, & Zubek, 1998; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Furthermore, Jex and Thomas (2003) found that teams with higher levels of job stressors (e.g., average number of hours spent working per day, role overload, work-family conflict, interpersonal conflict) developed lower degree of team efficacy beliefs. A second reason why I expect team empowerment to be higher when team leaders engage in more rather than fewer boundary-spanning behaviors pertains to Ancona and Caldwell's (1992) theorizing that team leaders who engage more boundary-spanning behaviors tend to more frequently attempt to influence the external environment and shape the beliefs and behaviors of outsiders, through behaviors such as persuading outsiders that the team's activities are important, talking up their teams to outsiders, and persuading outsiders to support their team's products. Through these behaviors, team members can receive more rather than less positive feedback about their products (e.g., creative ideas) from outsiders, which can influence their efficacy beliefs by being considered as a mastery experience (Bandura & Cervone, 1986). Consistent with this, Gist and Mitchell (1992) theorized that supportive task environment should enhance efficacy beliefs. A third reason why I expect team creative empowerment to be higher when team leaders engage in more rather than fewer ambassadorial behaviors pertains to Ancona and Caldwell's (1992) theorizing that team leaders who engage more boundary-spanning behaviors tend to more frequently attempt to construct a picture of the external environment, including predicting future trouble spots or potential allies, through behaviors such as attempting to answer questions such as who supports
34
their teams and who doesn't, and what outsiders want their teams to do. Through these behaviors, team members can find out the needs of outsiders, and become aware of the external demands toward themselves, which result in increase of their understanding of meaning and significance of their works. Cumulatively, the theorizing and related findings reviewed above lead me to predict:
Hypothesis 13: Leaders' degree of boundary-spanning behaviors is positively associated with the degree to which teams feel empowered, as illustrated by Arrow K in Figure 1.
The Likely Effect of Organizational Support for Creativity on Team Creativity Until now, my theorizing has assumed that team creativity is influenced by the affective and motivational states and actions of team members and/or actions of team leaders. However, team's level of creativity may be influenced by other factors, like organizational support for team creativity (e.g., Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby, & Herron, 1996; Scott & Bruce, 1994). For this reason, my model shows a direct relationship between organizational support for team creativity and teams' level of creativity. Indirect support is found from studies examining individual-level creativity (e.g., Amabile et al., 1996; Scott & Bruce, 1994; Zhou & George, 2001). For example, Scott and Bruce (1994) theorized and found that individual employees are generally more creative when they perceive that creativity is more (rather than less) valued and supported by an organization, presumably because more supportive organizations are less likely to cause employees concern about the potential risks
35
associated with creativity (e.g., unsuccessful attempts to insert changes and new approaches into an existing system). When team members perceive the degrees of organizational support for their team's creativity in a similar way, and thus their perceptions about the policies, practices, and procedures that their organization have about creative ideas and products are shared with each other, they might develop a unique team-level cognition of how much a creative team as a whole is supported and desired by the organization (cf., Li, Liang, & Crant, 2010; Naumann & Bennett, 2000). This teamlevel cognition, or team climate of organizational support for team creativity, might be related to team members' collective attitudes and behaviors, thus related to the levels of team creativity. Therefore, I predict:
Hypothesis 14: The extent to which team members perceive organizational support for team creativity to be high is positively associated with the degree to which teams are creative, as illustrated by Arrow L in Figure 1.
Do Team Leader Behaviors Influence Organizational Support for Team Creativity? Generally, organizational support for team creativity is assumed to be determined by factors at organization-level (cf. Amabile et al., 1996; Woodman et al.1993). However, I expect a certain action of team leaders— namely, boundaryspanning actions— may increase the level of organizational support that their teams receive.
36
Why might team leaders' engagement in more rather than fewer boundaryspanning behaviors lead to higher rather than lower levels of organizational support for team creativity? It might be because, as explained above, leaders' boundaryspanning behaviors include persuading external stakeholders, including upper management and other teams at comparable or lower levels in the organization, to support the team so to protect the team from outside interference (i.e., ambassador behaviors) and providing the team with resources and/or equipment as well as protecting the team from outside interference (i.e., scout behaviors; cf. Ancona & Caldwell, 1992). Additionally, my expectation of the positive relationship between leaders' boundary-spanning behaviors and organizational support for team creativity is because of the finding that leaders who span boundaries more frequently tend to obtain high levels of power in the organization (e.g., Floyd & Wooldridge, 1997), which may result in the leaders' and their teams' receiving more respects, rewards, and recognition from the organization. Thus, I predict:
Hypothesis 15: Leaders' degree of boundary-spanning behaviors is positively associated with the degree to which teams are creative, as illustrated by Arrow M in Figure 1.
In the next chapter, I describe the sample, procedure, and measures I used to test my hypotheses.
37
CHAPTER 3: METHODS
Research Setting and Sample Consistent with previous studies on team creativity (e.g., Pirola-Merlo & Mann, 2004; Shin & Zhou, 2007), survey data was collected from ongoing research and development (R&D) teams who fit selection criteria (described subsequently) and were part of a Fortune 100 multinational company within the telecommunication industry, and whose plant locations were in the United States (U.S.) and Korea. Although this multinational company has plant locations elsewhere in the world, the U.S. and Korea were identified by senior HR managers in this company as their largest; neither alone, however, was large enough to be my only source of datacollection. Because the plants are located in different countries, I took care to create surveys for the U.S. and Korea in English and Korean, respectively; and to engage in actions assuring each survey's meaning-equivalence (as described in the "General Procedure" section below). Additionally, as shown in the "Measures section" later in this chapter, I took care to include questions in the survey that assess participants' "collectivism" and "power distance," which are cultural values that have previously been found to distinguish Asians and U.S. Americans (cf., Hofstede, 1980; Kirkman & Shapiro, 2001). Importantly, as I explain in "Analytic Strategy" later in this chapter, the Korean and U.S. American participants did not significantly differ from each other on these cultural values; as a result, there was no need to statistically control for these when testing hypotheses. At the team-level, I also found an aggregate level of "psychological collectivism" (Jackson, Colquitt, Wesson, & 38
Zapata-Phelan, 2006) to not significantly differ across the U.S. versus Korean R&D teams. The teams I accessed fit the following selection criteria: (1) the teams were engaged in R&D tasks, hence in tasks requiring creativity; (2) the R&D team on which employees were members had functioned as a team for at least three weeks prior to the launch-date of this study's survey; (3) the R&D team had no more than two formally-assigned leaders; and (4) the R&D team-size was at least 2 members (the senior HR managers said the average R&D team size in their company was 2-3 members). This description of team-size was verifiable in the U.S., but not in the Korean, plant location. This is because a full listing of R&D team members was provided to me by the HR manager in the U.S. location only (whose average teamsize was 2.7); in contrast, in Korea, the HR manager was willing only to provide me the names of three R&D team members per team leader. This is one of the limitations of this study that I identify in Chapter 5. With regard to the type of R&D tasks that the teams in my study were engaged in, half of the teams were engaged in either applied or mission-oriented research and slightly less than half were engaged in new product or process development— activities that are similar to descriptions of previously-studied R&D teams (e.g., Keller, 1992, 2006). With regard to the stability of the teams participating in my study, the average team tenure of the team leaders and team members were 42.94 months and 33.83 months, respectively, which is also similar to characteristics of previously-studied R&D teams (e.g., Keller, 1992). On the other hand, there was high variability regarding team-tenure of the team leaders and team members participating in my study, evidenced by high standard deviations in team leaders' and
39
team members' tenure (seen in Table 3, which shows the demographic characteristics comprising this dissertation's sample). This variability, however, characterized the R&D teams in both plant-locations.Therefore, I controlled for team members' tenure diversity when testing my hypotheses (see "Control Variables" in Chapter 3). -----------------------------------Insert Table 3 about here -----------------------------------One difference between the R&D teams in the Korean versus U.S.-plant locations was observed. Specifically, I found that the average number of team members responding to the study surveys was slightly larger in South Korea than in the U.S. plant-location (3 versus 2.35 members per team in these two locations, respectively). However, I found similarities in teams in both locations, in that all teams had only one leader, they had been functioning for at least three weeks, they had at least two members, and they were involved in similar functions (i.e., research and development). Thus, the qualities of this sample enabled me to study employees involved in team-tasks requiring creativity in teams, and to study team leader behavior as well as team-processes that may contribute to the creativity of teamoutcomes. To gain access to these R&D teams, the following actions were taken. First, helped by my ability to speak Korean and via a personal introduction to a senior Korean HR manager at this company, I was able to meet with one of this company's senior managers and explain in Korean this study's purpose and its potential benefits to participating companies. More specifically, I explained that the overriding purpose
40
was to improve understanding about how creativity occurs in teams, that conducting the survey required little administration on the part of the company since I would be using web-based surveys and managing the website myself, and that the benefits of participating included the receipt of an "executive report" whose content would describe the study's key findings in aggregated ways that would protect all participants' identity. This initial conversation led to others with more senior managers at this company, and ultimately to the company's senior management agreeing to let me email web-based surveys to its employees once I signed documents stating that this study's findings, in any form (including future publications), would never state the identity of the company or its participants. Additionally, an HR manager of this company supplied me with a list of members' email addresses (of those belonging to teams matching criteria for selection, as described above) so that I could email them web-based surveys. Although I had hoped to also receive a list of R&D team assignments, this was deemed infeasible by the managers in the Korea location who instead provided me with the names of three employees per R&D team leader. As promised, the senior managers sent a "call" out for participation to teams fitting the four characteristics in both of these centers-locations (to 100 teams in 5 divisions in South Korea and to 22 teams in 2 divisions in the U.S.). In South Korea positive replies were received from 40 teams from 5 divisions, reflecting a team response-rate of 40%; and in the U.S. positive replies were received from all teams, reflecting a team response-rate of 100%. I created a list of contact information for these study-volunteers, being careful to note which participants belonged to which
41
teams, and who each team's leaders were. For the South Korean-centered participants, this list consisted of 40 teams - 40 team leaders and 120 team members (an average of 3 members per team). For the U.S. centered participants, this list consisted of 22 teams - 22 team leaders, and 51 team members (an average of 2.32 members per team). The cumulative number of study volunteers in this study (across the two locations) was 62 team leaders (one leader per team) and 171 team members in 7 divisions. As I explain in the "General Procedure" section below, the initial sample of 62 teams shrank to 52 due to elimination criteria associated with missing data and low levels of agreement among members' perceptions of study variables (i.e., too much variance among members' perception of study variables to warrant team level analysis), as I explain in the "Analysis" section later in this chapter. These final 52 teams consisted of 52 team leaders (20 from the U.S., and 32 from South Korea) and 143 team members (47 from the U.S., and 96 from South Korea). Thus, this dissertation's team-related analyses.consisted of responses from 2.75 members per team. Possible limitations associated with this relatively low team-size are discussed in Chapter 5. Table 4 shows the demographic characteristics associated with this final team-sample. -----------------------------------Insert Table 4 about here ------------------------------------
42
General Procedure All participants in this study received three different surveys by email, which was made possible by the participant contact information that I received from the company's HR Department. The content of the first, second, and third surveys, and the order in which these were sent to participants, matches the ordering of variables shown in my hypothesized model (see Figure 1). The first survey was received in late January 2009, the second survey was received in late March 2009, and the third survey was received in late May 2009. Two reasons I sent three surveys at different times (e.g., each 8 weeks apart) were, first, to reflect the causal relationships between variables in my theoretical model, and second, to minimize the possible confounding effects from measuring all variables at the same time (i.e., common method biases, Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). Exceptions to this timeline occurred when survey-recipients failed to return the previously-sent survey; on these occasions I sent an email-reminder and usually within two days I would receive the survey that would then enable me to send the next one. All team leaders and members were asked to finish each survey within two weeks after receiving a survey so that the study could stay on schedule; all were informed that they would be receiving a total of three surveys, with the length of each subsequent survey shorter than the previous one. More specifically, the first survey was approximately 20 minutes for team members and 12 minutes for team leaders, the second survey was approximately 5 minutes shorter in length for both of these groups, and the third survey (which assessed only team creativity) was shortest (2 minutes) for both groups.
43
Unlike the first and second surveys whose content differed for team members and team leaders (in ways described in the section titled "Surveys for Team Members versus Team Leaders"), the content of the third survey received by team members and team leaders was the same. This last survey (the briefest) consisted solely of questions assessing how creative the R&D team had been. The third survey's content is shown in Appendix A; its Korean version is shown in Appendix B. To minimize the possibility of social desirability biases and encourage honest responses, confidentiality of the completed surveys was guaranteed. More specifically, all leaders and members were informed that the company would not have access to their individual responses, and the final report would be based on only the overall results from the survey (e.g., means, standard deviations). Also, they were informed that they provided data directly from their own computer, and only the researcher could access the dataset, thereby eliminating any possibility of the company's access to their response. Additionally, an Informed Consent Form preceded each survey to ensure that this information was salient each time; this Informed Consent Form also stated that participation was voluntary, not required, and that participants could choose without incurring any penalty to not participate. Indeed, some participants did choose to stop participating along the way. When more than one team member failed to return a survey, or when any team's leader (since each team had only one leader) failed to return a survey, the team was eliminated from the sample. Because survey-participants were South Korean as well as U.S. American, the survey-content needed to be understandable to both of these country-populations.
44
To ensure this, each survey that was sent to South Koreans was first translated from English to Korean, and then back-translated to English to assure that the Korean translation remains consistent with the initial meanings of the survey-content. Bilingual speakers of Korean and English who are unfamiliar with the study's hypotheses did the initial translation from English to Korean, and then the backtranslation from Korean to English. Doing this is consistent with the advice of Brislin (1980) for conducting research in more than one culture.
Surveys for Team Members versus Team Leaders The first two surveys received by team members and team leaders differed in some content, but shared some content-similarities. The similarities in the first survey pertained to questions about demographic characteristics and cultural values, the specifics for which are named in the "Measures" section later in this chapter. The substantive differences in the first survey were as follows: Team leaders were asked to identify the primary objective of their current team project (i.e., whether this objective was new product development or applied research). In contrast, team members were asked the extent to which they perceived transformational-, empowering-, and boundary-spanning behaviors from their team leader and about their own attitudes and/or preferences regarding team work (i.e., preference for workgroup), and team members' perception of the degree of interdependence among other members to achieve their goals (i.e., team interdependence). The English versions of the first survey for the team leader and team member are shown in
45
Appendices C and D, respectively; and the Korean versions of the first survey for the team leader and team member are shown in Appendices E and F, respectively With regard to the second survey, their similarities for team members and team leaders regarded questions about the frequency of team members' informationsharing and boundary-spanning behaviors. Their substantive differences were as follows: Unlike team leaders who assessed only the latter behaviors of team members, the team members were additionally asked questions about the extent to which they perceived organizational support for team creativity during the past four weeks (i.e., since completing the first survey), and felt empowered as a team and positive affect during the past four weeks. My reason for not asking team leaders about the latter emergent-states is because these pertain to internal (non-observable) feelings. The second survey's English versions for the team leader and team member are shown in Appendices G and H, respectively; and its Korean versions for the team leader and team member are shown in Appendices I and J, respectively.
Measures Team Leader's Behaviors Team leader's transformational behaviors. To assess the extent to which team leaders engage in transformational leadership behaviors, I replicated how Shin and Zhou (2007) did this; and therefore, I asked team members to assess team leaders' transformational leadership behaviors via their completion of the 20-item measure (which were anchored by 1 = "not at all", and 5 = "frequently, if not always") by Avolio and Bass (2004), termed "MLQ 6," and aggregated it to the team level. These
46
20 items represent the four dimensions of transformational leadership behaviors, such as: (1) idealized influence (e.g., "my team leader displays a sense of power and confidence"), (2) inspirational motivation (e.g., "my team leader talks optimistically about the future"), (3) intellectual Stimulation (e.g., "my team leader gets others to look at problems from many different angles)." and (4) individualized consideration (e.g., "my team leader considers each individual as having different needs, abilities, and aspirations from others"). The Cronbach's alphas for the four dimensions were 0.900, 0.858, 0.857, and 0.741, respectively. The Cronbach's alpha for this scale as a whole was 0.955. Importantly, given that transformational behaviors were multi-dimensional ones as mentioned above (e.g., Avolio & Bass, 2004), I adopted hierarchical or second-order factor approach (Wold, 1982, 1988) to measure this. More specifically, in my analytical procedures, I first assigned the 20 items to their purported dimensions (e.g., idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, individualized consideration) by averaging their scores, and then assigned these four dimensions to transformational behavior variable. Ths score of each team leader's transformational behaviors was calculated via principle component analysis. Team leader's boundary-spanning behaviors. To assess the extent to which team leaders engage in boundary-spanning behaviors, I asked team members to assess team leaders' boundary-spanning behaviors via their completion of the 21-item measure (which were anchored by 1 = "strongly disagree", and 7 = "strongly agree") by Ancona & Caldwell (1992) and aggregated it to the team level. These 21 items
47
represent the three dimensions of boundary-spanning behaviors, such as: (1) ambassadorial behaviors or the behaviors that involve the export of information and/or resources to outsiders (e.g., "my team leader keeps other groups in the company informed of my project team's activities," "my team leader persuades others to support the project team's decisions"), (2) scouting behaviors or the behaviors that bring information and/or resources needed by the team in across the boundary (e.g., "my team leader acquires resources (e.g., money, new members, equipment) for the project team," "my team leader procures things which the project team needs from other groups or individuals in the company"), and (3) sentry behaviors or the behaviors that control the information and resources that external agents want to send into the group to police the boundary (e.g., "my team leader absorbs outside pressures for the project team so it can work free of interference," "my team leader protects the project team from outside interference") (cf. Ancona & Caldwell, 1988). The Cronbach's alphas for the three dimensions were 0.923, 0.944, and 0.938, respectively. The Cronbach's alpha for this scale as a whole was 0.967. Importantly, like team leader's transformational behaviors, team leader's boundary-spanning behaviors were constructed using hierarchical or second-order factor approach (Wold, 1982, 1988) by using its three dimensions - ambassadorial, scouting, and sentry behaviors. Ths score of each team leader's transformational behaviors was calculated via principle component analysis. Team leader's empowering behaviors. To assess the extent to which team leaders engage in empowering behaviors, I asked team members to assess team leaders' empowering behaviors via their completion of the 14-item measure (which
48
were anchored by 1 = "strongly disagree", and 7 = "strongly agree") by Kirkman and Rosen (1997) and aggregated it to the team level. Sample items include "my team leader gives my team many responsibilities," "my team leader asks the team for advice when making decisions," "my team leader encourages my team to take control of its work," "my team leader allows my team to set its own goals," "my team leader encourages my team to figure out the causes/solutions to its problems," "my team leader tells the tem to expect a lot from itself," and "my team leader trusts my team." The Cronbach's alpha for this scale was 0.915. Importantly, the hierarchical or second-order factor approach (Wold, 1982, 1988) was not used for team leader's empowering behaviors because of three reasons. First, these behaviors have previously been theorized and reported as uni-dimensional (e.g., Kirkman & Rosen, 1999). Second, previous studies measuring team leaders' empowering behaviors assessed these via a uni-dimensional approach (e.g., Kirkman & Rosen, 1999; Kirkman et al., 2004). And thirdly, consistency with past practice helps ensure that my findings can build on ones reported previously in the literature.
Team Emergent State Factors Team's level of positive affective tone. To assess the extent to which the team experiences positive emotions, I replicated how this has been done in previous studies (e.g., George, 1995; George & Zhou, 2002; 2007) and therefore, I measured each team member's positive affective experience and then aggregated it to the team level of analysis. For doing this, first, each team member's positive affective experiences were measured with the 10 markers of positive affects from the Positive and Negative
49
Affect Scale (PANAS; Watson et al., 1988). More specifically, team members were asked to indicate, on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (very slightly or not at all) to 5 (extremely), how strongly they felt ten positive moods - namely: interested, excited, strong, enthusiastic, proud, alert, inspired, determined, attentive, and active during the past four weeks. To be consistent with the hypothesized model, I chose the 4-week time frame to ensure that I was measuring team members' affective experiences not traits. In particular, Watson and colleagues suggested that the PANAS assess affective states when used with instructions for respondents to report how they feel during specific time frames, such as the 4-week time frame I used in the present study (e.g., Watson et al., 1988). The Cronbach's alpha for this scale was 0.903. Team's level of empowerment. To assess the extent to which the team believes they are empowered, I replicated how Kirkman and colleagues (2004) assessed this; and therefore, I asked team members to indicate (via a scale anchored by 1=strongly disagree and 7=strongly agree) how strongly they agree with 12 items which were originally developed by Kirkman and Rosen (1999) and shortened and used by Kirkman and colleagues (2004), and aggregated it to the team level of analysis. Sample items include "my team has confidence in itself," "my team believes that its projects are significant," "my team can select different ways to do the team's work," and "my team has a positive impact on this company's customers." The Cronbach's alpha for this scale was 0.932.
50
Team Process Factors Team's level of information-sharing. To assess the extent to which the team experiences information sharing among its members, I replicated how De Dreu (2007) assessed this; and therefore, I asked team members to indicate (via a scale anchored by 1= totally disagree and 7=totally agree) how strongly they agree with the following six items: (1) "communicating is a problem in my team," (2) "members of my team inform each other about work-related issues," (3) "the quality of information exchange in our team is good," (4) "I get new facts, insights, and ideas from my colleagues," (5) "during work meetings, we tell each other what we know already and do not exchange new information," and (6) "we do not repeat ourselves during team meetings." Importantly, the first and fifth items are stated reversely. Also, for comparison purpose, leaders were also asked to assess how much information sharing they observed in the team using the measure described above; when doing this the referent changed from "my team" to "this team" and from "we" to the pronouns of "they" and "their." The Cronbach's alpha for this scale was 0.752 from team members and 0.951 from team leaders. The degree of team members' and team leaders' perceptual aggrement on the degree of team information sharing was .790, which ensured team members' assessment on team information sharing is more rather than less likely to be accurate, and hence, appropriate to be used in my hypothesistesting. Team's level of boundary-spanning. To assess the extent to which the team engages in boundary-spanning behaviors, I asked team members to indicate (via a
51
scale anchored by 1= not at all, and 7= to a very great extent) the extent to which their team engages in the following 21 actions developed by Ancona and Caldwell (1992). Consistent with previous studies on team boundary-spanning behaviors (e.g., Ancona & Caldwell, 1992; Faraj & Yan, 2009), the items used to measure team boundaryspanning behaviors are the same to those items to measure team leader's boundaryspanning behaviors except the referent. More specifically, here, the referent "my team leader" was replaced to "my team members." Also, like team information sharing, for comparison purpose, leaders were also asked to assess how much boundary-spanning they observed from the team members using the measure described above. The Cronbach's alphas for the three dimensions were 0.848, 0.852, and 0.828 from team members and 0.986, 0.929, and 0.948 from team leaders, respectively. The Cronbach's alpha for this scale as a whole was .921 from team members and .995 from team leaders. Importantly, like team leader's boundary-spanning behaviors, team's level of boundary-spanning behaviors were constructed using hierarchical or second-order factor approach (Wold, 1982, 1988) by using its three dimensions - ambassadorial, scouting, and sentry behaviors (Ancona & Caldwell, 1988). The degree of team members' and team leaders' perceptual agreement on the degree of team boundaryspanning was .760, which ensured team members' assessment on team boundaryspanning is more rather than less likely to be accurate, and hence, appropriate to be used in my hypothesis-testing.
52
Contextual Factor Team's level of organizational support for team creativity. To assess the extent to which the team perceives support for team creativity from its organization, I asked team members to indicate (via a scale anchored by 1=strongly disagree, and 7=strongly agree) the extent which their team agrees to the 4 statements originally developed by Scott and Bruce (1994) and used by Zhou and George (2001). Importantly, since the original statements are developed for individual-level creativity, I modified them to reflect team-level creativity. More specifically, the original 4 statements are: (1) "creativity is encouraged at our company," (2) "our ability to function creatively is respected by the leadership," (3) "the reward system here encourages innovation," and (4) "our company publicly recognizes those who are innovative." The revised and used statements in this dissertation are: (1) "creativity in teams is encouraged at our company," (2) "our ability as a team to function creatively is respected by the leadership," (3) "the reward system here encourages creativity in team," and (4) "our company publicly recognizes creative teams." Team members' responses to these 4 statements are aggregated so they reflect team level perception of organizational support for team creativity. My reason for treating this perception at the team-level rather than at the organizational-level is because the level of perceived organizational support for creativity seems likely to differ across teams due to the fact that teams, just like organizational subgroups in general, often have different experiences (e.g., Gelade & Ivery, 2003; Martin, 1992; Zohar & Luria, 2005) as well as due to the fact that statistically it does not make
53
sense to treat this as an organization-level variable given that the data for this study is collected from one organization. The Cronbach's alpha for this scale was 0.886.
Team Outcome Variable Team's level of creativity. To assess the extent to which the team produces creative outcomes, I replicated how Shin and Zhou (2007) assessed this; and therefore, I asked team leaders to compare the team they were leading with other teams performing similar tasks. More specifically, they were asked to indicate (via a scale anchored by 1= poorly and 7= very much) how creative they perceive the team to be. These four statements were: (1) "compared with other teams of similar function, how creative do you consider the team your are leading to be?," (2) "compared with other teams of similar function, how well does the team you are leading produce new ideas?" (3) "compared with other teams of similar function, how significant are those ideas to your organization?," and (4) "compared with other teams of similar function, how useful are those ideas?" My reason for choosing this four-item measure is due to Shin and Zhou's (2007) using it to assess team creativity and due to its consistency with Amabile's (1996) description of the essential aspects of creativity being idea's newness, significance, and usefulness. The Cronbach's alpha for team creativity scale from team leaders was 0.969. Besides team leaders, for comparison purposes, team members also assessed team creativity using the measure developed by Shin and Zhou (2007) with the replacement of "the team you are leading" with "your team." Specifically, team members were asked to indicate (via a scale where 1= poorly and 7=very much) how
54
well their team has been creative, produced new ideas, produced significant ideas, and produced useful ideas. The Cronbach's alpha for team creativity scale from team members was 0.957. The degree of team members' and team leaders' perceptual agreement on the degree of team creativity was .936; this near-perfect alignment between team members' and team leaders' perceptions of team creativity suggests that it is appropriate to use team members' perceptions of this in my hypothesistesting. My reason for using team leaders' judgment of team creativity rather than the judgement of team leaders or members on other teams is due to the greater difficulty that outsiders would likely have in evaluating this in light of the R&D teams projects' technical and complex nature. Importantly, in my analysis, I used the residuals of team creativity (assessed by team leaders) regressed by three categorical variables, including (1) primary objective of team project (e.g., Keller, 1992; Shin & Zhou, 2007), (2) division, and (3) country-location, instead of team leaders' original assessment of it. More specifically, the procedure I took was as follows. First, I created three sets of dummy variables for each of them. Second, I regressed the team creativity variable on the three sets of dummy variables, and saved the residuals. Third, I used those residuals as indicators of the final outcome variable in my analytical model. I did this instead of using all of them as a "control" variables in the analysis because, first, the analytical technique I employed (i.e., PLS-SEM which is described in detail in the section titled "Test of measurement model validity" later in this chapter) requires that all the variables in my analyses be metric, hence not categorical (Chin, 1998; Wold, 1982); and second, the "listserv" group of PLS-SEM researchers (SmartPLS Forum;
55
http://www.smartpls.de/forum/index.php advise partialling out the control variables prior to the analysis. The Cronbach's alpha for the residuals of this scale was .952. The correlation between the average of original team creativity variable (assessed by team leader) and residuals of team creativity (assessed by team leader) was 0.871 (p < .01).
Control Variables Variables that have previously been positively significantly associated with teams' creativity (as shown in Table 2), but are tangential to the hypothesized relationships I aim to test in my dissertation, were measured and used for statistical control variables. More specifically, I controlled for two sets of team-attribute factors— team composition and task design factors (as shown in Table 1) in ways that I describe below. Below, in addition to describing how I assessed each control variable, I explain why each variable may influence team creativity. Team Composition Factors. The first set of control variables pertained to team composition factors (e.g., Campion, Medsker, & Higgs, 1993; Gladstein, 1984). Campion and his colleagues (1993) identified several dimensions of team composition factors, including individual team members' ability, preference for workgroup, and job-related diversity. Thus I constructed team composition factor variable based on the dimensions identified by Campion and colleagues (1993). The measure I used to assess individual team members' ability pertained to creative ability-assessment, specifically the self-reported measure developed by Shalley, Gilson, and Blum (2009). My reason for measuring creative ability is because past
56
studies found that the average level of individual team members' creative ability in teams is positively associated with the teams' levels of creativity (Pirola-Merlo & Mann, 2004; Taggar, 2002). For calculating teams' average level of individual team members' ability, I used an additive composition model (Chan, 1998). The Cronbach's alpha for this scale was 0.890. This approach to assessing mean-level of individual team members' ability enabled me to keep anonymous the identity of team members who opted to participate in this study since I did not need to ask team leaders for this assessment. Although self-assessments are always at risk for social desirability biases, previous self-assessment of creativity have been found to be similar to team leaders' assessments of members' creativity (Axtell, Holman, Unsworth, Wall, Waterson, & Harrington, 2000).The measure I used to assess team members' preference for workgroup (versus solo) was that which was previously used by Jackson, Colquitt, Wesson, and Zapata-Phelan (2006). Similarly to individual team members' creative ability, I used an additive composition model (Chan, 1998) to aggregate team members' response to team-level variable. To assess the job-related diversity among team members, I calculated the degree of team-tenure diversity using Blau's (1977) index, which takes into account how team members are distributed among the possible categories of a variable. This index is represented by the formula shown below.
D? 1??? (Pi )2
57
The Pi is the proportion of members in the i category. Since a perfectly homogenous population would have a diversity index score of 0, and a perfectly heterogeneous population would have a diversity index score of 1. For calculating team-tenure diversity score, I followed the procedure used by Kearney, Gebert, and Voelpel (2009) and thus I transformed them into categorical variables first, and then calculated the degree of their diversity based on Blau's (1977)'s index; the following categories were used: "less than 1 year", "1~2 years," "2~3 years," "3~4 years," "4~5 years," and "more than 5 years." After calculating team-tenure diversity score, I constructed a formative variable1 for the team composition using the three measures of (1) the average level of individual team members' creative ability, (2) team members' preference for work group, and (3) team-tenure diversity. Task Design Factors. The second set of control variables pertained to task design factors— specifically, the extent of team interdependence factor (e.g., Campion et al., 1993). The reason why higher team interdependence may be associated with higher team creativity is because high levels of team interdependence stimulate high levels of interpersonal interaction and cooperation among team
1
By formative variable, I mean one in which the indicators (in this case,
individual team members' ability, preference for team work, and team-tenure diversity) are expected to cause certain attributes of the latent variable (here, team composition), while the indicators are not expected to be highly correlated with each other (Bollen & Lenox, 1991; Edwards & Bagozzi, 2000; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). It is different from the more general type of latent construct, which cause the indicators (i.e., reflective variable).
58
members (cf. Campion et al., 1993; Hülsheger et al., 2009) which may influence the levels of team creativity beyond the effect of information-sharing on it. Consistent with this, as shown in Table 2, team interdependence has been reported to be positively associated with team creativity (e.g., Gilson & Shalley, 2004). To measure team interdependence, I used Campion and his colleagues' (1993) items of task interdependence, goal interdependence, and interdependent feedback and rewards. Importantly, similar to the team composition variable, I added the scores of these three dimensions as indicators to form a team interdependence variable since the degree of team interdependence should be determined by the degrees of these three dimensions, not vice versa. The Cronbach's alphas for the three dimensions were 0.690, 0.737, and 0.739, respectively. The Cronbach's alpha for this scale as a whole was 0.826. Individual Difference Factors - Team members' and team leaders' cultural values. Finally, I asked team members and team leaders to indicate their cultural values in terms of four dimensions that previous studies have found to differentiate Asians from U.S. Americans (e.g., Hofstede, 1980). Specifically, I assessed participants' collectivism-individualism (or the extent to which individuals put groupinterests ahead of individual needs), power distance (or the extent to which individuals accept power-inequality, such as the need to show deference to authorities), uncertainty avoidance (or the extent to which individuals prefer to avoid situations of uncertainty or high risk), and masculinity-femininity (or the extent to which individuals stress achievement over harmony.) Consistent with previous management studies involving more than one country as sites for data collection (e.g.,
59
Kirkman & Shapiro, 2001), I measured these values using the individual-level 22item cultural value assessment created by Dorfman and Howell (1988), which includes six items for individualism-collectivism, six items for power distance, five items for uncertainty avoidance, and five items for masculinity-femininity. The Cronbach's alphas for the four dimensions were 0.683, 0.651, 0.615, and 0.689 from team members and 0.653, 0.682, 0.732, and 0.781 from team leaders.
Analytic Strategy There are two sets of analytic strategies that I will describe here: (1) analyses I engaged in prior to testing my hypotheses, and (2) hypothesis-testing analyses I describe these two sets of analyses next, each in turn.
Pre-Hypothesis Testing Analyses. Prior to testing my hypotheses, I conducted several analyses, including: (1) an analysis of independent samples t-test to investigate whether or not team members and team leaders in the U.S. have different cultural values from those in South Korea, and hence, to determine whether or not I need to control for the effect of cultural values in my hypotheses-testing analyses, (2) an empirical analysis (i.e., reliability within group, or "rwg", cf. James, Demaree, & Wolf, 1984; intra-class correlations, or the "ICC-approach," cf. Bliese, 2000) to justify the appropriateness of aggregating team members' perceptions; and (4) a structural equation modeling (SEM) approach using partial least squares (PLS) to test the validity of my hypothesized model, a
60
procedure called "PLS-SEM" (described in detail below). The results of these analyses are described next, each in turn. Test of cultural differences. With regard to the first pre-hypothesis testing analysis, the result from the t-test revealed no significant differences between team members and leaders in the U.S. and team members and leaders in the South Korea on all dimensions of cultural values, such as collectivism-individualism (t = .131, p > .10 for team members; t = .014, p > .10 for team leaders), power distance (t = .919, p > .10 for team members; t = .615, p > .10 for team leaders), uncertainty avoidance (t = .584, p > .10 for team members; t = 1.25, p > .10 for team leaders), and masculinity-femininity (t = .205, p > .10 for team members; t = .129, p > .10 for team leaders). This result might be due to the fact that majority of the team leaders and members in the U.S. were Asian or Asian American as shown in Table 3. Based on these findings I concluded that team members and team leaders in the U.S. had similar cultural values with those in South Korea, and thus, I decided not to use their cultural values as control variables in my hypothesis-testing. Test of aggregation appropriateness. With regard to my conceptual analysis, clarification in this way is one of the important steps to ensuring appropriate construct measurement, data analysis, and interpretation within the context of organizational research; another important step is to then empirically justify the level of analysis that I claim as appropriate (cf., Dansereau, Alutto, & Yammarino, 1984; Kenny, Kashy, & Cook, 2006; Klein & Kozlowski, 2000). Toward the goal of conceptual clarification, I clarify here that the level of analysis that is appropriate for testing my hypothesized model is the team-level. This is because the overarching question driving my
61
dissertation is: "What are the antecedents to team creativity, and to what extent might these antecedents pertain to team leader behaviors in the team (hence as collectively perceived by team members), and to emergent-states and team process-variables as collectively perceived by team members?" As a result, all variables in my hypothesized model are at the team-level. To empirically justify that the team-level of analysis is indeed appropriate for testing my model, I utilized the assessments of the variables shown in the theoretical model (in Figure 1) from members of 52 teams to calculate the reliability within group (rwg; James, Demaree, & Wolf, 1984; 1993) and the intra-class correlations (ICC(1), ICC(2); Bliese, 2000). The results of the reliability within group, ICC(1), and ICC(2) analyses are presented below in Table 5. ------------------------------Insert Table 5 about here ------------------------------As can be seen from Table 5, for all variables used in my model, median Rwgs range from .795 to .895, which suggest that team members within the team shared similar perceptions about all the study variables (James et al., 1984; 1993), thereby justifying aggregation of member-responses to team level variables. Additional support for aggregating member responses comes from my finding the ICC(1) values of all study variables to be higher or equal to the median ICC(1) of .12 (which ranges from .108 to .235), a pattern that James (1982) says indicates that there is a good amount of between-team variability relative to within-team in team members' perceptions of study variables. Importantly, the ICC(2) values of my study
62
variables are relatively low compared to the ICC(2) values reported in the organizational literature (cf. Bliese, 2000; Chen & Bliese, 2002). The relatively low ICC(2) values might not be surprising considering the small number of team members per a team (i.e., in average, 2.75 members per a team) which heavily influence the value of ICC(2) (Bliese, 2000). However, they should not prevent aggregation if aggretaion is justified by theory and supported by high rwg and ICC(1) (Chen & Bliese, 2002; Liao & Chuang, 2007). Moreover, if I find support for my theoretical model despite the relatively low ICC(2), this will suggest that my model is robust. Therefore, I proceeded with aggregation, acknowledging that the relationship between the aggregated measure of my study variables might be underestimated.. Test of measurement model validity. The last analysis I ran prior to testing hypotheses pertained to testing the validity of my hypothesized model in order to ensure that it is appropriate to conceptually treat my model's variables as distinct constructs when testing hypotheses. To test the model's validity I used a structural equation modeling (SEM) approach using partial least squares (PLS), or what is called "PLS-SEM" (Wold, 1982, 1985). My choice of this approach is due to the fact that this is recommended for research in which: (1) the theoretical model is new or not well formed; (2) the model is relatively complex (i.e., large number of latent variables and/or structural paths); (3) the model requires the modeling of latent variables in different modes (i.e., formative and reflective); (4) the assumptions of normality may not be met; and (5) the sample size is relatively small (Chin & Newsted, 1999; Wold, 1985). All of these factors are characteristic of the present study, thereby supporting the selection of PLS-SEM for these analyses. The PLS-
63
SEM approach has been used across a broad set of business research domains, including strategy (e.g., Cording, Christmann, & King, 2008; Hulland, 1999), entrepreneurship (e.g., Moreno & Casillas, 2008), marketing (e.g., Fornell & Bookstein, 1982), management information systems (e.g., Pavlou & Fygenson, 2006), decision sciences (e.g., Preston, Leider, & Chen, 2008), and organization studies (e.g., Goldberg & Waldman, 2000). Moreover, several leadership studies (e.g., Bass, Avolio, Jung, & Berson, 2003; Howell & Avolio, 1993; Howell & Hall-Merenda, 1999; Middleton, 2005; Shamir, Zakay, Breinin, & Popper, 1998; Sosik, Avolio, & Kahai, 1997) have also used this approach. With the regard to the sample size, Chin (1998) suggested a "10 times" rule of thumb for the minimum sample size in PLS analysis. More specifically, the sample size is determined by (a) the latent variable with largest number of formative indicators or (b) the dependent latent variable with largest number of independent latent variable impacting it. The minimum sample size is suggested to be 10 times either (a) or (b), whichever is greater, according to Chin (1998). In the research model of this study, the largest number of formative indicator is 2 (e.g., team member diversity, team member creativity) and the largest number of independent latent variables that impact the same dependent variable is 5. Therefore, the minimum required sample size for this study is 50. This study collected 62 data samples and selected 52 data samples from on-going research and development teams, which is larger than 50, the minimum requirement of sample size. In PLS-SEM, relationships among latent variables are estimated and tested within the context of a measurement model, essentially using a combined regression
64
and factor analysis within the same statistical procedure. Importantly, to do this (and to do my hypothesis-tests, which will be presented in Chapter 4), I added two control variables that have been identified as antecedents of team creativity to my research model shown in Figure 1, such as "team composition factors" (e.g., team member's individual-level creativity, team members' preference for workgroup, team tenure diversity among team members) and all those associated with "task design factors." All PLS-SEM analyses were conducted using the SmartPLS software application (Ringle, Wende, & Will, 2005). The significance of the path coefficients (i.e., t-statistic) are estimated using a bootstrap procedure using random samples (e.g., 1,000) from the original data set (n=52) using replacement sampling since PLS-SEM makes no distributional assumptions (Chin, 1998). More specifically, this procedure uses a data sample (observed data set) as a proxy for the population and draws a subsample with replacement from the data sample. In this study, the significance of a path will be tested with the bootstrap running with sub-sample size of 52 and 500 repetitions. The significance of a path will then be determined with an ordinary t-test distribution with df = 500. Since all hypotheses are directional in this study, a one tail t-test will be used. According to one tail t-test (df = 500), 99% significance level or p < .01 requires t-value greater than 2.334, 95% significance level or p < .05 requires tvalue greater than 1.648, and 90% significance level or p < .10 requires t-value greater than 1.283. Like other structural equation models, PLS models are analyzed and interpreted in two stages. The first stage involves an assessment of the validity and reliability of the measurement model. The second stage involves the assessment and
65
interpretation of the structural (i.e., theoretical) model including hypothesis testing. The details of these statistics and procedures will be explained in more detail in Chapter 4, discussed within the context of the study's results.
Power Analysis Since the variable in the hypothesized model is team creativity and there are five antecedent paths leading to it (e.g., team information sharing, team boundaryspanning, perceived organizational support for the creativity by team members, team composition, team interdependence), using the convention of 10 cases, the minimal sample size is 50 cases (i.e., teams). To obtain a more specific estimate for the purpose of this study, the G*Power software application (Faul, 2007) was used to estimate the power of the statistical methods used. Given the size of the present sample (n=52), the endogenous variable with the greatest number of predictors (i.e., 5), and a conventional level (alpha=.05), adequate power (>.80) was achieved to detect small to medium size. Since the hypothesized model deals with relatively new constructs, like team creativity, the achieved power level is sufficient to make prediction from the PLS-SEM results (e.g., Cohen, 1977).
66
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS
The results associated with analyses investigating the appropriateness of aggregating variables in my model were presented in the previous chapter, Chapter 3. Adjustments that those results identified as necessary, such as reducing the sample to 52 teams, have been made prior to the analyses I ran subsequently, all of which are described and their respective results reported in this chapter. More specifically, in this chapter, I present descriptive statistics, the results of testing the appropriateness of my theoretical model, and the results of all hypothesis-tests associated with a sample of 52 R&D teams, each of which is led by one team leader.
Descriptive Statistics Table 6 presents means, standard deviations, and bivariate correlations for all study variables. Importantly, all of these scores are calculated after aggregating team members' responses to the team-level, given that the team-level is this dissertation's conceptual level of analysis (for reasons explained in the previous chapter). -------------------------------------Insert Table 6 about here --------------------------------------
Measurement Model Evaluation Consistent with previous work using PLS-SEM (Bass, et al., 2003; Barclay, Higgins, & Thompson, 1995; Howell & Avolio, 1993; Sosik et al., 1997), I tested the
67
measurement model by examining three indicators of its quality: (1) individual item reliability, (2) internal consistency, and (3) discriminant validity. First, to examine individual item reliability, I examined the factor loadings of the measures on their corresponding constructs. A common rule of thumb in PLSSEM is to accept items with more explanatory power than error variance (Fornell & Bookstein, 1982). A general guideline is that indicator loadings greater than .7 indicate that more shared variance between the latent variable and its measures as opposed to error variance. However, if there are additional indicators related to the latent variable to which they can be compared, indicator loadings of .5 or .6 may be acceptable (Chin, 1998). Table 7 shows the factor loadings of measures used to test the theoretical model. Most items had factor loadings on their respective constructs that were greater than .7; exceptions were one item for leaders' empowering behaviors, two items for team members' positive affective experiences, three items for team members' team empowerment experiences, and two items for the team composition factor. Because the factor loadings of these items were greater than .5 and their respective latent variable had additional indicator variables (e.g., 13 other items for leaders' empowering behaviors), all items used in this study showed acceptable individual item reliability. -------------------------------------Insert Table 7 about here -------------------------------------Second, to examine each construct measure's internal consistency, I computed two measures: (1) each variable's composite scale reliability (Fornell & Larcker,
68
1981) and (2) each variable's "average variance extracted," or AVE (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). The composite scale reliability is similar to Cronbach's alpha and uses the items' loadings estimates within the measurement model and has a criterion cut-off of .7 or more; but unlike Cronbach's alpha, the composite scale reliability is not influenced by the number of items in the scale. For comparison purposes, both measures of internal consistency are presented for all relevant latent variables in Table 8 where both measures are above the recommended level of .7 for all latent variables. -------------------------------------Insert Table 8 about here -------------------------------------Additional support for the internal consistency of the study variables comes from examining the AVE (Fornell & Larcker, 1981), a statistic that reflects the amount of variance that a latent variable extracts from its indicators relative to the amount of measurement error (Chin, 1998). Chin explains that this statistic is applicable for reflectively modeled latent variables and that measures of AVE should generally be greater than .5, indicating that at least 50% of the variance of the indicators has been accounted for. Based on the results shown in Table 8, all latent variables had AVEs greater than the recommended value. Finally, to examine the discriminant validity among the constructs comprising my theoretical model, I used criteria similar to a multitrait/multimethod analysis (Barclay et al., 1995; Howell & Avolio, 1993). One criterion is that the construct represented by the items should share more variance with its items than with other
69
constructs in the model (Carmines & Zeller, 1979). A matrix is shown in Table 6, in which the diagonal elements show the square root of the average variance shared by a variable with its items. For adequate convergent and discriminant validity, the diagonal elements should be greater than entries in the corresponding rows and columns. Results summarized in Table 6 indicate this criterion was met. Another criterion is that no measurement item should load more highly on another construct than it does on the construct it purports to measure (Carmines & Zeller, 1979). Results summarized in Table 6 indicate that this criterion also was met. Thus, the assessment of reliability and validity suggest that the measurement model is satisfactory. In summary, the three indicators of my theoretical model's quality each indicate that the model is appropriate as is; as such, I proceeded to test the hypotheses that the model illustrates. The results of doing so are presented next.
Hypothesis Test Results Before presenting the results of testing each hypothesis, let me clarify that the control variables of "team composition factors" and "task design factors" were indeed generally positively associated with the extent of team creativity (? = .222, t = 2.227, p < .05 for team composition factors; ? = .204, t = 1.779, p < .05 for task design factors.) As such, my plan to control for these variables when testing my hypotheses is appropriate. Table 9 presents the bootstrap output with mean path coefficient (i.e., average of path coefficient from 500 repetitions), standard deviation for path coefficient (i.e.,
70
standard deviation for path coefficient from 500 repetitions), and t-statistics for path coefficient. Figure 2 illustrates this result. -------------------------------------Insert Table 9 about here --------------------------------------------------------------------------Insert Figure 2 about here -------------------------------------I report the results of all hypothesis-tests next, in the following order. I begin by reporting "Team Process Behavior-Effects on Team Creativity" (Hypotheses 1 and 2). Then I report "Team Emergent State- associations with Team Process Behaviors" (Hypothesis 3 to Hypothesis 6). Next, I report "Team Leader Behavior Effects on Group Positive Affective Tone and Empowerment" (Hypotheses 9 to Hypotheses 13). Then, I report the results of the mediation hypotheses pertaining to the possibility that the team emergent state-effects on team creativity may be due to teams' degree of information-sharing and boundary-spanning behaviors (Hypotheses 7 and 8). Finally, I report "Organizational Support for Team Creativity Effect on Team Creativity" and "Team Leader Boundary-Spanning Behavior Effects on Organizational Support for Team Creativity."
Team Process Behavior-Effects on Team Creativity Consistent with Hypothesis 1, team members' frequency of informationsharing behaviors in their team was indeed generally positively associated with teams'
71
level of creativity. Evidence supporting the significance of this relationship can be seen in several ways. First, as seen in the correlation matrix in Table 6, the Pearson correlation between these two variables was .413 (p < .01). Second, as shown in the results in Table 9 and Figure 2, the path represented by this hypothesized relationship is significant (? = .305, t = 2.056, p < .05). Cumulatively, all of these results suggest that Hypothesis 1 was supported. Hypothesis 2, which predicted that team members' frequency of boundaryspanning behaviors in their team would generally be positively associated with teams' level of creativity, was marginally and inconsistently supported. Evidence of this questionable level of support is the following. First, as seen in the correlation matrix in Table 6, frequency of teams' boundary-spanning behaviors and team creativity were significantly positive correlated (r = .392, p < .01). Yet, as shown in the results in Table 9 and Figure 2, the path represented by this hypothesized relationship is only marginally significant (? = .131, t = 1.341, p < .10). Taken together, these results suggest that there is only marginal support for Hypothesis 2.
Team Emergent State-Associations with Team Process Behaviors Consistent with Hypothesis 3, teams' level of positive affective tone was indeed generally positively associated with the level of information-sharing behaviors in the team. Evidence supporting the significance of this relationship can be seen in several ways. First, as seen in the correlation matrix in Table 6, the Pearson correlation between these two variables was .377 (p < .01). Second, as shown in the results in Table 9 and Figure 2, the path represented by this hypothesized relationship
72
is significant (? = .210, t = 1.792, p < .05). Cumulatively, all of these results suggest that Hypothesis 3 was supported. Consistent with Hypothesis 4, teams' level of positive affective tone was indeed generally positively associated with the level of boundary-spanning behaviors in the team. Evidence supporting the significance of this relationship can be seen in several ways. First, as seen in the correlation matrix in Table 6, the Pearson correlation between these two variables was .627 (p < .01). Second, as shown in the results in Table 9 and Figure 2, the path represented by this hypothesized relationship is significant (? = .384, t = 4.580, p < .01). Cumulatively, all of these results suggest that Hypothesis 4 was supported. Consistent with Hypothesis 5, teams' level of empowerment was indeed generally positively associated with the level of information-sharing behaviors in the team. Evidence supporting the significance of this relationship can be seen in several ways. First, as seen in the correlation matrix in Table 6, the Pearson correlation between these two variables was .476 (p < .01). Second, as shown in the results in Table 9 and Figure 2, the path represented by this hypothesized relationship is significant (? = .377, t = 3.074, p .10). Contrary to Hypothesis 11, the frequency with which team leaders engaged in empowering behaviors was NOT generally positively associated with the extent of team's positive affective tone. Evidence supporting the non-significance of this relationship can be found from the Table 9 and Figure 2, where the path represented by this hypothesized relationship is not significant (? = .148, t = 1.204, p > .10).
74
Consistent with Hypothesis 12, the frequency with which team leaders engaged in empowering leadership behaviors was indeed generally positively associated with the extent of team empowerment. Evidence supporting the significance of this relationship can be seen in several ways. First, as seen in the correlation matrix in Table 6, the Pearson correlation between these two variables was .425 (p < .01). Second, as shown in the results in Table 9 and Figure 2, the path represented by this hypothesized relationship is significant (? = .354, t = 2.267, p < .05). Cumulatively, all of these results suggest that Hypothesis 12 was supported. Contrary to Hypothesis 13, the frequency with which team leaders engaged in boundary-spanning behaviors was NOT generally positively associated with the extent of team empowerment. Evidence supporting the non-significance of this relationship can be found from the Table 9 and Figure 2, where the path represented by this hypothesized relationship is not significant (? = .035, t = 0.038, p > .10).
Do Team Process Behaviors Mediate Team Emergent State-Effects on Team Creativity? Hypothesis 7 predicted that the tendency for teams' level of positive affective tone to be positively related to team creativity would be, at least, partially mediated by the frequency with which information-sharing and boundary-spanning behaviors occurs in the team. Guided by Baron and Kenny (1986), support for this mediating hypothesis would require me to observe three patterns involving teams' frequency of information-sharing and three patterns involving teams' frequency of boundaryspanning. First, with regard to information-sharing in the team, I would need to see
75
that higher levels of positive affective tone in the team are significantly positively associated with higher levels of team creativity. To do this, I added the direct path from team's level of positive affective tone to team creativity and omitted the path from and to the team's level of information-sharing and boundary-spanning behaviors. As can be seen in the "Direct Effect Model" column of Table 10, this positive directeffect did indeed occur. Second, I would need to see that higher levels of informationsharing behaviors and boundary-spanning behaviors in the team are significantly positively associated with higher levels of team creativity; data supporting this was already noted when reporting the Hypothesis 1 and 2-related results above. Third, I would need to see that the significant positive relationship between teams' positive affective tone and team creativity weakens when the frequency of informationsharing behaviors and boundary-spanning behaviors in the team are each controlled, while continued significant positive linkages occur with team creativity by, both, information-sharing and boundary-spanning behaviors.. To do this, I added direct paths from teams' level of positive affective tone to team creativity, while maintaining the paths from and to the teams' level of information-sharing behaviors and boundary-spanning behaviors. After doing this, the direct paths from teams' level of positive affective tone to team creativity remained significant when team information sharing and team boundary-spanning were controlled (? = .245, t = 1.866, p < .05), and team creativity remained significantly positively associated with team information sharing (? = .264, t = 1.828, p < .05), but not with team boundaryspanning (? = .032, t = 0.431, p > .10). Consequently, these results suggest that only teams' level of information sharing partially mediates the relationship between teams'
76
level of positive affective tone and team creativity (i.e., such mediation did not occur via teams' level of boundary-spanning behaviors). Besides the procedure of Baron and Kenny (1986), I also conducted Sobel's (1982, 1988) test to further explore the possible mediating effect of team information sharing and team boundary-spanning in the relationship between teams' level of positive affective tone and team creativity and between teams' level of team empowerment and team creativity. It is because Sobel's (1982, 1988) test was shown to be superior to Baron and Kenny's (1986) procedure in terms of power (MacKinnon, Lockwood, Hoffman, West, & Sheets, 2002) and many recent studies employing PLS-SEM technique used this test to determine mediation effect (e.g., Cording et al., 2008; Thompson, Mamilton, & Rust, 2005; Wetzels, Odekerken-Schröder, & VanOppen, 2009). Importantly, the reason I tested the mediating role of team information sharing and team boundary-spanning in the relationship between teams' level of team empowerment and team creativity is because some researchers (e.g., Collins, Graham, & Flaherty, 1998; James, Mulaik, & Brett, 1982; Shrout & Bolger, 2002) have suggested that showing a direct relationship between the exogenous variable (e.g., team empowerment) and dependent variable (e.g., team creativity) is not fundamental to establishing complete mediation. Indeed, Kenny, Kashy, and Bolger (1998), in their elaboration on the Baron and Kenny's (1986) procedure, wrote that "Step 1 [or testing direct effect of independent variable on dependent variable] is not required, but a path from the initial variable to the outcome is implied if Steps 2 [or testing the direct effect of independent variable on mediating variable] and Step 3 [or testing the direct effect of mediating variable on dependent variable] are met" (p.260), especially
77
when the correlation between independent variable and mediating variable is higher than the correlation between mediating variable and dependent variable (i.e., suppressor; cf. Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003), which is what my previous tests of Hypothesis 1, 2, 5, and 6 showed. As can be seen in the "Sobel t-Test" in Table 10, only team information sharing was found to have a mediating role in the relationship between positive group affective tone and team creativity (t = 1.381, p < .10), which is consistent with my previous test. Cumulatively, all of these results suggest that Hypothesis 7 was partially supported due to the fact that team information-sharing behaviors (but not by team boundary-spanning behaviors) mediate the relationships that team creativity have with teams' positive affective tone. Hypothesis 8 predicted that the tendency for teams' level of empowerment to be positively related to team creativity would be, at least, partially mediated by the frequency with which information-sharing and boundary-spanning behaviors occurs in the team. As can ben seen in the "Sobel t-Test" in Table 10, both team information sharing and team boundary-spanning were found to have a mediating role in the relationship between team empowerment (t = 1.790, p < .05) and team creativity (t = 1.326, p < .10). Thus, although team empowerment didn't have direct effect on team creativity, it did influence team creativity positively and significantly indirectly, through team members' information sharing behaviors and boundary-spanning behaviors. Thus, Hypothesis 8 was also supported.
78
-------------------------------------Insert Table 10 about here --------------------------------------
Organizational Support for Team Creativity Effect on Team Creativity Contrary to Hypothesis 14, the level of organizational support for team creativity was not generally positively associated with teams' level of creativity. Evidence supporting the non-significance of this relationship can be found from the Table 9 and Figure 2, where the path represented by this hypothesized relationship is not significant (? = .087, t = 0.577, p > .10).
Team Leader Boundary-Spanning Behavior Effects on Organizational Support for Team Creativity Consistent with Hypothesis 15, the frequency with which team leaders engaged in boundary-spanning behaviors was indeed generally positively associated with the degree of organizational support for team creativity. Evidence supporting the significance of this relationship can be seen in several ways. First, as seen in the correlation matrix in Table 6, the Pearson correlation between these two variables was .466 (p < .01). Second, as shown in the results in Table 9 and Figure 2, the path represented by this hypothesized relationship is significant (? = .534, t = 6.501, p < .05). Cumulatively, all of these results suggest that Hypothesis 15 was supported. In summary, I found support for ten of my fifteen hypotheses. Moreover, support for my overall model is found via various tests, like correlation analysis,
79
PLS-SEM test, and mediation test. Consequently, I conclude that my theoretical model is generally supported. In the next chapter I discuss the implications of my findings for, both, team members and team leaders interested in enhancing team creativity.
80
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION
Taken together, how do my dissertation's findings advance understanding about antecedents to team creativity? In this chapter I posit that my findings advance this understanding in three ways. First, unlike Taggar (2002) who theorized that team creativity can be enhanced by "team creativity-relevant processes," such as providing constructive feedback, and eliciting and appreciating different ideas, needs, and viewpoints, I offer empirical support for the positive effect that information sharing behaviors have on team creativity. Similarly, unlike Gilson and Shalley (2004) who theorized that team creativity can be enhanced by "team creative processes," such as linking ideas from multiple sources, delving into unknown areas to find better or unique approaches to a problem, and seeking out novel ways of performing a task (all of which seem related to boundary-spanning as well as information-sharing), I offer empirical support for this. Such empirical support is woefully lacking in the team creativity literature, a conclusion reached by George (2008) and Shalley and colleagues (2004). The near-absence of empirical support for team process-effects on team creativity is due to the tendency for the studies of team creativity to be sparse in number and/or in laboratory settings that lack teams whose assigned tasks allow scholars to study team boundary-spanning as well as information-sharing behaviors (e.g., Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006; Paulus & Van der Zee, 2004). Although Shin and Zhou (2007) studied natural ongoing teams in an organizational setting, their study did not include measures of teams' information-sharing behavior or boundaryspanning behavior.
81
A second way my dissertation findings advance understanding about antecedents to team creativity pertains to my finding circumstances that may encourage team creativity-enhancing process-behaviors to occur. Specifically, my findings suggest that the team creativity-enhancing process behaviors of informationsharing and boundary-spanning are both more likely to occur when teams have a higher positive affective tone and a higher degree of empowerment. This finding thus suggests there is value in conceptually distinguishing rather than lumping together "mediating variables" that regard team process-behaviors versus team emergent states. On the other hand, since I assessed teams' process behaviors and emergentstates at the same time (i.e., in the second of three surveys), future research is needed to determine with more certainty than my data allows whether indeed team emergent states lead to team creativity-enhancing behaviors or if, instead, the causal order may be reversed. Although my findings cannot resolve this uncertainty, they hopefully help scholars recognize the need to design future team creativity studies in a manner that may enable this resolution to occur. Such future studies will add to the paucity of team creativity studies that exist and build on my dissertation's efforts to sensitize team scholars to the need to conceptually distinguish as antecedents to team creativity: (1) team emergent-states versus (2) team process-behaviors. This bifurcation is not seen in previous studies of team creativity. Furthermore, my finding regarding how teams' level of positive group affective tone and team empowerment related to team creativity-enhancing process behaviors and teams' level of creativity raises several important theoretical issues. Specifically, my finding positive group affective tone to be significantly positively
82
associated with team creativity provides empirical support at the team-level for Fredrickson's (1998, 2001) individual-level "broaden-and-build theory of positive affective experiences." Consistent with the latter theory, this finding suggests that team members with more positive affective experiences tend to broaden their awareness and engage in novel, varied, and exploratory actions, such as exchanging their unique perspectives and job-related skills with others, or interacting with upper management or members of other teams to facilitate their work processes. These broadenend actions, in turn, may build skills and resources for team members' creative ideas and ultimately assist product-generation in teams. Additionally, my finding that positive group affective tone has both indirect and direct effects on team creativity (through team process behaviors) suggests that previous findings that link individuals' affective experiences to their levels of motivation (e.g., Seo, Bartunek, & Barrett, 2010) and creativity (e.g., Isen, Daubman, & Nowicki, 1987) are applicable to team-level phenomena. Secondly, my finding team empowerment to be significantly positively associated with team creativity reinforces Shin and Zhou's (2007) empirically guided conclusion that team members' self-efficacy enhances team creativity. However, my inclusion of team process behaviors enabled me, unlike Shin and Zhou (2007), to also observe that the positive effect that team empowerment has on team creativity is indirect and only possible when it leads to teams' information-sharing behaviors and boundary-spanning behaviors. One possibility that is suggested by this finding is that teams with higher levels of team empowerment engage in more information sharing behaviors and boundary-spanning behaviors; and it may be the latter behaviors that
83
ultimately enable the teams to be more creative. This possibility is consistent with the theorizing of Marks and colleagues (2001) that team emergent states tend to become new inputs to subsequent team processes that ultimately influence team outcomes. On the other hand, it is also possible that, if in any case team empowerment does not lead to team members' information-sharing behaviors and boundary-spanning behaviors, the positive association between team empowerment and team creativity may disappear. For example, when team members don't prefer working by their own goals and controlling their own behaviors (e.g., high on power-distance dimension; Kirkman & Shapiro, 2001), team empowerment may not lead to team creativity because it might not lead team members to engage in information sharing and boundary-spanning (cf. Kirkman & Shapiro, 1997) - a priori requirement of the positive association between team empowerment and team creativity. However, the causal order of emergent states and team process behaviors cannot be known with certainty until future study designs enable causality to be determined; and thus it is also possible that the teams with higher levels of information sharing and boundary-spanning are the ones that are highly empowered. This latter possibility also extends the empirically-guided conclusions of Shin and Zhou (2007), however, since they theoretically and empirically assumed that the "trigger" of teams' self-efficacy was solely team leader behavior. Future research is needed to examine what the various team member- as well as team leader-related sources of team empowerment may be and to examine, more specifically, the extent to which one of these sources may be the extent to which members share information
84
with each other and span their team boundary or the extent to which the latter behaviors are a consequence of team empowerment A third way my dissertation findings advance understanding about antecedents to team creativity pertains to my finding that teams' emergent states are directly influenced by team leader behaviors, after controlling for fundamental teamattributes such as "team composition factors" (e.g., the mean level of individual team members' creativity, team members' preference for work group, team-tenure diversity among team members) and "team design factors" (i.e., task interdependence, goal interdependence, interdependent rewards and feedback). This conclusion is guided by my finding team leaders' perceived level of engagement in transformational behaviors to be significantly positively associated with teams' reported level of positive affect and team leaders' perceived level of empowering behaviors to be significantly positively associated with the level of empowerment reported by teams. This conclusion echoes the theorizing of Zaccaro and colleagues' (2001) that team leaders' importance on team success is due to their effect on developing coherence among team members and thus developing their coordinating and cooperating behaviors. However, my findings further explain how team leaders may develop the coherence among team members. This is because my findings show a positive association between team leaders' transformational behaviors and team members' positive affective experiences and a positive association between team leaders' empowering behaviors and team members' enhanced empowerment feeling in teams. Consistent with this, Kozlowski, Gully, Salas, and Cannon-Bowers (1996) theorized that team coherence results from team members' collective affective,
85
motivational, and cognitive experiences, which are formd through team leaders' inspirational and supportive behaviors. Interestingly, I expected team leaders' transformational behaviors to also influence teams' level of empowerment, their empowering behaviors to also influence teams' level of positive affective experiences, and their boundary-spanning behaviors also influence team's level of empowerment, but the latter three relationships were not observed. This raises the possibility that various types of leadership behaviors affect team creativity via different emergent states. Since I found, consistent with the findings of Grawich, Munz, and Kramer (2003) and Shin and Zhou (2007), that team members' feeling of positive affect and empowerment are each important to team creativity, it may behoove leaders who wish to enhance teams' creativity to engage in both transformational and empowering behaviors. This suggests that team leaders, not only team members, have a critical role to play in helping teams be creative. In summary, the three ways that my dissertation findings advance understanding about how team creativity occurs pertains to: (1) identifying team process-behaviors that enhance team creativity (i.e., information-sharing and boundary spanning in teams); (2) identifying team emergent states (i.e., group positive affective tone and team empowerment) that help bring about processbehaviors that enhance team creativity; and (3) team leader behaviors that help bring about team creativity-enhancing emergent states. Importantly, the latter two ways reinforce and extend Shin and Zhou's (2007) observation that team leaders' transformational behaviors and team members' feeling of confidence and optimism is an important determinant of team creativity. Cumulatively, these insights suggest that
86
if teams are to be maximally creative, they probably need positive behaviors on the part of team members and team leaders, which is why future studies of antecedents to team creativity will probably benefit by studying interaction-effects involving actions and/or perceptions of both of these groups.
Limitations of the Study Despite this study's contributions, there are some limitations. First, as I noted when describing my team-sample, the size of the teams averaged 2.75 members; and as such, it remains unclear if the patterns I observed in my data would hold true for teams whose size is 10 members or more. Relatedly, the teams in the Korean location (unlike the U.S. location) may possibly have been larger than 2.75 members per team; the Korean HR managers' refusal to provide me this information makes the team size in Korea an uncertainty (though they did say the average team-size is between 3-10 members). The question of whether the team-related phenomena I observed would occur in teams larger than 2.75 members is one of the needs of future team creativity research that my dissertation helps illuminate as needed. Secondly, as I noted earlier, the ICC(2) aggregation-statistics were lower than ideal, making questionable whether aggregation was appropriate in this study. On the other hand, the ICC(2) statistic is contingent on team-size; and as noted above, this was relatively small in this study. Moreover, the fact that my theoretical model was nevertheless nearly fully supported despite relatively low ICC(2) suggests that my theoretical model may be robust. Testing the veracity of this assumption is another need in future research.
87
Thirdly, all of the leaders and members were recruited from a single organization. Since leaders' and members' behaviors are embedded within the organizational context (e.g., Ilgen, 1995; Sparrowe & Liden, 1997), the result of my dissertation may be due to the specific characteristics of the recruited organization. On the other hand, given that my study's purpose was to test theorized relationships rather than the generalizability of previously-established findings, the homogeneity of company- and industry-culture is a strength associated with my study participants all belonging to one company. Thus, despite the potential concern of sampling from a single organization, my dissertation contributes to the literature on team creativity. A fourth limitation of this study pertains to the tendency for leaders to engage in more than one type of leader behavior (Bass, 1985) and the fact that I did not conceptualize nor empirically test the likelihood that interactive effects among the leader-behaviors in my theoretical model probably exist. Again, this raises a question in need of future team creativity research. Hopefully, this study will serve as an impetus for such future studies to occur. A fifth limitation of this study is my testing only two mediating relationships between team emergent-states, team processes, and team creativity from other possible mediating relationships in my theoretical model. For example, it is possible that team leaders' transformational behaviors can enhance the degrees of team creativity through team emergent states, as found by Shin and Zhou (2007), or through other types of team emergent states and team processes. Additionally, it is possible that team leaders' empowering behaviors can enhance the degrees of team creativity through team emergent states and/or team processes. These possibilities
88
also suggest that there might be other important mediating relationships to explain team creativity that need to be examined in future research. A sixth limitation of this study, mentioned earlier in this chapter, regards my assessing team emergent states and team process behaviors in the same survey (in the second of three surveys). This was not my originally intended research design, but I found it difficult to get the participating company to agree to have its team leaders and team members complete more than three surveys. Balancing practical versus theory-testing demands is part of the challenge of studying teams in natural organizational settings, and is perhaps why so few team scholars do this (George, 2008). While my dissertation has these limitations, hopefully the general support that was found for my theoretical model and the research questions that my findings suggest are next in need of testing will encourage more studies about antecedents to team creativity to occur, especially in real teams where team emergent states and information-sharing and boundary-spanning behaviors and other actions (on the part of members as well as team leaders) may be observed. A seventh limitation of this study is that my empirical assessment of information sharing processes in teams, though consistent with the one used by DeDreu (2007), is narrower than the qualitative descriptions of information sharing behaviors described by Hargadon and Bechky (2006) and Seddon and Biassutti (2009), such as help-seeking, help-giving, reflective reframing, and reinforcing. My measurement choice was due to my aim to build upon previous works on team creativity or team creativity-related studies and thus my need to replicate how others
89
have measured team information sharing behaviors. Nevertheless, the development of a broader empirical assessment of these behaviors is needed in future research. An eighth limitation of this study is that my empirical assessments excluded measures of the team's life cycle and the specific targets of boundary-spanning behaviors engaged in by the team leaders or by team members. If I had included these measures, perhaps I might be able to explain why team creativity was only marginally influenced by the boundary-spanning behaviors of team members and not at all influenced by the boundary-spanning behaviors of team leaders. For example, Shalley and Perry-Smith (2008) theorized that the positive relationship between team members' boundary-spanning behaviors and team creativity might depend on the stage of development of the ideas and products because it affects team members' level of familiarity with one another and with the task, as well as the degree of necessity to interact with external stakeholders. Also, regarding the target of externalinteraction, Ancona (1990) showed that the effect of team leaders' boundaryspanning on team innovation depends on not only the frequency but also whom the team leaders interact with (e.g., leaders/members of other teams, customers, upper management). Therefore, future research on the effect of team leaders' and team members' boundary-spanning behaviors on team creativity needs to assess team life cycle and target of boundary-spanning behaviors in addition to the frequency of these behaviors. A ninth limitation of this study regards my adopting PLS-SEM to test my hypotheses. Since PLS-SEM minimizes residual variance and maximize variance explained among study variables, my findings in this study might be more prediction-
90
oriented rather than comfirmation-oriented, and more data-driven than theory-driven (Fornell & Bookstein, 1982). On the other hand, since I ensured the validity of measurement model and sufficient level of power before adopting PLS-SEM, my result might reflect the real team phenomenon that researchers using other statistica techniques might find (cf. Wilkinson, Blank, & Gruber, 1996). Indeed, my additional OLS-regression analyses on all of the hypothesized relationships showed identical results with what I reported here, in that all significant paths in Chapter 4 were shown to have significant coefficient with the same direction. Additionally, the Sobel t-test results using results from OLS-regression analyses confirmed the mediating tests results I reported here (t = 1.746, p < .10 and t = 1.690, p < .10 for the mediating effect of team information sharing and team boundary-spanning on the relationship between positive group affective tone and team creativity, respectively; t = 2.195, p < .05 and t = 1.719, p < .10 for the mediating effect of team information sharing and team boundary-spanning on the relationship between team empowerment and team creativity, respectively.) Thus, despite the potential concern of using PLS-SEM, my findings reflect the real phenomenon in teams to explain how and why team creativity occurs.
Implications for Management Scholars This dissertation's findings have numerous implications for management scholars, minimally the identification of research questions in need of future team creativity research that occur in the previous section. Additionally, my findings suggest that the conclusions from previous studies on team creativity, which are
91
shown in Table 2, need revising in ways that go beyond "direct effects" on team creativity. Toward this goal, I provide Table 11 which distinguishes direct effects versus indirect effects on team creativity (labeled "Direct Antecedents" and "Indirect Antecedents," respectively). Additionally, Table 11 identifies "Team Inputs" that help to explain the indirect effects that are noted in the table. Importantly, although all of the conclusions shown in Table 11 are suggested by my dissertation's findings, all are in need of future research due to the fact that this dissertation study is not limitationfree. As such, Table 11 in addition to the research questions I identify in the previous section, offer management scholars numerous ways to further advance understanding about how and why team creativity occurs. If my conclusions, as a set, are generally correct, then they extend Zaccaro and colleagues' (2001) theorizing that team leaderrelated attributes (e.g., team leader behaviors) are significant predictors of team success (e.g., team creativity), This is because, collectively, the conclusions guided by my dissertation's findings suggest that team success, such as team creativity, may be linked less proximally to team leader-related attributes than to team-related attributes (e.g., team emergent-states, team process). The importance of the latter "team inputs" may be due to the possibility that these team inputs substitute for the positive effect of team leader-related attributes (cf. Kerr & Jermier, 1978). Importantly, however, my dissertation's findings also suggest that team leaders may act as "triggers" of team creativity since the emergent states and team processes (team inputs) were significantly linked to, hence presumably developed at least in part by, team leaders' behaviors. This possibility is consistent with Shin and Zhou (2007) finding team leader behaviors to be instrumental in enhancing team members'
92
collective efficacy beliefs and thereby also team creativity. In summary, testing the conclusions I offer via Table 11, plus the questions in need of future research identified earlier in this chapter, are important implications of my findings for management scholars. ------------------------------------Insert Table 11 about here -----------------------------------Implications for Managers My findings provide four practical implications for managers who are interested in enhancing team creativity. First, my finding that team leaders' transformational and empowering behaviors have important roles in team creativity has implications for areas such as selection, assignment, and training. With regard to selecting leaders for team assignments where creativity is needed, such as R&D tasks, it may behoove managers to identify leaders likely to be transformational and empowering. This may be achieved by using tests that assess personality tests, such as NEO-PI (Costa & McCrae, 1992) and IPIP (Goldberg, 1999), that assess the extent to which leaders are high on ageeeableness, conscientiousness, extraversion, emotional stability, and openness-to-experience, since these are all dimensions of personality that have been linked to more transformational behaviors (e.g., Bono & Judge, 2004; Judge & Bono, 2000). Since more supportiveness has been linked to higher levels of emotional intelligence (e.g., Rubin, Munz, & Bommer, 2005), identifying leaders' level of emotional intelligence—for example, via the instrument
93
called "MSCEIT" (Mayer, Salovey, Caruso, & Sitarenios, 2002)— may help identify leaders likely to be supportive via transformational and/or empowering behaviors. A second implication for managers pertains to the fact that leader behaviors are developable and trainable (e.g., Bass, 1990; Latahm, 1998); and as such, it may behoove managers to provide leadership training for transformational- and empowering- behaviors (e.g., Mullen & Kelloway, 2009) and/or emotion-abilities that have been linked to greater levels of these types of leadership behaviors. A third implication for managers is that my findings suggest that emergent states and team processes are more proximal than team leader behaviors in influencing team creativity; and as such, actions that likely enhance these mediating states (which may or may not relate to leader-actions) are also likely to enhance team creativity. For example, managers may need to take actions in multiple areas of human resource policies to enhance the degree to which team members feel positive and empowered in teams and eager to engage in information sharing- and boundaryspanning behaviors. More specifically, given that team members' positive affective experiences in teams are associated with their affective experiences in non-work settings (Madjar, Oldham, & Pratt, 2002), it may be beneficial for managers to provide support to, not just employees, but also their family members like spouse and children. Additionally, adopting human resources policies including providing team members with team-based rewards, cross-training, and opportunities to make staffing decisions may be helpful for those managers given that these policies are associated with team members' experiences of team empowerment (Gibson & Kirkman, 1999; Manz & Sims, 1993; Guzzo, Yost, Campbell, & Shea, 1993).
94
A final implication of my dissertation's findings for managers is that none of the actions suggested above are likely, alone, to be effective in enhancing team creativity. This is because, as my theoretical model suggests, the "blackbox" of team creativity involves multiple variables, hence potentially many interventions, that influence each other. Hopefully, my dissertation will spark enthusiasm on the part of managers as well as management scholars to examine the direct and indirect antecedents of team creativity, as well as their interrelationships, that my dissertation suggests exist.
95
APPENDIX A
THE THIRD SURVEY FOR TEAM LEADERS & MEMBERS IN THE U.S.
I.
Please answer the following questions by placing a number to the left of each item using the scale provided below. (1 = poorly, 4 = medium, 7 = very much) Compared with other teams of similar function, how creative do you consider the team you are leading to be? Compared with other teams of similar function, how well does the team you are leading produce new ideas? Compared with other teams of similar function, how significant are those ideas to your organization? Compared with other teams of similar function, how useful are those ideas?
1. 2. 3. 4.
96
APPENDIX B
THE THIRD SURVEY FOR TEAM LEADERS & MEMBERS IN SOUTH KOREA ????????????/????????????????????. ???????????????, ????????????????????????????. (1=???????, 7=?????) ???????????. ????????????????????. ??? (????) ?????????????????????. ??? (????) ????????????????.
I.
1. 2. 3. 4.
97
APPENDIX C
THE FIRST SURVEY FOR TEAM LEADERS IN THE U.S.
I. 1. 2. 3.
Please provide the following demographic information about yourself. How old are you? ( ) years old. What is your gender? (1) Male (2) Female How would you describe your ethnicity and/or race? (1) Native American / Alaska Native (2) Asian American / Asian / Pacific Islander (3) African American / Black (4) Caucasian / White (5) Hispanic / Latino Please indicate your highest educational level attained. (1) Some college - no degree (2) Two-year college degree (Associates) (3) Four-year college degree (Bachelors) (4) Post graduate degree - Master's Degree (5) Advanced degree - Ph.D., JD, etc. How long have you been in your current project group? ( ) months How long have you been in your current occupation/line of work? ( ) months
4.
5. 6.
II. In this section, we ask you to tell us about your personal beliefs and values. For each statement, please choose the number that best represents your beliefs and values where 5 = strongly agree, 4 = somewhat agree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree, 2 = somewhat disagree, and 1= strongly disagree. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Group welfare is more important than individual rewards. It is important to have job requirements and instructions spelled out in detail so that employees always know what they are expected to do. Meetings are usually run more effectively when they are chaired by a man. Managers should make most decisions without consulting subordinates. Group success is more important than individual success. Managers expect employees to closely follow instructions and procedures. It is more important for men to have a professional career than it is for women to have a professional career. It is frequently necessary for a manager to use authority and power when dealing with subordinates. Being accepted by the members of your work group is very important. Rules and regulations are important because they inform employees what the organization expects of them.
98
11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22.
Men usually solve problems with logical analysis; women usually solve problems with intuition. Managers should seldom ask for the opinions of employees. Employees should only pursue their goals after considering the welfare of the group. Standard operating procedures are helpful to employees on the job. Solving organizational problems usually requires an active forcible approach which is typical of men. Managers should avoid off-the-job social contacts with employees. Managers should encourage group loyalty even if individual goals suffer. Instructions for operations are important for employees on the job. It is preferable to have a man in a high level position rather than a woman. Employees should not disagree with management decisions. Individuals may be expected to give up their goals in order to benefit group success. Managers should not delegate important tasks to employees.
III. Please choose the primary function of the team you are leading from the categories below. (choose one) 1. 2. 3. 4. Basic research to create broad-based new knowledge Applied or mission-oriented research that creates new knowledge for application to a particular problem New product or process development that takes existing knowledge and produces a new product or process Technical service or existing product or process development that modifies or improves a current product or process.
99
APPENDIX D
THE FIRST SURVEY FOR TEAM MEMBERS IN THE U.S.
I. 1. 2. 3.
Please provide the following demographic information about yourself. How old are you? ( ) years old. What is your gender? (1) Male (2) Female How would you describe your ethnicity and/or race? (1) Native American / Alaska Native (2) Asian American / Asian / Pacific Islander (3) African American / Black (4) Caucasian / White (5) Hispanic / Latino Please indicate your highest educational level attained. (1) Some college - no degree (2) Two-year college degree (Associates) (3) Four-year college degree (Bachelors) (4) Post graduate degree - Master's Degree (5) Advanced degree - Ph.D., JD, etc. How long have you been in your current project group? ( ) months How long have you been in your current occupation/line of work? ( ) months
4.
5. 6.
II. In this section, we ask you to tell us about your personal beliefs and values. For each statement, please choose the number that best represents your beliefs and values where 5 = strongly agree, 4 = somewhat agree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree, 2 = somewhat disagree, and 1= strongly disagree. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Group welfare is more important than individual rewards. It is important to have job requirements and instructions spelled out in detail so that employees always know what they are expected to do. Meetings are usually run more effectively when they are chaired by a man. Managers should make most decisions without consulting subordinates. Group success is more important than individual success. Managers expect employees to closely follow instructions and procedures. It is more important for men to have a professional career than it is for women to have a professional career. It is frequently necessary for a manager to use authority and power when dealing with subordinates. Being accepted by the members of your work group is very important. Rules and regulations are important because they inform employees what the organization expects of them.
100
11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22.
Men usually solve problems with logical analysis; women usually solve problems with intuition. Managers should seldom ask for the opinions of employees. Employees should only pursue their goals after considering the welfare of the group. Standard operating procedures are helpful to employees on the job. Solving organizational problems usually requires an active forcible approach which is typical of men. Managers should avoid off-the-job social contacts with employees. Managers should encourage group loyalty even if individual goals suffer. Instructions for operations are important for employees on the job. It is preferable to have a man in a high level position rather than a woman. Employees should not disagree with management decisions. Individuals may be expected to give up their goals in order to benefit group success. Managers should not delegate important tasks to employees.
III. Please think about the project groups to which you currently belong, and have belonged to in the past. The items below ask about your relationship with, and thoughts about, those particular groups. Respond to the following questions, as honestly as possible, using the response scales provided. (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. I prefer to work in my project team rather than working alone. Working in my project team is better than working alone. I want to work with my project team as opposed to working alone. I feel comfortable counting on my project team members to do their part. I am not bothered by the need to rely on project team members. I feel comfortable trusting my project team members to handle their tasks. The health of my project team is important to me. I care about the wellbeing of my project team. I am concerned about the needs of my project team. I follow the norms of my project team. I follow the procedures used by my project team. I accept the rules of my project team. I care more about the goals of my project team than my own goals. I emphasize the goals of my project team more than my individual goals. My project team's goals are more important to me than my personal goals.
IV. The items below consist of statements about your project team, and how your project team functions as a group. Please indicate the extent to which each statement describes your team, using the response scales provided. (1=strongly agree, 5=strongly disagree). 1. I cannot accomplish my tasks without information or materials from other members of my team.
101
2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.
Other members of my team depend on me for information or materials needed to perform their tasks. Within my team, jobs performed by team members are related to one another. My work goals come directly from the goals of my team. My work activities on any given day are determined by my team's goals for that day. I do very few activities on my job that are not related to the goals of my team. Feedback about how well I am doing my job comes primarily from information about how well the entire team is doing. My performance evaluation is strongly influenced by how well my team performs. Many rewards from my job (e.g., pay, promotion, etc.) are determined in large part by my contributions as a team member.
V. In this section, we ask you to tell us about yourself or the work you produce. For each statement, please choose the number that best represents yourself or the work you produce where 4 = strongly agree, 3 = somewhat agree, 2 = somewhat disagree, and 1= strongly disagree. 1. The work I produce is creative. 2. The work I produce is original. 3. The work I produce is novel.
VI. In this section, using the scale below, please indicate how frequently your project team's leader engages in the following behaviors. (1 = not at all, 2 = once in a while, 3 = sometimes, 4 = fairly often, 5 = frequently, if not always) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. My team leader re-examines critical assumptions to question whether they are appropriate. My team leader talks about his/her most important values and beliefs. My team leader seeks differing perspectives when solving problems. My team leader talks optimistically about the future. My team leader instills pride in me for being associated with him/her. My team leader talks enthusiastically about what needs to be accomplished. My team leader specifies the importance of having a strong sense of purpose. My team leader spends time teaching and coaching. My team leader goes beyond self-interest for the good of the group. My team leader treats me as individuals rather than just as a member of the group. My team leader acts in ways that build my respect. My team leader considers the moral and ethical consequences of decisions. My team leader displays a sense of power and confidence. My team leader articulates a compelling vision of the future. My team leader considers me as having different needs, abilities and aspirations from others.
102
16. 17. 18. 19. 20.
My team leader gets me to look at problems from many different angles. My team leader helps me to develop my strengths. My team leader suggests new ways of looking at how to complete assignments. My team leader emphasizes the importance of having a collective sense of mission. My team leader expresses confidence that goals will be achieved.
VII. In this section, using the scale below, please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements concerning your project team's leader. (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. My team leader gives my team many responsibilities. My team leader makes my team responsible for what it does. My team leader asks the team for advice when making decisions My team leader uses team suggestions and ideas when making decisions. My team leader controls much of the activities of the team. My team leader encourages my team to take control of its work. My team leader allows my team to set its own goals. My team leader encourages my team to come up with its own goals. My team leader stays out of the way when the team works on its performance problems. My team leader encourages my team to figure out the causes/solutions to its problems. My team leader tells the team to expect a lot from itself. My team leader encourages my team to go for high performance. My team leader trusts my team. My team leader is confident in what my team can do. My team leader absorbs outside pressures for the project team so it can work free of interference. My team leader protects the project team from outside interference. My team leader prevents outsiders from "overloading" the project team with too much information or too many requests. My team leader persuades other individuals that the project teams' activities are important. My team leader scans the environment inside your organization for threats to the product project team. My team leader "talks up" the project team to outsiders. My team leader persuades others to support the project team's decisions. My team leader acquires resources (e.g., money, new members, equipment) for the project team. My team leader reports the progress of the project team to a higher organizational level. My team leader finds out whether others in the company support or oppose my project team's activities.
103
25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35.
My team leader finds out information on my company's strategy or political situation that may affect the project. My team leader keeps other groups in the company informed of my project team's activities. My team leader resolves project problems with external groups. My team leader coordinates activities with external groups. My team leader procures things which the project team needs from other groups or individuals in the company. My team leader negotiates with others for delivery deadlines. My team leader reviews project plan with outsiders. My team leader finds out what competing firms or groups are doing on similar projects. My team leader scans the environment inside or outside the organization for marketing ideas/expertise. My team leader collects technical information/ideas from individuals outside of the project team. My team leader scans the environment inside or outside the organization for technical ideas/expertise.
104
APPENDIX E
THE FIRST SURVEY FOR TEAM LEADERS IN SOUTH KOREA
???????????????????. ???????????, ?????? ?? ?. ?????: ? ( )? ?????: (1) ? (2) ? ?????: (1) ?????? (2) ?????? (3) ????? (4) ??? (??) ?? (5) ??? (??) ???? ????????????????????? ( )?? ???????????????????????????????? ( ? ?
I.
1. 2. 3.
4. 5.
)
II. ?????????????????????????. ?????????? ??????????????????????????. (1=?????????, 2= ?????????, 3=?????, 4=???????, 5=???? ????) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. ?????????????????????. ???????????????????????????, ???????????????????????????????????. ???????????????????????????. ?????????????????????????????????. ???????????????????. ???????????????????????????????. ????????????????????????. ?????????????????????????????????. ???????????????????????????????. ???????????????????????????????????? ????. ?????????????????????, ??????????????????. ???????????????????????. ?????????????????????????????????. ??????????????????????.
105
15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22.
????????????????????, ???????????? ??????????????. ??????????????????????????. ????????????????????????????????????? ???. ?????????????????????????. ?????????????????????????????. ??????????????????????????. ??????????????????????????????????? ? . ??????????????????????????.
III. ???????????/???????????????. ??????, ?? ????????????????????? (?????????????? ???????????.) 1. 2. 3. 4. ?????????(??)?????????????????????? ? . ??????????????????(??)????????????? ????. ?????(??)???????????????????????/??? ? . ??????????????????????????????/?? ? ?
106
APPENDIX F
THE FIRST SURVEY FOR TEAM MEMBERS IN SOUTH KOREA
???????????????????. ???????????, ?????? ?? ?. ?????: ? ( )? ?????: (1) ? (2) ? ?????: (1) ?????? (2) ?????? (3) ????? (4) ??? (??) ?? (5) ??? (??) ???? ????????????????????? ( )?? ???????????????????????????????? ( ? ?
I.
1. 2. 3.
4. 5.
)
II. ?????????????????????????. ?????????? ??????????????????????????. (1=?????????, 2= ?????????, 3=?????, 4=???????, 5=???? ????) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. ?????????????????????. ???????????????????????????, ???????????????????????????????????. ???????????????????????????. ?????????????????????????????????. ???????????????????. ???????????????????????????????. ????????????????????????. ?????????????????????????????????. ???????????????????????????????. ???????????????????????????????????? ????. ?????????????????????, ??????????????????. ???????????????????????. ?????????????????????????????????. ??????????????????????.
107
15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22.
????????????????????, ???????????? ??????????????. ??????????????????????????. ????????????????????????????????????? ???. ?????????????????????????. ?????????????????????????????. ??????????????????????????. ??????????????????????????????????? ? . ??????????????????????????.
III. ?????????????????????????????. ?????? ????, ????????????????????????????. (1=?? ?????, 5=?????) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. ??????????????????????????. ????????????????????????. ??????????????????????????. ????????????????????????. ???????????????????????????. ????????????????????. ????????????????????. ??????????????. ???????????????????. ??????????. ???????????????. ??????????????. ?????????????????. ??????????????????. ??????????????????????.
IV. ?????????????????????????????????. ? ????????????????????????????????? ????. (1= ??????, 2=????, 3=?????, 4=?????, 5=??? ? ? ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. ???????????????????????????????????? ???. ?????????????????????????????????? ?. ????????????????????. ??????????????????????????. ?????????????????????????????.
108
6. 7. 8. 9.
??????????????????????????????????. ?????????????????????????????????? ? ? . ?????????????????????????????. ?????????(?: ??, ???)??????????????????????????.
V. ?????????????????????????. ??????????, ????????????????????????????. (1=????? ??, 4=?????) 1. ?????????????. 2. ?????????????. 3. ??????????????.
VI. ?????????????????. ?????????????????? ????????????, ???????????????????, ??? ????????????. (1=??????, 2=???????, 3=?????, 4=?????, 5=???????). 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. ?????????????????????????????. ????????????????????????????. ????????????, ?????????????. ?????????????????????. ??????????, ???????????. ??????????????????????????????. ????????????????????????????. ??????????????????????. ?????????????????????????. ?????????????????, ??????????????. ???????????????????. ????????????????, ??????????. ???????????????. ?????????????????????????. ?????????????????????????????. ?????????????????????????. ???????????????????. ??????????????????????????????. ???????????????????????????????. ???????????????????.
VII. ?????????????????????????. ??????????? ?????????????????, ????????????
109
???????, ???????????????. (1=?????????, 7=??????). 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. ????????? (?????) ?????????. ???????? (????) ???????????????. ?????????????? (?????) ??????. ????????????? (????) ????????????. ???????? (????) ???????????. ???????? (????) ????????????????????? ?. ???????? (????) ??????????????????. ???????? (????) ??????????????????. ???????? (????) ???????????????????? ? ? . ???????? (????) ??????????????????????? ? ?. ???????? (????) ??????????. ???????? (????) ??????????????. ???????? (????) ????. ???????? (????) ????????????? ???????? (????) ???????????????????????????. ???????? (????) ?????????????. ???????? (????) ???????????????????????????????. ??????????????? (????) ?????????????. ????????????? (????) ?????????????????????. ??????????? (???????) ?????????????. ?????????????? (????) ??????????????. ???????? (????) ????????? (?: ?, ??, ??)???????????. ???????? (????) ???????????????????. ?????????????????? (????) ???????????????????????. ????????? (?????) ????????????????????????????. ????????????????? (????) ??????????. ????????????????????????????????. ??????????????????????. ???????? (????) ??????????????????????????????. ???????????????????????/??????????? ????????.
110
31. 32. 33. 34. 35.
?????????????????????????. ???????? (????) ???????????????????????????????????? ??. ??????????????????????????????????? ? ?. ??????? (???) ???????????????????????? ?. ?????????????????????????????????? ?????.
111
APPENDIX G
THE SECOND SURVEY FOR TEAM LEADERS IN THE U.S.
I.
Using the scale below, please indicate how strongly you agree to the following statements regarding the project team you are leading. (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree) Communicating is a problem in my project team. Members of my project team inform each other about work-related issues. The quality of information exchange in our project team is good. I get new facts, insights, and ideas from my colleagues. During work meetings, we tell each other what we know already and do not exchange new information. We do not repeat ourselves during team meetings. My project team members absorb outside pressures for the project team so it can work free of interference. My project team members protect the project team from outside interference. My project team members prevent outsiders from "overloading" the project team with too much information or too many requests. My project team members persuade other individuals that the project teams' activities are important. My project team members scan the environment inside your organization for threats to the product project team. My project team members "talk up" the project team to outsiders. My project team members persuade others to support the project team's decisions. My project team members acquire resources (e.g., money, new members, equipment) for the project team. My project team members report the progress of the project team to a higher organizational level. My project team members find out whether others in the company support or oppose my project team's activities. My project team members find out information on my company's strategy or political situation that may affect the project. My project team members keep other groups in the company informed of my project team's activities. My project team members resolve project problems with external groups. My project team members coordinate activities with external groups. My project team members procure things which the project team needs from other groups or individuals in the company. My project team members negotiate with others for delivery deadlines. My project team members review project plan with outsiders.
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23.
112
24. 25. 26. 27.
My project team members find out what competing firms or groups are doing on similar projects. My project team members scan the environment inside or outside the organization for marketing ideas/expertise. My project team members collect technical information/ideas from individuals outside of the project team. My project team members scan the environment inside or outside the organization for technical ideas/expertise.
113
APPENDIX H
THE SECOND SURVEY FOR TEAM MEMBERS IN THE U.S.
I.
Based on your experiences of previous month in your company, please provide your perspective on the following statements, using the response scales provided. (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree) Creativity in teams is encouraged at our company. Our ability as a team to function creatively is respected by the leadership. The reward system here encourages creativity in teams. Our company publicly recognizes creative teams.
1. 2. 3. 4.
II. This section consists of a number of words that describe different feelings and emotions. Read each item and then indicate to what extent you have generally felt this way during the past four weeks. (1 = not at all, 5 = extremely so) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. interested excited strong enthusiastic proud alert inspired determined attentive active
III. Using the scale below, please indicate how strongly you agree to the following statements regarding the project team you are working for. (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. My project team has confidence in itself. My project team can get a lot done when it works hard. My project team believes that it can be very productive. My project team believes that its projects are significant. My project team feels that its tasks are worthwhile. My project team feels that its work is meaningful. My project team can select different ways to do the project team's work. My project team determines as a team how things are done in the team. My project team makes its own choices without being told by management. My project team has a positive impact on this company's customers. My project team performs tasks that matter to this company. My project team makes a difference in this organization.
114
13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39.
Communicating is a problem in my project team. Members of my project team inform each other about work-related issues. The quality of information exchange in our project team is good. I get new facts, insights, and ideas from my colleagues. During work meetings, we tell each other what we know already and do not exchange new information. We do not repeat ourselves during team meetings. My project team members absorb outside pressures for the project team so it can work free of interference. My project team members protect the project team from outside interference. My project team members prevent outsiders from "overloading" the project team with too much information or too many requests. My project team members persuade other individuals that the project teams' activities are important. My project team members scan the environment inside your organization for threats to the product project team. My project team members "talk up" the project team to outsiders. My project team members persuade others to support the project team's decisions. My project team members acquire resources (e.g., money, new members, equipment) for the project team. My project team members report the progress of the project team to a higher organizational level. My project team members find out whether others in the company support or oppose my project team's activities. My project team members find out information on my company's strategy or political situation that may affect the project. My project team members keep other groups in the company informed of my project team's activities. My project team members resolve project problems with external groups. My project team members coordinate activities with external groups. My project team members procure things which the project team needs from other groups or individuals in the company. My project team members negotiate with others for delivery deadlines. My project team members review project plan with outsiders. My project team members find out what competing firms or groups are doing on similar projects. My project team members scan the environment inside or outside the organization for marketing ideas/expertise. My project team members collect technical information/ideas from individuals outside of the project team. My project team members scan the environment inside or outside the organization for technical ideas/expertise.
115
APPENDIX I
THE SECOND SURVEY FOR TEAM LEADERS IN SOUTH KOREA
???????????????????????????. ?????? ????, ????????????????????????????. (1=?? ?????, 7=?????) ?????????????????. ?????????????????????????. ???????????????????????. ???????????????????????, ????????. ?????, ????????????????????????, ???????????????. ?????????????????????????????????? ? ? . ????????????? (??) ???????????????????????????????. ????????????? (??) ?????????????. ????????????? (??) ????????????????????????????????. ???????????????????? (??) ?????????????. ?????????????????? (??) ?????????????????????. ???????????????? (?????) ?????????????. ??????????????????? (??) ??????????? ? ?? . ????????????? (??) ????????? (?: ?, ??, ??)???????????. ????????????? (??) ?????????????????? ?. ????????????????????????????????????? ????????????. ?????????????? (???) ????????????????????????????. ?????????????????????? (??) ????????? ?. ????????????????????????????????? ?? ?. ??????????????????????????.
I.
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.
116
21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27.
????????????? (??) ????????????????? ?????????????. ???????????????????????????/?????? ?????????????????. ?????????????????????????????. ????????????? (??) ?????????????????????????????????? ????. ????????????????????????????????????? ????. ??????????????????????????????. ???????????????????????????????????? ???????.
117
APPENDIX J
THE SECOND SURVEY FOR TEAM MEMBERS IN SOUTH KOREA
??????????????????????????????????? ?????????. ?????????????, ??????? ?????????????????????. (1=???????, 7=?? ?? ? ) ???????????????. ????????????????????. ??????????????????. ????????????????????????????.
I.
1. 2. 3. 4.
II. ??????????????????????. ???????????? ?????????????????????????? ???????? ???????????????????????. (1=???????, 2=?? ?????, 3=?????, 4=?????, 5=???????) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ???? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
III. ?????????????????????????????. ?????? ????, ????????????????????????????. (1=?? ?????, 7=?????) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. ??? (????) ??????????. ??? (????) ???????????????. ??? (????) ????????????????. ??? (????) ????????????????. ??? (????) ?????????????????. ??? (????) ?????????????????. ??? (????) ???????????????????????. ??? (????) ?????????????????????????.
118
9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35.
??? (????) ???????????????????????? ???????????. ??? (????) ???????????????????. ??? (????) ???????????????. ??? (????) ????????????????????. ???????????????. ????????????????????????. ????????????????????. ???? (????) ???????????????, ????????. ?????, ??? (????) ??????????????????, ???????????????. ??? (????) ???????????????????????. ??? (????) ??? (????) ???????????????????????????????. ??? (????) ?????? (????) ?????????????. ??? (????) ?????? (????) ????????????????????????????????. ??? (????) ?????????? (????) ?????????????. ??? (????) ???????? (????) ?????????????????????. ??? (????) ??????? (???????) ?????????????. ??? (????) ????????? (????) ???????????? ?? . ??? (????) ???? (????) ????????? (?: ?, ??, ??)???????????. ??? (????) ??? (????) ????????????????? ? ?. ??? (????) ????????????? (????) ???????????????????????. ??? (????) ???? (?????) ????????????????????????????. ??? (????) ???????????? (????) ???????? ? ?. ??? (????) ?????????????????????????? ?. ??? (????) ?????????????????. ??? (????) ??? (????) ??????????????????????????????. ??? (????) ??????????????????/?????????????????? ????. ??? (????) ????????????????????.
119
36. 37. 38. 39.
??? (????) ??? (????) ???????????????? ??????????????????????. ??? (????) ????????????????????????????????. ??? (????) ?????????????????????. ??? (????) ??????????????????????????????????.
120
TABLE 1. EMPIRICAL STUDIES OF THE ANTECEDENTS OF CREATIVITY FROM 1990 TO 2010 IN MANAGEMENT LITERATURES
Author Firestien Murray et al. Caird Shalley Kabanoff & Bottger * Kelly & Karau Dollinger & Clancy Tetlock et al. Redmond et al. Foxall & Hackett Eisenberger & Selbst Whitney et al. Shalley Helson et al. Psychology * McLeod & Lobel Amabile et al. Oldham & Cummings Hirt et al. Livingstone et al. Eisenberger & Armeli Simonton * * * Sosik et al. Rodriguez Sosik et al. Chatman et al. Zhou Carnevale & Probst Eisenberger et al. Simonton 1996 1996 1996 1996 1997 1997 1997 1997 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 Small Group Research Academy of Management Journal Academy of Management Journal Journal of Personality & Social British Journal of Management Journal of Management Journal of Personality & Social Psychology Journal of Personality & Social Psychology Journal of Applied Psychology Small Group Research Small Group Research Administrative Science Quarterly Journal of Applied Psychology Journal of Personality & Social Psychology Journal of Personality & Social Psychology Journal of Personality & Social Psychology Year Publication 1990 Small Group Research 1990 Journal of Personality & Social Psychology 1991 1991 1991 1993 1993 1993 1993 1994 1994 1994 1995 1995 British Journal of Management Journal of Applied Psychology Journal of Organizational Behavior Small Group Research Journal of Personality & Social Psychology Journal of Personality & Social Psychology Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes British Journal of Management Journal of Personality & Social Psychology Journal of Personality & Social Psychology Academy of Management Journal Journal of Personality & Social
*
Psychology Coopey et al. 1997
121
TABLE 1. (CONT'D)
Author Amabile & Conti Buttner et al. Arndt et al. Eisenberger et al. * * Swann et al. Paulus & Yang Shalley et al. Ford & Gioia Axtell et al. Friedman & Förster Zhou & George George & Zhou Kickul & Gundry Eisenberger & Rhoades Friedman & Förster Shalley & Perry-Smith Polzer et al. Taggar Madjar et al. Tierney & Farmer George & Zhou Van Dyne et al. Behavior Elsbach & Kramer Farmer et al. * * * Grawitch et al. Jaussi & Dionne Kahai et al. Shin & Zhou Swann et al. Bulletin Zhou Carson et al. *** Gilson & Shalley * Miura & Hida 2003 2003 2004 2004 Journal of Applied Psychology Journal of Personality & Social Psychology Journal of Management Small Group Research 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 Academy of Management Journal Academy of Management Journal Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice Leadership Quarterly Leadership Quarterly Academy of Management Journal Personality and Social Psychology Year 1999 1999 1999 1999 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 Publication Academy of Management Journal British Journal of Management Journal of Personality & Social Psychology Journal of Personality & Social Psychology Journal of Personality & Social Psychology Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes Academy of Management Journal Journal of Management Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology Journal of Personality & Social Psychology Academy of Management Journal Journal of Applied Psychology Journal of Management Journal of Personality & Social Psychology Journal of Personality & Social Psychology Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes Administrative Science Quarterly Academy of Management Journal Academy of Management Journal Academy of Management Journal Journal of Applied Psychology Journal of Organizational
* *
122
TABLE 1. (CONT'D)
Author Paletz et al. Tierney & Farmer Miron et al. Förster et al. Kuncel et al. Seibt & Förster * * * Beersma & De Dreu Chirumbolo et al. Choi & Thompson Amabile et al. Friedman & Förster ** * Hargadon & Bechky Goncalo & Staw Fong Perry-Smith Alge et al. Baer & Oldham Ohly et al. Griskevicius et al. Kray et al. Cohendet & Simon ** *** Shin & Zhou George & Zhou Porath & Erez Von Nordenflycht Fleming et al. Choi Probst et al. Eikhof & Haunschild Svejenova et al. Tschang Year Publication 2004 Small Group Research 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 Journal of Organizational Behavior Journal of Management Journal of Organizational Behavior Journal of Personality & Social Psychology Journal of Personality & Social Psychology Journal of Personality & Social Psychology Journal of Personality & Social Psychology Small Group Research Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes Administrative Science Quarterly Journal of Personality & Social Psychology Organization Science Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes Academy of Management Journal Academy of Management Journal Journal of Applied Psychology Journal of Applied Psychology Journal of Organizational Behavior Journal of Personality & Social Psychology Journal of Personality & Social Psychology Journal of Organizational Behavior Journal of Applied Psychology Academy of Management Journal Academy of Management Journal Academy of Management Journal Administrative Science Quarterly Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology Journal of Organizational Behavior Journal of Organizational Behavior
*
*** Pirola-Merlo & Mann
2007 Organization Science
123
TABLE 1. (CONT'D)
Author Fleming et al. Pearsall et al. Ng & Feldman Janssen & Xu Thatcher & Greer Madjar De Dreu et al. Hirt et al. Sivanathan et al. Cattani & Ferriani Year Publication 2007 Organization Science 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 Journal of Applied Psychology Journal of Applied Psychology Journal of Management Journal of Management Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology Journal of Personality & Social Psychology Journal of Personality & Social Psychology Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes Organization Science Small Group Research Journal of Applied Psychology Academy of Management Journal Academy of Management Journal Academy of Management Journal Journal of Personality & Social Psychology Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes Small Group Research Journal of Applied Psychology Journal of Applied Psychology Leadership Quarterly Academy of Management Journal Administrative Science Quarterly Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology Journal of Personality & Social Psychology Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes
*
Baruah & Paulus Neubert et al. Gong et al. Hirst et al. Shalley et al. Maddux & Galinsky Davis Porath & Erez
** Seddon & Biasutti *** Hülsheger et al.
Zhou et al. Atwater & Carmeli Zhang & Bartol
**
Lingo & O'Mahony Unsworth & Clegg Thrash et al.
* *
Giambatista & Bhappu Gino et al.
124
TABLE 1. (CONT'D)
Author Byron et al. Year Publication
2010 Journal of Applied Psychology
* ** ***
Studies on team creativity in laboratory teams Studies on team creativity in ongoing teams with qualitative methodology Studies on team creativity in ongoing teams with quantitative/statistical methodology
125
TABLE 2. CONCLUSIONS FROM PREVIOUS STUDIES ON TEAM CREATIVITY
Category 1 Team Leader Behavior Factors
Conclusion Teams will generally be more creative when they are led by team leaders who engage in more rather than less "transformational" behaviors. Teams will generally be more creative when they are led by team leaders who engage in more rather than less "boundary-spanning" behaviors. Teams will generally be more creative when their team members have more rather than less positive affective experiences in their team - that is, when they have higher levels of "positive group affective tone." Teams will generally be more creative when their team members have stronger rather than weaker beliefs in their efficacy and independence while working as a team, as well as the importance and significance of their works in teams - that is, when they have higher levels of "team empowerment."
Related Studies Shin & Zhou, 2007 Sosik et al. 1997
2
Lingo & O'Mahony, 2010
3
Grawitch et al. 2003 Pearsall et al. 2008
Team Emergent State Factors
4
Shin & Zhou, 2007 Sosik et al. 1997
5 Team Process Factors
Teams will generally be more creative when their team members engage in more rather than less "information sharing" behaviors with their team members. Teams will generally be more creative when their team members engage in more rather than less "boundary-spanning" behaviors with members of other teams or outsiders.
Gilson & Shalley, 2004 Hargadon & Bechky, 2006 Hülsheger et al., 2009 Seddon & Biasutti, 2009 Taggar, 2002 Cohendet & Simon, 2007 Gilson & Shalley, 2004 Hülsheger et al., 2009
6
126
TABLE 2. (CONT'D)
Category 7
Conclusion Teams will generally be more creative when they have team members with stronger rather than weaker "creative ability". Teams will generally be more creative when they have team members with more positive rather than negative attitudes toward their team - that is, when they have higher levels of "preference for workgroup." Teams will generally be more creative when they have team members with more rather than less diverse functional backgrounds and team tenure - that is, when they have higher levels of "job-related diversity."
Related Studies Pirola-Merlo & Mann, 2004 Taggar, 2002 West & Anderson, 1996
8 Team Compositi on Factors 9
Gilson & Shalley, 2004 Hülsheger et al., 2009
Choi & Thompson, 2005 De Dreu & West, 2001 Hülsheger et al., 2009
Task Design Factors
10
Teams will generally be more creative whey they need higher rather than lower interdependence among team members to achieve their goals - that is, when they have higher levels of "team interdependence."
Gilson & Shalley, 2004 Hülsheger et al., 2009
127
TABLE 3. THE DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF INITIAL SAMPLE
Total Total S.K. Team Leaders Team Members Team Leaders 1. Age (yrs) 2. Team Tenure (months) 3. The Ratio of Males 4. The Ratio of Females 5. The Ratio of Doctors 6. The Ratio of Masters 7. The Ratio of Bachelors 8. The Ratio of Asian / Asian American 9. The Ratio of Caucasian 10. The Ratio of African American 11. The Ratio of Hispanic 12. The Ratio of Native American 13. Total Number 40.15 (5.87) 42.94 (40.76) 100.0% 0.0% 53.6% 25.0% 21.4% 87.1% 12.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 62 35.69 (5.95) 33.83 (26.79) 95.3% 4.7% 26.3% 51.3% 22.4% 90.2% 6.8% 1.8% 0.6% 0.6% 171 40.47 (3.68) 58.47 (43.77) 100.0% 0.0% 76.5% 17.6% 5.9% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 40
U.S. S.K. U.S. Team Leaders Team Members Team Members 39.60 (8.49) 18.93 (18.65) 100.0% 0.0% 18.2% 45.4% 36.4% 63.6% 36.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 22 34.39 (3.79) 39.63 (26.29) 95.1% 4.9% 27.2% 55.4% 17.4% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 120 39.05 (8.67) 21.28 (23.54) 91.8% 8.2% 24.5% 42.9% 32.6% 67.7% 22.4% 5.9% 2.0% 2.0% 51
Note. The number in the parenthesis in the row of "Age" and "Team Tenure" shows standard deviation. "S.K." refers to South Korea, "U.S." refers to the United States.
128
TABLE 4. THE DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF FINAL SAMPLE
Total Total S.K. Team Leaders Team Members Team Leaders 1. Age (yrs) 2. Team Tenure (months) 3. The Ratio of Males 4. The Ratio of Females 5. The Ratio of Doctors 6. The Ratio of Masters 7. The Ratio of Bachelors 8. The Ratio of Asian / Asian American 9. The Ratio of Caucasian 10. The Ratio of African American 11. The Ratio of Hispanic 12. The Ratio of Native American 13. Total Number 40.56 (6.04) 41.87 (39.56) 100.0% 0.0% 54.0% 24.0% 22.0% 88.5%1 1.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 52 35.92 (6.10) 34.21 (28.41) 95.1% 4.9% 24.5% 51.0% 24.5% 90.2% 7.0% 1.4% 0.7% 0.7% 143 41.22 (3.48) 59.81 (42.02) 100.0% 0.0% 78.1%1 5.6% 6.3% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 32
U.S. S.K. U.S. Team Leaders Team Members Team Members 38.83 (9.12) 18.46 (18.36) 100.0% 0.0% 20.0% 45.0% 35.0% 65.0%3 5.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 20 34.21 (3.57) 40.23 (24.84) 93.7% 6.3% 23.9% 55.2% 20.9% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 96 39.21 (5.29) 24.23 (23.84) 97.9% 2.1% 25.5% 42.6% 31.9% 70.3% 2 1.3% 4.2% 2.1% 2.1% 47
Note. The number in the parenthesis in the row of "Age" and "Team Tenure" shows standard deviation. "S.K." refers to South Korea, "U.S." refers to the United States.
129
TABLE 5. RELIABILITY-WITHIN-GROUP (rwg), ICC(1), and ICC(2)
Variable Team Leader Behavior Transformational Behaviors (Total) Idealized Influence Inspirational Motivation Intellectual Stimulation Individulized Consideration Empowering Behaviors Boundary-Working Behaviors (Total) Ambassadorial Behaviors Scouting Behaviors Sentry Behaviors Team Emergent State Factor Positive Group Affective Tone Team Empowerment Team Process Factor Team Information Sharing Team Boundary-Work (Total) Ambassadorial Behaviors Scouting Behaviors Sentry Behaviors Contextual Factor Organizational Support for Team Creativity Task Design Factor Team Interdependence Task Interdependence Goal Interdependence Interdependent Feedback and Rewards Team Outcome Team Creativity 0.814 0.211 0.501 0.831 0.853 0.867 0.108 0.135 0.161 0.324 0.375 0.418 0.868 0.122 0.302 0.877 0.892 0.861 0.865 0.839 0.197 0.178 0.195 0.188 0.173 0.652 0.442 0.506 0.467 0.429 0.856 0.863 0.188 0.142 0.572 0.438 0.895 0.886 0.862 0.865 0.863 0.885 0.889 0.874 0.847 0.795 0.226 0.235 0.229 0.208 0.231 0.231 0.204 0.198 0.221 0.197 0.682 0.648 0.658 0.603 0.601 0.530 0.599 0.603 0.528 0.565 Median rwg ICC(1) ICC(2)
130
TABLE 6. MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, AND INTERCORRELATIONS FOR STUDY VARIABLES
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Variable Team Member Creativity Preference for Workgroup Team Tenure Diversity Task Interdependence Goal Interdependence Interdependent Reward and Feedback Leaders' Transformational Behaviors Leaders' Empowering Behaviors Leaders' Boundary-Spanning Behaviors Positive Group Affective Tone Team Empowerment Team Information Sharing Organizational Support for Team Creativity Team Boundary-Spanning Team Creativity
Mean
2.861 3.939 0.531 3.651 3.810 3.780 3.319 4.943 4.908 3.535 5.334 3.644 3.570 4.884 0.007
s.d.
0.437 0.370
1
0.146
2
3
4
5
6
7
0.249 -0.020 0.472 0.445 0.486 0.290 0.321 0.160
* *
.088 .283 * .405 .445 ** .588 ** .493
** ** **
-.085 .169 .304 * -.183 -.074 -.078 -.055 -.096 .040 .616 ** .442 ** .300 * .241 .228 .111 .261 .069 .265 .377 ** .296 *
*
.542 ** .197 .177 .140 .188 .324 * .058 .361 .364 ** .287 *
**
0.528 -0.014 0.702 0.730 0.414 0.601 0.493 0.297 0.788 0.787 0.161 0.045 0.078 0.090 0.017 0.087 0.165 0.222
.331 * .292 .198 .197 .127 .073 .335 .361 ** .299 *
* *
(0.926 ) .717 ** .728 ** .358 ** .413 ** .400 ** .589 ** .385 ** .246
.489 .419 ** .366 ** .217 .491 .304 * .265 *
**
.051 -.144 .129
Note. Boldface elements on the diagonal represent the square root of the average variance extracted. Off-diagonal elements are correlations between constructs. For adequate discriminant validity, the elements in each row and column should be smaller than the boldfaced element in the row or column. * p < .05, ** p < .01
131
TABLE 6. (CONT'D)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Variable Team Member Creativity Preference for Workgroup Team Tenure Diversity Task Interdependence Goal Interdependence Interdependent Reward and Feedback Leaders' Transformational Behaviors Leaders' Empowering Behaviors Leaders' Boundary-Spanning Behaviors Positive Group Affective Tone Team Empowerment Team Information Sharing Organizational Support for Team Creativity Team Boundary-Spanning Team Creativity
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
(0.815) .668 ** (0.902) .304 ** .425 .306 *
**
.194 (0.752) .352 ** .514 ** (0.752) .351 ** .377 ** .476 ** (0.829) .466 ** .627 ** .653 ** .449 ** (0.821 ) .516 ** .249 .358 * .175 .234 .391 ** .241 .413 ** .337 * .392 ** (0.880) .248 (0.856)
.520 .471 ** .204
**
Note. Boldface elements on the diagonal represent the square root of the average variance extracted. Off-diagonal elements are correlations between constructs. For adequate discriminant validity, the elements in each row and column should be smaller than the boldfaced element in the row or column. * p < .05, ** p < .01
132
TABLE 7. INTERNAL AND CROSSLOADINGS OF THE ITEMS
Leaders'
Leaders'
Leaders' Boundary-
Transformational Empowering Behaviors Leaders' Idealized Influence Leaders' Inspirational Motivation Leaders' Intellectual Stimulation Leaders' Individualized Consideration Leaders' Empowering Behaviors #1 Leaders' Empowering Behaviors #2 Leaders' Empowering Behaviors #3 Leaders' Empowering Behaviors #4 Leaders' Empowering Behaviors #5 Leaders' Empowering Behaviors #6 Leaders' Empowering Behaviors #7 Leaders' Empowering Behaviors #8 Leaders' Empowering Behaviors #9 Leaders' Empowering Behaviors #10 Leaders' Empowering Behaviors #11 Leaders' Empowering Behaviors #12 Leaders' Empowering Behaviors #13 Leaders' Empowering Behaviors #14 0.910 0.961 0.929 0.903 0.510 0.413 0.440 0.518 0.587 0.554 0.615 0.616 0.561 0.660 0.697 0.775 0.562 0.616 Behaviors 0.685 0.671 0.649 0.678 0.803 0.692 0.751 0.819 0.801 0.869 0.851 0.842 0.813 0.861 0.783 0.802 0.857 0.848 0.695 0.728 0.657 0.671 0.561 0.373 0.471 0.621 0.515 0.496 0.617 0.604 0.583 0.630 0.719 0.644 0.613 0.625
Positive Group Team Information Spanning Empowerment Sharing Behaviors 0.245 0.373 0.475 0.337 0.143 0.192 0.264 0.329 0.422 0.263 0.218 0.307 0.212 0.097 0.186 0.450 0.333 0.349 0.351 0.337 0.383 0.378 0.346 0.176 0.228 0.324 0.507 0.350 0.355 0.378 0.290 0.307 0.298 0.426 0.439 0.472
Team Affective Tone 0.322 0.367 0.365 0.321 0.138 0.118 0.133 0.244 0.341 0.230 0.244 0.295 0.239 0.147 0.329 0.312 0.330 0.251
Note. Boldface elements represent internal loadings.
133
TABLE 7. (CONT'D)
Leaders'
Leaders'
Leaders' Boundary-
Transformational Empowering Behaviors Leaders' Ambassadorial Behaviors Leaders' Scouting Behaviors Leaders' Sentry Behaviors Members' Positive Affective Experiences #1 Members' Positive Affective Experiences #2 Members' Positive Affective Experiences #3 Members' Positive Affective Experiences #4 Members' Positive Affective Experiences #5 Members' Positive Affective Experiences #6 Members' Positive Affective Experiences #7 Members' Positive Affective Experiences #8 Members' Positive Affective Experiences #9 Members' Positive Affective Experiences #10 Members' Experiences of Team Empowerment #1 Members' Experiences of Team Empowerment #2 Members' Experiences of Team Empowerment #3 Members' Experiences of Team Empowerment #4 Members' Experiences of Team Empowerment #5 0.681 0.627 0.696 0.314 0.184 0.136 0.292 0.236 0.268 0.515 0.254 0.421 0.162 0.313 0.347 0.223 0.346 0.276 Behaviors 0.663 0.632 0.632 0.273 0.247 0.055 0.323 0.178 0.401 0.374 0.162 0.272 0.217 0.312 0.473 0.422 0.385 0.318 0.928 0.897 0.882 0.174 0.125 -0.026 0.135 0.191 0.279 0.316 0.121 0.298 0.114 0.160 0.240 0.248 0.257 0.207
Positive Group Team Information Spanning Empowerment Sharing Behaviors 0.314 0.284 0.092 0.809 0.721 0.605 0.761 0.832 0.813 0.751 0.720 0.802 0.673 0.495 0.496 0.350 0.543 0.500 0.344 0.310 0.308 0.529 0.288 0.129 0.441 0.444 0.547 0.519 0.355 0.402 0.316 0.736 0.738 0.765 0.831 0.863
Team Affective Tone 0.366 0.357 0.269 0.302 0.339 -0.036 0.277 0.326 0.329 0.404 0.342 0.425 0.178 0.370 0.398 0.355 0.381 0.485
Note. Boldface elements represent internal loadings.
134
TABLE 7. (CONT'D)
Leaders'
Leaders'
Leaders' Boundary-
Transformational Empowering Behaviors Members' Experiences of Team Empowerment #6 Members' Experiences of Team Empowerment #7 Members' Experiences of Team Empowerment #8 Members' Experiences of Team Empowerment #9 Members' Experiences of Team Empowerment #10 Members' Experiences of Team Empowerment #11 Members' Experiences of Team Empowerment #12 Members' Information Sharing Behaviors #1 Members' Information Sharing Behaviors #2 Members' Information Sharing Behaviors #3 Members' Information Sharing Behaviors #4 Members' Information Sharing Behaviors #5 Members' Information Sharing Behaviors #6 Members' Ambassadorial Behaviors Members' Scouting Behaviors Members' Sentry Behaviors Organizational Support for Team Creativity #1 Organizational Support for Team Creativity #2 Organizational Support for Team Creativity #3 Organizational Support for Team Creativity #4 0.336 0.327 0.288 0.153 0.407 0.293 0.131 0.293 0.410 0.392 0.246 0.196 0.315 0.445 0.326 0.514 0.343 0.301 0.350 0.358 Behaviors 0.340 0.452 0.300 0.153 0.414 0.235 0.126 0.316 0.247 0.256 0.267 0.154 0.300 0.447 0.370 0.398 0.394 0.445 0.369 0.431 0.294 0.370 0.436 0.309 0.281 0.221 0.133 0.311 0.369 0.349 0.263 0.158 0.365 0.396 0.319 0.439 0.416 0.472 0.475 0.475
Positive Group Team Information Spanning Empowerment Sharing Behaviors 0.488 0.320 0.388 0.163 0.544 0.428 0.180 0.192 0.400 0.353 0.486 0.252 0.353 0.571 0.563 0.423 0.168 0.212 0.285 0.234 0.825 0.794 0.648 0.697 0.772 0.779 0.622 0.430 0.383 0.479 0.480 0.244 0.411 0.572 0.517 0.545 0.322 0.352 0.229 0.253
Team Affective Tone 0.439 0.445 0.364 0.325 0.269 0.319 0.241 0.775 0.838 0.891 0.869 0.716 0.869 0.377 0.412 0.324 0.266 0.137 0.143 0.096
Note. Boldface elements represent internal loadings.
135
TABLE 7. (CONT'D)
Leaders'
Leaders'
Leaders' Boundary-
Transformational Empowering Behaviors Team Creativity #1 Team Creativity #2 Team Creativity #3 Team Creativity #4 Team Member Creativity Preference for Workgroup Team Tenure Diversity Task Interdependence Goal Interdependence Interdependent Reward and Feedback 0.327 0.324 0.066 0.128 -0.017 -0.014 -0.173 0.195 0.333 0.296 Behaviors 0.263 0.259 0.088 0.106 0.174 0.061 -0.082 0.187 0.285 0.252 0.348 0.331 0.080 0.168 0.053 0.076 -0.028 0.173 0.257 0.226
Positive Group Team Information Spanning Empowerment Sharing Behaviors 0.428 0.378 0.318 0.288 0.093 0.021 -0.039 0.212 0.224 0.139 0.313 0.242 0.137 0.208 0.091 0.104 -0.068 0.328 0.139 0.252
Team Affective Tone 0.399 0.300 0.295 0.376 0.022 0.087 0.031 0.052 0.056 0.068
Note. Boldface elements represent internal loadings.
136
TABLE 7. (CONT'D)
Team BoundarySpanning Leaders' Idealized Influence Leaders' Inspirational Motivation Leaders' Intellectual Stimulation Leaders' Individualized Consideration Leaders' Empowering Behaviors #1 Leaders' Empowering Behaviors #2 Leaders' Empowering Behaviors #3 Leaders' Empowering Behaviors #4 Leaders' Empowering Behaviors #5 Leaders' Empowering Behaviors #6 Leaders' Empowering Behaviors #7 Leaders' Empowering Behaviors #8 Leaders' Empowering Behaviors #9 Leaders' Empowering Behaviors #10 Leaders' Empowering Behaviors #11 Leaders' Empowering Behaviors #12 Leaders' Empowering Behaviors #13 Leaders' Empowering Behaviors #14 0.410 0.469 0.541 0.494 0.318 0.290 0.372 0.472 0.403 0.373 0.337 0.479 0.267 0.303 0.421 0.536 0.458 0.438
Organizational Support for Team Creativity Creativity 0.398 0.397 0.371 0.260 0.440 0.438 0.304 0.445 0.279 0.423 0.322 0.299 0.340 0.447 0.358 0.459 0.394 0.415 0.186 0.235 0.311 0.206 0.101 0.165 0.124 0.181 0.219 0.173 0.108 0.075 0.070 0.161 0.274 0.275 0.212 0.246
Team Composition -0.049 -0.101 -0.109 -0.090 0.184 0.048 0.053 0.070 0.132 0.134 0.135 0.128 0.054 0.002 0.103 0.066 0.172 0.045
Team Interdependence 0.355 0.338 0.346 0.249 0.240 0.256 0.242 0.277 0.172 0.245 0.213 0.149 0.141 0.229 0.251 0.407 0.298 0.281
Note. Boldface elements represent internal loadings.
137
TABLE 7. (CONT'D)
Team BoundarySpanning Leaders' Ambassadorial Behaviors Leaders' Scouting Behaviors Leaders' Sentry Behaviors Members' Positive Affective Experiences #1 Members' Positive Affective Experiences #2 Members' Positive Affective Experiences #3 Members' Positive Affective Experiences #4 Members' Positive Affective Experiences #5 Members' Positive Affective Experiences #6 Members' Positive Affective Experiences #7 Members' Positive Affective Experiences #8 Members' Positive Affective Experiences #9 Members' Positive Affective Experiences #10 Members' Experiences of Team Empowerment #1 Members' Experiences of Team Empowerment #2 Members' Experiences of Team Empowerment #3 Members' Experiences of Team Empowerment #4 Members' Experiences of Team Empowerment #5 0.466 0.476 0.325 0.494 0.415 0.210 0.610 0.471 0.563 0.508 0.466 0.510 0.315 0.520 0.521 0.484 0.484 0.548
Organizational Support for Team Creativity Creativity 0.507 0.455 0.451 0.289 0.120 -0.012 0.145 0.168 0.250 0.193 0.160 0.199 0.362 0.191 0.097 0.173 0.176 0.170 0.246 0.340 0.182 0.260 0.163 0.011 0.260 0.310 0.387 0.361 0.381 0.515 0.248 0.342 0.246 0.262 0.015 0.060
Team Composition 0.061 0.100 0.009 -0.018 -0.160 -0.101 0.124 -0.027 0.297 -0.025 0.079 0.118 -0.007 0.078 0.153 0.179 -0.053 0.014
Team Interdependence 0.239 0.300 0.202 0.115 -0.175 -0.066 0.230 0.127 0.303 0.199 0.289 0.340 0.155 0.281 0.176 0.226 0.079 0.103
Note. Boldface elements represent internal loadings.
138
TABLE 7. (CONT'D)
Team BoundarySpanning Members' Experiences of Team Empowerment #6 Members' Experiences of Team Empowerment #7 Members' Experiences of Team Empowerment #8 Members' Experiences of Team Empowerment #9 Members' Experiences of Team Empowerment #10 Members' Experiences of Team Empowerment #11 Members' Experiences of Team Empowerment #12 Members' Information Sharing Behaviors #1 Members' Information Sharing Behaviors #2 Members' Information Sharing Behaviors #3 Members' Information Sharing Behaviors #4 Members' Information Sharing Behaviors #5 Members' Information Sharing Behaviors #6 Members' Ambassadorial Behaviors Members' Scouting Behaviors Members' Sentry Behaviors Organizational Support for Team Creativity #1 Organizational Support for Team Creativity #2 Organizational Support for Team Creativity #3 Organizational Supprot for Team Creativity #4 0.531 0.532 0.575 0.433 0.572 0.411 0.293 0.270 0.358 0.412 0.481 0.278 0.413 0.900 0.844 0.703 0.305 0.291 0.219 0.290
Organizational Support for Creativity 0.162 0.329 0.460 0.315 0.370 0.267 0.261 0.165 0.089 0.143 0.193 0.011 0.235 0.224 0.208 0.335 0.781 0.908 0.915 0.907
Team Creativity 0.168 0.348 0.267 0.105 0.343 0.157 0.001 0.241 0.300 0.318 0.376 0.356 0.392 0.250 0.298 0.366 0.124 0.171 0.234 0.309
Team Team Composition Interdependence -0.007 0.167 0.163 0.015 0.107 -0.056 -0.105 0.033 -0.050 0.096 0.063 0.132 0.085 0.117 0.243 -0.193 0.126 0.147 0.009 0.084 0.150 0.368 0.304 0.075 0.326 0.157 0.080 0.123 -0.021 0.078 0.052 0.118 0.029 0.261 0.259 0.387 0.401 0.370 0.376 0.412
Note. Boldface elements represent internal loadings.
139
TABLE 7. (CONT'D)
Team BoundarySpanning Team Creativity #1 Team Creativity #2 Team Creativity #3 Team Creativity #4 Team Member Creativity Preference for Workgroup Team Tenure Diversity Task Interdependence Goal Interdependence Interdependent Reward and Feedback 0.421 0.387 0.215 0.212 0.085 -0.057 0.079 0.353 0.325 0.240
Organizational Support for Team Creativity Creativity 0.261 0.251 0.144 0.161 0.159 0.098 -0.141 0.365 0.357 0.377 0.880 0.871 0.818 0.855 0.242 0.164 0.136 0.292 0.305 0.283
Team Composition 0.241 0.307 0.324 0.216 0.761 0.515 0.429 0.308 0.262 0.174
Team Interdependence 0.389 0.320 0.279 0.205 0.282 0.027 0.167 0.820 0.855 0.795
Note. Boldface elements represent internal loadings.
140
TABLE 8. INTERNAL CONSISTENCY INDEX
Items Leaders' Transformational Behaviors Leaders' Empowering Behaviors Leaders' Boundary-Working Behaviors Positive Group Affective Tone Team Empowerment Team Information Sharing Team Boundary-Work Organizational Support for Creativity Team Creativity 4 14 3 10 12 6 3 4 4
AVE
0.857 0.664 0.814 0.565 0.565 0.687 0.672 0.774 0.733
Cronbach's Composite Scale Alpha Reliability
0.960 0.965 0.929 0.928 0.939 0.929 0.859 0.932 0.916 0.945 0.961 0.886 0.915 0.929 0.908 0.749 0.901 0.879
Note. AVE represents average variance extracted.
141
TABLE 9. RESULTS FOR THE HYPOTHESIZED PATHS (HYPOTHESES 1-6 AND HYPOTHESES 11-15)
Model Path Hypothesis & Proposed Path H2 Team Boundary-Spanning H5 Team Empowerment -Spanning H6
beta
0.316 0.142 0.224 0.394 0.373 0.441 0.292 0.159
s.d.
0.148 0.097 0.117 0.084 0.123 0.092 0.157 0.111 0.123 0.156 0.119 0.066 0.080
t statistic
2.056 * 1.341 1.793 * 4.580 ** 3.074 ** 4.881 ** 1.848 * 1.194 1.204 2.267 * 0.045 0.577 6.501 **
ctive Tone H13 Leader's BoundaryH15 Leaders' BoundaryControls Team
0.194 0.399 0.157 0.087 0.534
0.255 0.241
*
0.099 0.115
2.225 * 1.778 *
Note. p < .10
p < .05
**
p < .01, one-tailed.
142
TABLE 10. RESULTS OF MEDIATION TESTING (HYPOTHESES 7-8)
Direct Effect Model Path (a b c) (a c) beta H7 H8 0.349 0.349 0.008 0.008 t statstic 2.786 2.786 0.079 0.079 p < .10 p > .10 p < .05 p < .10 Sobel t-test
143
TABLE 11. CONCLUSIONS FROM MY DISSERTATION IN NEED OF FUTURE RESEARCH
Category
Direct Antecedents
Variable
Conclusion
Teams will generally be more creative when their team members Team Emergent Positive Group have more rather than less positive affective experiences in their State Factors Affective Tone team - that is, when they have higher levels of "positive group affective tone." Team InformationSharing Team Process Factors Team BoundarySpanning Teams will generally be more creative when their team members engage in more rather than less "information sharing" behaviors with their team members. Teams will generally be more creative when their team members engage in more rather than less "boundary-spanning" behaviors with members of other teams or outsiders.
Indirect Antecedents Teams will generally be more creative when they are led by team Transformational leaders who engage in more rather than less "transformational" Behaviors behaviors that generally facilitate teams' development of higher rather than lower levels of "positive group affective tone." Teams will generally be more creative when they are led by team Empowering leaders who engage in more rather than less "empowering" Behaviors behaviors that generally facilitate teams' development of higher rather than lower levels of "team empowerment." Teams will generally be more creative when their team members have stronger rather than weaker beliefs in their efficacy and independence while working as a team, as well as the importance
Team Leader Behavior Factors
Team Emergent
Team
Empwerment andhseirgnifiecanoce"ofatheiermpoorws rin State Factors teatmsndthausisa,rwhienltyheo have hig lev ls f te m -t e l ke t e men " a th engage in more rather than less "information sharing" and "boundary-spanning" behaviors. wk y
144
TABLE 11. (CONT'D)
Category Team Inputs
Variable
Conclusion
Team Member Teams will generally be more creative when they have team Creativity members with stronger rather than weaker "creative ability". Teams will generally be more creative when they have team Preference for members with more positive rather than negative attitudes Workgroup toward their team - that is, when they have higher levels of "preference for workgroup." Job-Related Diversity Teams will generally be more creative when they have team members with more rather than less diverse functional backgrounds and team tenure - that is, when they have higher levels of "job-related diversity."
Team Composition Factors
Task Design Factors
Teams will generally be more creative whey they need higher Team rather than lower interdependence among team members to Interdependence achieve their goals - that is, when they have higher levels of "team interdependence."
145
FIGURE 1. THEORETICAL MODEL OF TEAM CREATIVITY
Team Leader's Frequency of Transformational Behaviors
H10 H(+)
H9 G(+)
Teams' Level of Positive Group Affective Tone
H11 I(+) H4 D(+)
H3 C(+)
Teams' Level of Information Sharing
H1 A(+)
Team Leader's Frequency of Empowering Behaviors
H12 J(+) H5 E(+)
Teams' Level of Creativity
Team Level of Team Empowerment
H13 K(+)
H6 F(+)
Teams' Level of BoundarySpanning
H2 B(+)
Team Leader's Frequency of Boundary-Spanning Behaviors
H14 L(+)
H15 M(+)
Organizational Support for Team Creativity
146
FIGURE 2. EMPIRICAL MODEL OF TEAM CREATIVITY
.349
Team Leader's Frequency of Transformational Behaviors
.159
.292*
Team Composition Factors
Teams' Level of Positive Group Affective Tone
.194 .394**
.224*
Teams' Level of Information Sharing
.316*
.255*
Team Leader's Frequency of Empowering Behaviors
.399** 373** .142
Teams' Level of Creativity
Team Level of Team Empowerment
.441**
Teams' Level of BoundarySpanning
Team Leader's Frequency of Boundary-Spanning Behaviors
.241* .157
.008
.534**
Organizational Support for Team Creativity
Task Design Factors
.087
Note. Solid line r*epresents*significant linkages; dotted line represents insignificant (but hypothesized) linkages. p < .10 p < .05 * p < .01, one-tailed. 147
REFERENCES
Alge, B. J., Ballinger, G.A., Tangirala, S., & Oakley, J. L. 2006. Information privacy in organizations: Empowering creative and extrarole performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91: 221-232. Amabile, T. M. 1988. A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. In B. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, 10: 127-137. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Amabile, T. M. 1996. Creativity in Context. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. 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. Ancona, D. G. 1990. Outward bound: Strategies for team survival in an organization. Academy of Management Journal, 33: 334-365. Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. 1988. Beyond task and maintenance. Group & Organization Management, 13: 468-494. Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. 1992. Bridging the boundary: External activity and performance in organizational teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37: 634-665. Avolio, B. J. & Bass, B. M. 2004. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Manual and Sampler Set (3rd ed.). Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden. Axtell, C. M., Holman, D. J., Unsworth, K. L., Wall, T. D., Waterson, P. E., & Harrington, E. 2000. Shopfloor innovation: Facilitating the suggestion and
148
implementation of ideas. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73: 265-285. Bandura, A. 1997. Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: W. H. Freeman. Bandura, A., & Cervone, D. 1986. Differential engagement of self-reactive influences in cognitive motivation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 38: 92-113. Barclay, D., Higgins, C., & Thompson, R. 1995. The partial least squares approach to causal modeling: Personal computer adoption and Use as an Illustration. Technology Studies, 2: 285-309. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. 1986. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 51: 1173-1182. Barrett, L. F., & Russell, J. A. 1998. Independence and bipolarity in the structure of current affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74: 967-984. Barsade, S. G. 2002. The ripple effect: Emotional contagion and its influence on group behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47: 645-675. Barsade, S. G., Ward, A. J., Turner, J. D. F., & Sonnenfeld, J. A. 2000. To your heart's content: A model of affective diversity in top management teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45: 802-836. Baruah, J., & Paulus, P. B. 2008. Effects of training on idea generation in groups. Small Group Research, 39: 523-541.
149
Bass, B. M. 1985. Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations. New York: Free Press. Bass, B. M. 1990. Bass & Stogdill's Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research, & Managerial Applications (3rd ed.). New York: Free Press. Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y. 2003. Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: 207-218. Blau, P. M. 1977. Inequality and Heterogeneity. New York: Free Press. Bliese, P. D. 2000. Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In K. Klein & S. W. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel Theory, Research, and Methods in Organizations: 349-381. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bollen, K., & Lennox, R. 1991. Conventional wisdom on measurement: A structural equation perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 110: 305-314. Bono, J. E., & Ilies, R. 2006. Charisma, positive emotions and mood contagion. Leadership Quarterly, 17: 317-334. Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. 2004. Personality and transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89: 901-910. Bono, J. E., Foldes, H. J., Vinson, G., & Muros, J. P. 2007. Workplace emotions: The role of supervision and leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92: 13571367.
150
Brislin, R. W. 1980. Translation and content analysis of oral and written materials. In H. C. Triandis & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology: Methodology (vol. 2): 389-444. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Bunderson, J. S., & Sutcliffe, K. M. 2002. Comparing alternative conceptualizations of functional diversity in management teams: Process and performance effects. The Academy of Management Journal, 45: 875-893. Byron, K., Khazanchi, S., & Nazarian, D. 2010. The relationship between stressors and creativity: A meta-analysis examining competing theoretical models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95: 201-212. Campion, M. A., Medsker, G. J., & Higgs, A. C. 1993. Relationships between work group characteristics and effectiveness: Implications for designing effective work groups. Personnel Psychology, 46: 823-847. Carmines, E. G., & Zeller, R. A. 1979. Reliability and Validity Assessment. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Cattani, G., & Ferriani, S. 2008. A core/periphery perspective on individual creative performance: Social networks and cinematic achievements in the Hollywood film industry. Organization Science, 19: 824-844. Chan, D. 1998. Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83: 234-246 Chen, G., & Bliese, P. D. 2002. The role of different levels of leadership in predicting self- and collective efficacy. Evidence for discontinuity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 549-556.
151
Chen, G., & Kanfer, R. 2006. Toward a systems theory of motivated behavior in work teams. In B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, 27: 223268. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Cherulnik, P. D., Donley, K. A., Wiewel, T. R., & Miller, S. R. 2001. Charisma is contagious: The effect of leaders' charisma on observers' affect. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31: 2149-2159. Chin, W. W. 1998. The partial least squares approach for structural equation modeling. In G. A. Marcoulides (Ed.), Modern Methods for Business Research: 295-336. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Chin, W. W., & Newsted, P. R. 1999. Structural equation modeling analysis with small samples using partial least squares. In R. Hoyle (Ed.), Statistical Strategies for Small Sample Research: 307-341. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Cohen, J. 1977. Statistical Power Analysis for The Behavioral Sciences. New York: Academic Press. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. 2003. Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (3rd ed.) Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. 1997. What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23: 239-290.
152
Cohendet, P., & Simon, L. 2007. Playing across the playground: Paradoxes of knowledge creation in the videogame firm. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28: 587-605. Collins, L. M., Graham, J. W., & Flaherty, B. P. (1998). An alternative framework for defining mediation. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 33, 295-312. Cording, M., Christmann, P., King, D. R. 2008. Reducing causal ambiguity in acquisition integration: Intermediate goals as mediators of integration decisions and acquisition performance. Academy of Management Journal, 51: 744-767. Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor (NEO-FFI) Inventory ProfessionalManual. Odessa, FL: PAR. Crant, J. M. 2000. Proactive behavior in organizations. Journal of Management, 26: 435-462. Csikszentmihalyi, M. 1996. Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention. New York: HarperCollins. Csikszentmihalyi, M. 1999. Implications of a systems perspective for the study of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of Creativity: 313-335. New York: Cambridge University Press. Dailey, R. C., & Morgan, C. P. 1978. Personal characteristics and job involvement as antecedents of boundary spanning behavior: A path analysis. Journal of Management Studies, 15: 330-339.
153
Dansereau, F., Alutto, J. A., & Yammarino, F. J. 1984. Theory Testing in Organizational Behavior: The Variant Approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Davis, M. A. 2009. Understanding the relationship between mood and creativity: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108: 25-38. De Dreu, C. K. W. 2007. Cooperative outcome interdependence, task reflexivity, and team effectiveness: A motivated information processing perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92: 628-638. De Dreu, C. K. W., Baas, M., & Nijstad, B. A. 2008. Hedonic tone and activation level in the mood-creativity link: Toward a dual pathway to creativity model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94: 739-756. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. 1987. The support of autonomy and the control of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53: 1024-1037. Donnellon, A., Gray, B., & Bougon, M. G. 1986. Communication, meaning, and organized action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31: 43-55. Dorfman, P. W., & Howell, J. P. 1988. Dimensions of national culture and effective leadership patterns: Hofstede revisited. Advances in International Comparative Management, 3: 127-150. Dutton, J. E., & Ashford, S. J. 1993. Selling issues to top management. Academy of Management Review, 18: 397-428.
154
Dvir, T., Eden, D., Avolio, B. J., & Shamir, B. 2002. Impact of transformational leadership on follower development and performance: A field experiment. Academy of Management Journal, 45: 735-744. Edwards, J. R., & Bagozzi, R. P. 2000. On the nature and direction of relationships between constructs and measures. Psychological Methods, 5: 155-174. Eisenberger, R., & Armeli, S. 1997. Can salient reward increase creative performance without reducing intrinsic creative interest? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72: 652-663. Faraj, S., & Yan, A. 2009. Boundary work in knowledge teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94: 604-617. Fleming, L., Mingo, S., & Chen, D. 2007. Collaborative brokerage, generative creativity, and creative success. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52: 443475. Floyd, S. W., & Wooldridge, B. 1997. Middle management's strategic influence and organizational performance. Journal of Management Studies, 34: 465-485. Ford, C. M., & Gioa, D. A. 1995. Guidelines for creative action taking in organizations. In C. M. Ford & D. A. Gioia (Eds.), Creative Action in Organizations: Ivory Tower Visions and Real World Voices: 355-356. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Fornell, C. R., & Bookstein, F. L. 1982. Two structural equation models: LISREL and PLS applied to consumer exit-voice theory. Journal of Marketing Research, 19: 440-452.
155
Fornell, C. R., & Larcker, D. F. 1981. Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18: 382-388. Fredrickson, B. L. 1998. What good are positive emotions? Review of General Psychology, 2: 300-319. Fredrickson, B. L. 2001. The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56: 218- 226. Fredrickson, B. L., & Joiner, T. 2002. Positive emotions trigger upward spirals toward emotional well-being. Psychological Science, 13: 172-175. Frijda, N. H. 1986. The Emotions. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Gelade, G. A., & Ivery, M. 2003. The impact of human resource management and work climate on organizational performance. Personnel Psychology, 56: 383404. George, J. M. 1991. State or trait: Effects of positive mood on prosocial behaviors at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76: 299-307. George, J. M. 1995. Leader positive mood and group performance: The case of customer service. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25: 778-794. George, J. M. 1996. Group affective tone. In M. A. West (Ed.), Handbook of Work Group Psychology: 77-93. Chichester, UK: Wiley. George, J. M. 2008. Creativity in organizations. Academy of Management Annals, 1: 439-477.
156
George, J. M., & Zhou, J. 2002. Understanding when bad moods foster creativity and good ones don't: The role of context and clarity of feelings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 687-697. George, J. M., & Zhou, J. 2007. Dual tuning in a supportive context: Joint contributions of positive mood, negative mood, and supervisory behaviors to employee creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 50: 605-622. Giambatista, R. C., & Bhappu, A. D. 2010. Diversity's harvest: Interactions of diversity sources and communication technology on creative group performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 111: 116-126. Gibson, C. B., & Kirkman, B. L. 1999. Our past, present, and future in teams: The role of human resources professionals in managing team performance. In A. L. Kraut & A. K. Korman (Eds.), Evolving Practics in Human Resource Management: Responses to a Changing World of Work: 90-117. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Gilson, L. L., & Shalley, C. E. 2004. A little creativity goes a long way: An examination of teams' engagement in creative processes. Journal of Management, 30: 453-470. Gilson, L. L., Mathieu, J. E., Shalley, C. E., & Ruddy, T. M. 2005. Creativity and standardization: Complementary or conflicting drivers of team effectiveness? Academy of Management Journal, 48: 521-531. Gino, F., Argote, L., Miron-Spektor, E., & Todorova, G. 2010. First, get your feet wet: The effects of learning from direct and indirect experience on team
157
creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 111: 102-115. Gist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. R. 1992. Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its determinants and malleability. Academy of Management Review, 17: 183211. Gladstein, D. L. 1984. Groups in context: A model of task group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29: 499-517. Goldberg, L. R. 1999. A broad-bandwidth, public domain, personality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor models. In I. Mervielde, I. Deary, F. De Fruyt, & F. Ostendorf (Eds.), Personality Psychology in Europe (vol. 7): 7-28. Tilburg, The Netherlands: Tilburg University Press. Gong, Y., Huang, J. C., & Farh, J. L. 2009. Employee learning orientation, transformational leadership, and employee creativity: The mediating role of employee creative self-efficacy. Academy of Management Journal, 52: 765778. Grawitch, M. J., Munz, D. C., & Kramer, T. J. 2003. Effects of member mood states on creative performance in temporary work groups. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 7: 41-54. Grawitch, M. J., Munz, D. C., Elliott, E. K., & Mathis, A. 2003. Promoting creativity in temporary problem-solving groups: The effects of positive mood and autonomy in problem definition on idea-generating performance. Group Dynamics, 7: 200-213.
158
Guzzo, R. A., Yost, P. R., Campbell, R. J., & Shea, G. P. 1993. Potency in groups: Articulating a construct. British Journal of Social Psychology, 32: 87-106. Hackman, J. R. 1987. The design of work teams. In J. W. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of Organizational Behavior: 315-342. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Hansen, M. T. 1999. The Search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44: 82-111. Hargadon, A. B., & Bechky, B. A. 2006. When collections of creatives become creative collectives: A filed study of problem solving at work. Organization Science, 17: 484-500. Hatfield, E., Cacioppo, J., & Rapson, R. L. 1994. Emotional Contagion. New York: Cambridge University Press. Hirschman, A. O. 1970. Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Hirst, G. H., & Mann, L. 2004. A model of R&D leadership and team communication: the relationship with project performance. R&D Management, 34: 147-160. Hirst, G., Knippenberg, D. V., & Zhou, J. 2009. A cross-level perspective on employee creativity: Goal orientation, team learning behavior, and individual creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 52: 280-293. Hofstede, G. 1980. Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Workrelated Values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
159
Howell, J. M., & Avolio, B. J. 1993. Transformational leadership, transactional leadership, locus of control, and support for innovation: Key predictors of consolidated-Business-Unit Performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78: 891-902. Howell, J. M., & Hall-Merenda, K. E. 1999. The ties that bind: The impact of leadermember exchange, transformational and transactional leadership, and distance on predicting follower performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84: 680694. Hulland, J. H. 1999. Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: A review of four recent studies. Strategic Management Journal, 20: 195-204. Hülsheger, U. R., Anderson, N., & Salgado, J. F. 2009. Team-level predictors of innovation at work: A comprehensive meta-analysis spanning three decades of research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94: 1128-1145. Ilgen, D. R., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M., & Jundt, D. 2005. Teams in organizations: From input-process-output models to IMOI models. Annual Review of Psychology, 56: 517-543. Ilgen, D.R. 1999. Teams embedded in organizations. American Psychologist. 54:129-139. Jackson, C. L., Colquitt, J. A., Wesson, M. J., & Zapata-Phelan, C. P. 2006. Psychological collectivism: A measurement validation and linkage to group member performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91: 884-899.
160
Jackson, C. N., & King, D. C. 1983. The Effects of representatives' power within their own organizations on the outcome of a negotiation. Academy of Management Journal, 26: 178-185. James, L. R. 1982. Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67: 219-229. James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. 1984. Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69: 85-98. James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. 1993. rwg: An Assessment of Within-Group Interrater Agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78: 306-309. James, L. R., Mulaik, S. A., & Brett, J. M. (1982). Causal Analysis: Assumptions, Models, and Data. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Jaussi, K. S., & Dionne, S. D. 2003. Leading for creativity : The role of unconventional leader behavior. The Leadership Quarterly, 14: 475-498. Jex, S. M., & Thomas, J. L. 2003. Relations between stressors and group perceptions: Main and mediating effects. Work and Stress, 17: 158-169. Joshi, A. J., Pandey, J. N., & Han, G. 2009. Bracketing team boundary spanning: An examination of task-based, team-level, and contextual antecedents. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30: 731-759. Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. 2000. Five-factor model of personality and transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85: 751-765. Kark, R., Shamir, B., & Chen, G. 2003. The two faces of transformational leadership: Empowerment and dependency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: 246-255.
161
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. 1978. The Social Psychology of Organizations. New York: Wiley. Katz, R., & Tushman, M. L. 1983. A longitudinal study of the effects of boundary spanning supervision on turnover and promotion in research and development. Academy of Management Journal, 26: 437-456. Kearney, E., Gebert, D., & Voelpel, S. C. 2009. When and how diversity benefits teams: the importance of team members' need for cognition. Academy of Management Journal, 52: 581-598. Keller, R. T. 1992. Transformational leadership and the performance of research and development project groups, Journal of Management, 18: 489-501. Keller, R. T. 2006. Transformational leadership, initiating structure, and substitute for leadership: A longitudinal study of research and development project team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91: 202-210. Kelly, J. R., & Barsade, S. G. 2001. Mood and emotions in small groups and work teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86: 99130. Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Bolger, N. (1998). Data analysis in social psychology. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The Handbook of Social Psychology (vol. 1): 233-265. New York: McGraw-Hill. Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Cook, W. L. 2006. Dyadic Data Analysis. New York: Guilford Press.
162
Kerr, S., & Jermier, J. M. 1978. Substitutes for leadership: Their meaning and measurement. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 22: 375403. Kim, W. C., & Mauborgne, R. 2005. Blue Ocean Strategy: How to Create Uncontested Market Space and Make Competition Irrelevant. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation. Kirkman, B. L., & Rosen, B. 1999. Beyond self-management: Antecedents and consequences of team empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 42: 58-74. Kirkman, B. L., & Shapiro, D. L. 1997. The impact of cultural values on employee resistance to teams: Toward a model of globalized self-managing work team effectiveness. Academy of Management Review, 22: 730-757. Kirkman, B. L., & Shapiro, D. L. 2001. The impact of cultural values on job satisfaction and organizational commitment in self-managing work teams: The mediating role of employee resistance. Academy of Management Journal, 44: 557-569. Kirkman, B. L., Rosen, B., Tesluk, P. E., & Gibson, C. B. 2004. The impact of team empowerment on virtual team performance: The moderating role of face-toface interaction. Academy of Management Journal, 47: 175-192. Kirkman, B.L., & Rosen, B. 1997. A model of work team empowerment. In R. W. Woodman & W. A. Pasmore (Eds.), Research in Organizational Change and Development (vol. 10): 131-167. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
163
Klein, K., & Kozlowski, S. 2000. Multilevel Theory, Research, and Methods in Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Bell, B. S. 2003. Work groups and teams in organizations. In W.C. Borman, D.R. Ilgen, & R.J. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of Psychology (vol.12): Industrial and Organizational Psychology: 333-375. London: Wiley. Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Ilgen, D. R. 2006. Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7: 77-124. Kozlowski, S. W. J., Gully, S. M., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. 1996. Team leadership and development: Theory, principles, and guidelines for training leaders and teams. In M. Beyerlein, D. Johnson, & S. Beyerlein (Eds.), Advances in Interdisciplinary Studies of Work Teams: Team Leadership (vol.3): 251-289. Greenwich, CT: JAI. Latham, G. P. 1988. Human resource training and development. Annual Review of Psychology, 39: 545-582. Lazarus, R. S. 1991. Emotion and Adaptation. New York: Oxford University Press. Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. 1984. Stress, Appraisal, and Coping. New York: Springer. Li, N., Liang, J., & Crant, J. M. 2010. The role of proactive personality in job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior : A relational perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95: 395-404.
164
Liang, D. W., Moreland, R., & Argote, L. 1995. Group versus individual training and group performance: The mediating role of transactive memory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21: 384-393. Liao, H., & Chuang, A. 2007. Transforming service employees and climate: A multilevel, multisource examination of transformational leadership in building long-term service relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92: 10061019. Lingo, E., & O'Mahony, S. 2010. Nexus work: Brokerage on creative projects. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55: 47-81. Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. 1990. Work motivation and satisfaction: Light at the end of the tunnel. Psychological Science, 1: 240-246. Lovelace, K., Shapiro, D. L., & Weingart, L. R. 2001. Maximizing cross-functional new product teams' innovativeness and constraint adherence: A conflict communications perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 44: 779793. Mackinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. 2002. A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psychological Methods, 7: 83-104. Maddux, W., & Galinsky, A. 2009. Cultural borders and mental barriers: The relationship between living abroad and creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96: 1047-1061.
165
Madjar, N., Oldham, G. R., & Pratt, M. G. 2002. There's no place like home? The contributions of work and nonwork creativity support to employees' creativity performance. Academy of Management Journal, 45: 757-767. Major, B., Richards, C., Cooper, M. L., Cozzarelli, C., & Zubek, J. 1998. Personal resilience, cognitive appraisals, and coping: An integrative model of adjustment to abortion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74: 735-752. Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P., Jr. 1987. Leading workers to lead themselves: The external leadership of self- managing work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32: 106-129. Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. 2001. A temporary based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26: 356376. Marrone, J. A., Tesluk, P. E., & Carson, J. B. 2007. A multilevel investigation of antecedents and consequences of team member boundary-spanning behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 50: 1423-1439. Martin, J. 1992. Cultures in Organizations: Three Perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press. Mathieu, J. E., Heffner, T. S., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. 2000. The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85: 273-283.
166
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. 2002. Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT), Version 2.0. Toronto, Canada: Multi-Health Systems. McAuley, E., & Courneya, K. S. 1992. Self-efficacy relationships with affective and exertion responses to exercise. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22: 312-326. McGrath, J. E., Arrow, H., & Berdahl, J. L. 2000. The study of groups: Past, present, and future. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4: 95-105. Middleton, K. 2005. The service-learning project as a supportive context for charismatic leadership emergence in nascent leaders. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 4: 295-308 Moreno, A. M., & Casilas, J. C. 2008. Entrepreneurial orientation and growth of SMEs: A causal model. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32: 507-528. Mullen, J. E., & Kelloway, E. K. 2009. Safety leadership: A longitudinal study of the effects of transformational leadership on safety outcomes. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 82: 253-272. Naumann, S. E., & Bennett, N. 2000. A case of procedural justice climate: Development and test of a multilevel model. Academy of Management Journal, 43: 881-889. Neubert, M. J., Kacmar, K. M., Carlson, D. S., Chonko, L. B., & Roberts, J. A. 2008. Regulatory focus as a mediator of the influence of initiating structure and servant leadership on employee behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93: 1220-1233.
167
Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. 1996. Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at work. Academy of Management Journal, 39: 607-634. Paulus, P. B., & Van der Zee, K. 2004. Should there be a romance between teams and groups. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77: 475480. Pavlou, P. A., & Fygenson, M. 2006. Understanding and predicting electronic commerce adoption: An extension of the theory of planned behavior, MIS Quarterly, 30: 115-143 Perry-Smith, J. E., & Shalley, C. E. 2003. The social side of creativity: A static and dynamic social network perspective. Academy of Management Review, 28: 89-106. Pirola-Merlo, A., & Mann, L. 2004. The relationship between individual creativity and team creativity: Aggregating across people and time. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25: 235-257 Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. 2003. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: 879-903. Porath, C. L., & Erez, A. 2007. Does rudeness really matter? The effects of rudeness on task performance and helpfulness. Academy of Management Journal, 50: 1181-1197. Preston, D., Leidner, D., & Chen, D. 2008. CIO leadership profiles: Implications of matching CIO authority and leadership capability on IT impact. MIS Quarterly Executive, 7: 57-69
168
Reagans, R., & McEvily, B. 2003. Network structure and knowledge transfer: The effects of cohesion and range. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48: 240267. Rhee, S. Y. 2006. Shared emotions and group effectiveness: The role of broadeningand-building interactions. In K. M. Weaver (Ed.), Proceedings of the 65th Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management. Atlanta, Georgia, U.S.A. Ringle, C.M., Wende, S., & Will, A. 2005. SmartPLS 2.0 (beta), www.smartpls.de, University of Hambrug City, Hamburg, Germany. Rubin, R. S., Munz, D. C., & Bommer, W. H. 2005. Leading from within: The effects of emotion recognition and personality on transformational leadership behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 48: 845-858. Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. 1994. Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37: 580-607. Seddon, F. A., & Biasutti, M. 2009. Modes of communication between members of a string quartet. Small Group Research, 40: 115-137. Seers, A. 1989. Team-member exchange quality: A new construct for role-making research. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 43: 118135. Shalley, C. E., & Perry-Smith, J. E. 2008. The emergence of team creative cognition: The role of diverse outside ties, sociocognitive network centrality, and team evolution. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 2: 23-41.
169
Shalley, C. E., Gilson, L., & Blum, T. C. 2009. Interactive effects of growth need strength, work context, and job complexity on self-reported creative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 52: 489-505. Shalley, C. E., Zhou, J., & Oldham, G. R. 2004. The effects of personal and contextual characteristics on creativity: Where should we go from here? Journal of Management, 30: 933-958. Shamir, B., Zakay, E., Breinin, E., & Popper, M. 1998. Correlates of charismatic leader behavior in military units: Subordinates' attitudes, unit characteristics, and superiors' appraisals of leader performance. Academy of Management Journal, 41: 387-409. Shin, S. J., & Zhou, J. 2007. When is educational specialization heterogeneity related to creativity in research and development teams? Transformational leadership as a moderator. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92: 1709-1721. Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7, 422-445. Sivanathan, N., Molden, D. C., Galinsky, A. D., & Ku, G. 2008. The promise and peril of self-affirmation in de-escalation of commitment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 107: 1-14. Smith, V. L., & Ellsworth, P. C. 1987. The social psychology of eyewitness accuracy: Misleading questions and communicator expertise. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72: 294-300.
170
Sobel, M. E. 1982. Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. Sociological Methodology, 13: 290-312. Sobel, M. E. 1988. Direct and indirect effects in linear structural equation models. In J. S. Long (Ed.), Common Problems/Proper Solutions: 46-64. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Sosik, J. J., Avolio, B. J., & Kahai, S. S. 1997. Effects of leadership style and anonymity on group potency and effectiveness in a group decision support system environment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82: 89-103. Sparrowe, R. T. & Liden, R. C. 1997. Process and structure in leader-member exchange. Academy of Management Review, 22: 522-552. Spreitzer, G. M. 1995. Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38: 14421465. 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: 1239-1251. Stasser, G., & Titus, W. 1987. Effects of information load and percentage of shared information on the dissemination of unshared information during group discussion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53: 81-93. Sy, T., Côté, S., & Saavedra, R. 2005. The contagious leader: Impact of the leader's mood on the mood of group members, group affective tone, and group processes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89: 295-305
171
Taggar, S. 2002. Individual creativity and group ability to utilize individual creative resources: A multilevel model. Academy of Management Journal, 45: 315330. Tetlock, P. E., Peterson, R. S., & Berry, J. M. 1993. Flattering and unflattering personality portraits of integratively simple and complex managers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64: 500-511. Thomas, K. W., & Velthouse, B. A. 1990. Cognitive elements of empowerment: An "interpretive" model of intrinsic task motivation. Academy of Management Review, 15: 666-681. Thrash, T., Maruskin, L., Cassidy, S., Fryer, J., & Ryan, R. 2010. Mediating between the muse and the masses: Inspiration and the actualization of creative ideas. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98: 469-487. Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. 2002. Creative self-efficacy: Its potential antecedents and relationship to creative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 45: 1137-1148. Torrance, E. P. 1988. The nature of creativity as manifest in its testing. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The Nature of Creativity: 43-75. New York: Cambridge University Press. Tushman, M. L., & Katz, R. 1980. External communication and project performance: An investigation into the role of gatekeepers. Management Science, 26: 10711085. Unsworth, K., & Clegg, C. 2010. Why do employees undertake creative action? Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 83: 77-99.
172
Vroom, V. H. 1964. Work and Motivation. New York: Wiley. Walter, F. W., & Bruch, H. 2008. The positive group affect spiral: A dynamic model of the emergence of positive affective similarity in work groups. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29: 239-261. Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. 1988. Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54: 1063-1070. West, M. A., & Anderson, N. R. 1996. Innovation in top management teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81: 680-693. Wetzels, M., Odekerken-Schröder, G., & Van-Oppen, C. 2009. Using PLS path modeling for assessing hierarchical construct models: Guidelines and empirical illustration. MIS Quarterly, 33: 177-195. Wilkinson, L., Blank, G., & Gruber, C. 1996. Desktop Data Analysis SYSTAT (1st ed.) Upper Salle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Wold, H. 1982. Soft modeling: The basic design and some extensions. In K. G. Joreskog & H. Wold (Eds.), Systems under Indirect Observation: Causality, Structure, Prediction. Part? : 1-54. Amsterdam: North-Holland. Wold, 1985. Wold, H. 1985. Partial least squares. In S. Kotz & N. L. Johnson (Eds.), Encyclopedia of statistical sciences (vol. 6): 581-591. New York: Wiley. Wold, H. 1988. Specification, predictor. In S. Kotz & N. L. Johnson (Eds.), Encyclopedia of statistical sciences (vol. 8): 587-599. New York: Wiley.
173
Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J., & Griffin, R. W. 1993. Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Academy of Management Review, 18: 293-321. Zaccaro, S.J., Rittman, A.L., & Marks, M.A. 2001. Team leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 12: 451-483. Zhang, X., & Bartol, K. M. 2010. Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity: The influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative process engagement. Academy of Management Journal, 53: 107-128. Zhou, J., & George, J. M. 2001. When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: Encouraging the expression of voice. Academy of Management Journal, 44: 682-696. Zhou, J., Shin, S., Brass, D., Choi, J., & Zhang, Z. 2009. Social networks, personal values, and creativity: Evidence for curvilinear and interaction effects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94: 1544-1552. Zohar, D., & Luria, G. 2005. A multilevel model of safety climate: Cross-level relationships between organization and group-level climates. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90: 616-628.
174
doc_282112666.docx
Creativity refers to the phenomenon whereby something new is created which has some kind of subjective value. It is also the qualitative impetus behind any given act of creation, and it is generally perceived to be associated with intelligence and cognition.
HOW DOES CREATIVITY OCCUR IN TEAMS?
ABSTRACT Organizations benefit when workteams produce more rather than less creativity. What actions in organizations help this to occur - on the part of team leaders and team members? This is the primary question that my dissertation aims to answer. More specifically, I hypothesize that team leaders' behaviors (e.g., transformational, empowering, and boundary-working behaviors) lead to team members' affective and cognitive experiences (e.g., positive group affective tone, team empowerment) that in turn lead to teamwork processes (e.g., information sharing and boundary-spanning among team members) that ultimately lead to team creativity. Thus, my dissertation attempts to explain how and why team creativity occurs. Results from 52 organizational R&D teams suggest support for these hypothesized relationships and for the theoretical model overall. I conclude by discussing my findings' implications for managers and management scholars interested in enhancing team creativity.
HOW DOES CREATIVITY OCCUR IN TEAMS? AN EMPIRICAL TEST
By
Sirkwoo Jin
Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Maryland, College Park, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy 2010
Advisory Committee: Professor Debra L. Shapiro, Chair Associate Professor Myeong-Gu Seo Professor Paul E. Tesluk Professor M. Susan Taylor Professor Cheri Ostroff
© Copyright by Sirkwoo Jin 2010
Table of Contents
Table of Contents.......................................................................................................... ii List of Tables ................................................................................................................ v List of Figures .............................................................................................................. vi CHAPTER 1: Introduction ........................................................................................... 1 The Dissertation's Purpose and Potential Contribution ........................................... 7 Overview of Chapters ............................................................................................ 10 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESES................................ 12 Team Process-Related Behaviors Likely to Influence Team Creativity................ 14 The Likely Positive Effect of Information-Sharing on Team Creativity.......... 15 The Likely Positive Effect of Team Boundary-Spanning on Team Creativity 16 Two Emergent States Likely to Influence Team Creativity .................................. 20 Why Might Group Positive Affective Tone Increase Creativity-Enhancing Behaviors in Teams?......................................................................................... 20 The Likely Effect of Positive Group Affective Tone on Team Information-Sharing........................................................................... 20 The Likely Effect of Positive Group Affective Tone on Team Boundary-Spanning ........................................................................... 22 Why Might Team Empowerment Increase Creativity-Enhacing Behaviors in Teams? .......................................................................................................... 24 The Likely Effect of Team Empowerment on Team Information-Sharing ...... 24 The Likely Effect of Team Empowerment on Team Boundary-Spanning....... 25 Do Team Process-Behaviors Mediate Team Emergent State-Effects on Team Creativity?............................................................................................... 26 Possible Antecedents to Team Emergent States that Influence Team Creativity.. 28 The Likely Effect of Transformational Leadership on Team Emergent States 29 The Likely Effect of Empowering Leadership on Team Emergent States ....... 31 The Likely Effect of Leader's Boundary-Spanning Behaviors on Team Emergent States ................................................................................. 33 The Likely Effect of Organizational Support for Creativity on Team Creativity.. 35 Do Team Leader Behaviors Influence Organizational Support for Team Creativity? .............................................................................................. 36 CHAPTER 3: METHODS.......................................................................................... 38 Research Setting and Sample................................................................................. 38 General Procedure.................................................................................................. 43 Survey for Team Members versus Team Leaders ................................................. 45 Measures ................................................................................................................ 46 Team Leader's Behaviors.................................................................................. 46 Team leaders' transformational behaviors ................................................... 46 Team leaders' boundary-spanning behaviors ............................................... 47 Team leaders' empowering behaviors.......................................................... 48
ii
Team Emergent State Factors .......................................................................... 49 Team's level of positive affective tone ........................................................ 49 Team's level of empowerment ..................................................................... 50 Team Process Factors ....................................................................................... 51 Team's level of information-sharing ............................................................ 51 Team's level of boundary-spanning ............................................................. 51 Contextual Factors ............................................................................................ 53 Team's level of organizational support for team creativity.......................... 53 Team Outcome Variable ................................................................................... 54 Team's level of creativity............................................................................. 54 Control Variables .............................................................................................. 56 Team composition factors............................................................................ 56 Task design factors ...................................................................................... 58 Individual differece factors - Team members' and team leaders' cultural values..................................... 59 Analytic Strategy ................................................................................................... 60 Pre-Hypothesis Testing Analyses ..................................................................... 60 Test of cultural differences .......................................................................... 61 Test of aggregation appropriateness ............................................................ 61 Test of measurement model validity ........................................................... 63 Power Analysis ...................................................................................................... 66 CHAPTER 4: RESULTS............................................................................................ 67 Descriptive Statistics.............................................................................................. 67 Measurement Model Evaluation ............................................................................ 67 Hypothesis Test Results......................................................................................... 70 Team Process Behavior-Effects on Team Creativity........................................ 71 Team Emergent State-Associations with Team Process Behaviors ................. 72 Team Leader Behavior Effects on Group Affective Tone and Team Empowerment......................................... 74 Do Team Process Behaviors Mediate Team Emergent State-Effects on Team Creativity?.......................................................................................... 75 Organizational Support for Team Creativity Effect on Team Creativity ......... 79 Team Leader Boundary-Spanning Behavior Effects on Organizational Support for Team Creativity ............................................... 79 CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION...................................................................................... 81 Limitations of the Study......................................................................................... 87 Implications for Management Scholars ................................................................. 91 Implications for Managers ..................................................................................... 93
APPENDIX A: The Third Survey for Team Leaders & Members in the U.S............ 96 APPENDIX B: The Third Survey for Team Leaders & Members in South Korea.... 97
iii
APPENDIX C: The First Survey for Team Leaders in the U.S.................................. 98 APPENDIX D: The First Survey for Team Members in the U.S............................. 100 APPENDIX E: The First Survey for Team Leaders in South Korea........................ 105 APPENDIX F: The First Survey for Team Members in South Korea ..................... 107 APPENDIX G: The Second Survey for Team Leaders in the U.S. .......................... 112 APPENDIX H: The Second Survey for Team Members in the U.S. ....................... 114 APPENDIX I: The Second Survey for Team Leaders in South Korea ................... 116 APPENDIX J: The Second Survey for Team Members in South Korea................. 118
REFERENCES ......................................................................................................... 148
iv
List of Tables
TABLE 1: Empirical Studies of the Antecedents of Creativity from 1990 to 2008 in Management Literatures ..................................... 121 TABLE 2: Conclusions from Previous Studies on Team Creativity ....................... 126 TABLE 3: The Demographic Characteristics of Initial Sample.............................. 128 TABLE 4: The Demographic Characteristics of Final Sample ............................... 129 TABLE 5: Reliability-Within-Group (rwg), ICC(1) and ICC(2) .............................. 130 TABLE 6: Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations for Study Variables ............................................... 131 TABLE 7: Internal and Crossloadings of the Items................................................. 133 TABLE 8: Internal Consistency Index .................................................................... 141 TABLE 9: Results for the Hypothesized Paths (Hypotheses 1-6 and Hypotheses 9-15) ................................................. 142 TABLE 10: Results of the Mediation Testing (Hypotheses 7-8) ............................. 143 TABLE 11: Conclusions from My Dissertation in need of Future Research ........... 144
v
List of Figures
FIGURE 1: Theoretical Model of Team Creativity.................................................. 146 FIGURE 2: Empirical Model of Team Creativity .................................................... 147
vi
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
The theme of the World Economy Forum's 2006 annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland, was "The Creative Imperative" in which creativity was identified as a "must" for businesses who wish to become and remain viable. According to the definition of "creativity" offered by Amabile (1996), businesses are creative when they develop and generate ideas that are novel and useful. The need for doing this— hence the need for being creative— has been identified by Ford and Gioia (1995) and Kim and Mauborgne (2005) as urgent in light of business trends such as globalization, technology advancement, and the knowledge-based economy that increase the speed of changes that engulf businesses today. Businesses cannot be creative without employees who help them generate novel and useful ideas (e.g., Amabile, 1988; Oldham & Cummings, 1996; Woodman, Sawyer, & Griffin, 1993). Consistent with this, West and Anderson (1996) found that, in top management teams, innovation (which is the implementation of creative ideas, cf. Amabile, 1996; West & Farr, 1990; Woodman, Sawyer, & Griffin, 1993) was significantly positively associated with the proportion of team members who suggested improved workrelated procedures. West and Anderson's finding that team innovation is generally higher when procedural improvements are suggested by a higher proportion of team members suggests that it organizations' creativity may similarly be higher when more of their members are suggesting creative ideas. This may be partly why organizations have gradually transformed from an individual based-structure to a team-based structure
1
(cf. Ilgen, 1999; Kozlowski & Bell, 2003). Consistent with this explanation, there is a tendency for organizations when seeking creative ideas, such as new products, to assign employees to crossfunctional teams, or teams comprised of members from various functional backgrounds (cf. Lovelace, Shapiro, & Weingart, 2001). My dissertation's focus is on team creativity, not team innovation, due to the fact that it can take years before creative ideas get implemented, hence for innovation to occur, and because my theorizing pertains to the process by which teams are creative, hence to team creativity (cf. Amabile, 1996)— that is, to the process by which team members' collective efforts result in novel and useful ideas (e.g., Gilson & Shalley, 2004; Taggar, 2002). But does creativity happen in teams? And if so, how? Surprisingly, we know relatively little about how to obtain creativity from employee teams since, as Shalley, Zhou, and Oldham (2004) concluded after extensively reviewing the creativity literature, the bulk of empirical attention has been devoted to understanding the creativity and/or creative processes of individuals. This conclusion is evident in Table 1 where it can be seen that relatively few studies available from 1990 to 2010 from the database Business Source Complete have examined antecedents to team creativity.. Importantly, some of the studies shown in Table 1 were published after Shalley and colleagues' (2004) review of the creativity literature. Therefore, some progress in the last few years (although still little) has been made toward understanding antecedents to team creativity. Table 2 shows some of the conclusions provided by the findings of studies listed in Table 1. The conclusions selected for
2
Table 2 were those that appeared with highest frequency in the relatively sparse studies of natural ongoing teams in organizational settings. ----------------------------------------------Insert Tables 1 and 2 about here ----------------------------------------------As a set, the conclusions shown in Table 2 suggest that managers who wish to have team creativity ought to consider numerous team-related attributes, including: (1) team composition factors, (2) task design factors, (3) team emergent-state factors, (4) team process factors, and (5) team leader behavior factors. In my dissertation, team composition factors will be captured via the extent to which members' share similar creative ability, their preference for workgroup, and tenure on the team, task design factors will be captured via the extent to which members are interdependent in their task-related needs, team emergent-state factors will be captured via how much team members report feeling that the team has a positive tone and is empowered, team process factors will be captured via the extent to which members share information and engage in boundary-spanning behaviors in the team, and team leader behavior factors will be captured via the extent to which leaders' actions are transformational, empowering, and boundary-spanning in nature. Since "team emergent-states" and "team processes" each share the role of "process factors" within the classic Input-Process-Outcome team model proposed by Hackman (1987), it is important to note how these two concepts differ from each other. By team processes, I mean "interactions such as communication and conflict that occur among group members and external others" (Cohen & Bailey, 1997, p.244) such as team members'
3
collective behaviors and interactions with other members to achieve their collective goals. These processes typically become routine and, as such, may be experienced daily, as illustrated by behaviors such as informing each other about new workrelated issues and coordinating activities with other groups. In contrast to this routinequality, team emergent-states are dynamic in nature, and are team-related properties, such as the level of positive affect felt by team members at any particular moment, that "?vary as a function of team context, inputs, processes, and outcomes" (Marks, Mathieu, Zaccaro, 2001, p.357). The likelihood that team creativity is influenced by the five team-related attributes named above is consistent with conclusions made by Hülsheger, Anderson, and Salgado (2009) guided by their meta-analysis of literature pertaining to antecedents to team-level innovation. Additionally, the likelihood that the five teamrelated attributes will have important interrelationships with each other in addition to directly influencing the team outcome-variable (i.e., team creativity) is consistent with the theorizing of team scholars who characterize team outcomes as ultimately due to dynamics associated with "team-inputs" and "team-mediators" such as team emergent-states and/or team-processes (cf. Cohen & Bailey, 1997; Hackman, 1987; Ilgen, Hollenbeck, Johnson, & Jundt, 2005). The more recent teamwork model, IMOI (input-mediator-output-input) theorized by Ilgen and colleagues (2005), assumes that team input factors lead to team mediator factors (including team emergent state factors and team process factors) that in turn lead to team outcome factors, is especially influential in guiding the theoretical model I propose as antecedents to team creativity. My reliance on the IMOI model for theoretical guidance is due to the
4
fact that this model is similar to the traditional IPO (input-process-output) model proposed by Hackman (1987) yet improves on it by capturing a broader range of variables like team emergent-state factors (e.g., emergent cognitive or affective states) that reflect the complex and dynamic characteristics of teamwork. As can be seen in Figure 1, my theoretical model proposes that team creativity is influenced by variables that represent the three of the five fundamental team-related attributes named above— specifically: (1) team-emergent state factors (e.g., positive group affective tone and team empowerment), (2) team process factors (e.g., team information sharing, team boundary-spanning), and (3) team leader behaviors (e.g., transformational behaviors, empowering behaviors, boundary-spanning behaviors.) My selection of the latter three variable-categories is guided by the following reasons. First, team mediator factors (hence team emergent- and team process-factors) have been identified as the most proximal cause of team outcomes (e.g., Ilgen et al., 2005; Marks et al., 2001). Second, and relatedly, Hülsheger and colleagues's (2009) metaanalysis of the team creativity literature found team mediator factors to indeed be more influential than team composition- or task design- factors in explaining team creativity. Third, Zaccaro, Rittman, and Marks (2001: 452) theorized that leaderrelated attributes "?represent perhaps the most critical factor in the success of organizational teams." They explain the critical role of leaders as likely due to the influence leaders have on the degree of "coherence" among team members' behaviors, such as achieving shared goals, that typically enhance team success. This may thus hold true for teams whose assignments are to be creative, such as Research and Development (R&D) Teams, which will be the focus of my dissertation study.
5
Consistent with Zaccaro et al.'s view, Keller (1992, 2006) found in his longitudinal studies of R&D teams' performance that team leader behaviors were indeed a significant predictor. On the other hand, for reasons I explain in the literature review guiding my hypotheses (in Chapter 2), the importance of leader-behavior in influencing team creativity may be less in teams whose members have a higher (rather than lower) frequency of positive emergent states such as positive grouprelated affect and high levels of team empowerment, and a higher (rather than lower) frequency of positive team-processes (e.g., information-sharing among team members) due to the possibility that the latter feelings and actions on the part of team members may act as "substitutes for leadership" (Kerr & Jermier, 1978) and be more proximal to team creativity. As such, I am expecting the role of leader-behaviors in influencing team creativity to be less proximal than the mediating variables (e.g., team emergent-states and team-processes) that I will be investigating. Importantly, my dissertation does not ignore team composition factors and task design factors; rather, as I noted above, these factors are also measured in my dissertation but treated as control variables since I do expect them to have some (albeit smaller) influence on team creativity. In summary, then, my theoretical model highlights key determinants of team creativity that I will be hypothesizing. ------------------------------------Insert Figure 1 about here -----------------------------------Although I agree that multiple team-attributes, such as those described above, are likely to influence team creativity, the meta-analysis findings of Hülsheger et al.
6
(2009) as well as the findings of studies shown in Table 1 cannot explain how and why these team-attributes relate to team creativity. The inability of past work to explain these variables' interrelationships is due to several reasons. First, most past studies have examined the effect of only one or, at most, two of the five teamattributes named above and represented in my theoretical model. Although Hülsheger et al.'s (2009) meta-analysis is an exception, their methodology prevents empirical tests of these five team-attributes' potential moderating- and/or mediatingrelationships. Although Shin and Zhou (2007) is the other exception, their model excluded team-attributes associated with team process factors. Thus, although Shin and Zhou (2007) measured more team-attributes than is typical in studies examining antecedents to team creativity, their findings are still vulnerable to the rival explanation that the team creativity they observed may have been due to the unmeasured variable of team process behaviors such as information sharing or boundary-spanning behaviors by team members.
This Dissertation's Purpose and Potential Contributions The purpose of my dissertation is to theoretically and empirically examine how and why team creativity occurs. Toward this goal, I will test the theoretical model shown in Figure 1; this means that, at a minimum, I will be assessing the variables comprising Figure 1. Importantly, I will be assessing as control variables the team-attributes associated with team composition- and task design-factors, for reasons I explained above. As such, the theoretical model I test improves upon those tested in previous work and, thereby, promises to extend conclusions associated with antecedents to team creativity. The test I make of this theoretical model will involve a
7
sample of team members on natural ongoing, not artificially-created, teams in a business organization whose members are fulltime employees with assigned teamtasks that require them to be creative (i.e., to create new products) and to coordinate their actions in order to do so. As a result, the teams I study are likely to experience the variables that my theoretical model will assess, a possibility that seems less likely when studies involve artificially-created, temporary teams comprised of undergraduates who often lack work-related team experiences (for an elaboration of this view, see Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006; McGrath, Arrow, & Berdahl, 2000). My study of ongoing natural teams helps fill the void identified by George (2008: 466) regarding how little is known in the group creativity literature "? about the creativity of ongoing groups in organizations." By studying natural ongoing teams comprised of fulltime employees, my dissertation also enables me to build upon the empiricallyguided conclusions of Shin and Zhou (2007) whose study is one of the few to also study team creativity dynamics in a natural organizational setting. With regard to the team leader-related attributes (leaders' degree of transformational leadership behaviors, team-empowering behaviors, and boundaryspanning behaviors), each of these have been linked to other variables shown in my theoretical model in ways that I explain in Chapter 2. By testing all of these leaderrelated behaviors in one study in a manner that includes mediating variables, my findings also promise to illuminate the relative importance of different leadership behaviors in influencing team creativity and the processes by which each leadership behavior may help teams be creative. More specifically with regard to how leaders' behavior may influence team creativity, as can be seen in Figure 1, I will be
8
theorizing that team leaders' transformational, empowering, and boundary-spanning behaviors are essential for creating team members' positive affective, cognitive, and behavioral experiences in teams that ultimately enhance teams' creativity. Importantly, and also shown in Figure 1, I will be theorizing that the leaders who span boundaries in their organization (e.g., talk with people who are outside of the team they are leading in efforts to obtain resources the team needs to do its work, cf. Ancona & Caldwell, 1992) will be more likely to obtain support from the broader organization for team creativity-related needs; and that this organizational support in turn aids teams in being creative. Because my dissertation assesses these variables as well, these relationships can be empirically examined in my dissertation. My biggest theoretical contribution is highlighting the key role that team emergent-states and team processes play in influencing team creativity. More specifically, as shown in Figure 1, my theoretical model suggests that team emergentstates (e.g., team members' experience of positive group-affect and empowerment in teams) lead to team processes (e.g., members' behaviors associated with information sharing and spanning boundaries) that ultimately enhance the degrees of creativity in teams. These specific relationships are not found in models that have previously been offered as antecedents to "team effectiveness," though the team-effectiveness models do tend to refer to the importance of emergent-states and team processes (e.g., Ilgen et al., 2005; Kozlowski, Gully, Salas, & Cannon-Bowers, 1996). Since high levels of team creativity does not guarantee high levels of team effectiveness, and it can even lower the levels of team effectiveness (Gilson, Mathieu, Shalley, & Ruddy, 2005), general team effectiveness models seem unlikely to apply to team creativity. Thus,
9
one potential contribution of my dissertation is that it, unlike models of team effectiveness, provides theoretically specific reasons why and how team emergentstates and team processes lead to high levels of team creativity (as explained in Chapter 2). For several reasons my dissertation promises to expand the thinking of managers interested in team creativity, not only management scholars. First, my dissertation can help sensitize managers to the fact that leadership behaviors, such as behaviors that may enhance emergent states that are conducive to team creativity as suggested by my theoretical model, can be developed and trained (Bass, 1990; Latham, 1988), and may need to be emphasized in managerial training programs whose purpose is meant to increase teams' creativity. Second, my dissertation can help sensitize managers to the fact that team members' positive affective, motivational, and behavioral experiences in teams are critical factors to increase team creativity. The potential importance of these emergent states suggests that leaders' behaviors alone are unlikely to be sufficient for assisting teams in reaching creative performance goals.
Overview of Chapters This dissertation proceeds as follows. In the next chapter (Chapter 2) I review the literature that has guided the hypotheses I will test whose visual summary is shown in Figure 1. In Chapter 3, I describe the method I have used to test my hypotheses, including the measures used to assess variables in the theoretical model in Figure 1, tests to verify that aggregating members' perceptions is conceptually and empirically warranted, and model-related tests whose purpose is to ensure that my
10
theoretical model is valid for testing. In Chapter 4 I describe the results of modelrelated tests and the dissertation study's findings; and in Chapter 5 I identify key conclusions that are guided by my dissertation's findings, limitations of this dissertation and implications for future research needs, and implications for managers as well as management scholars interested in enhancing team creativity.
11
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESES
In this chapter I review literature guiding the theoretical model that this dissertation tests, shown in Figure 1. More specifically, I start by reviewing literature leading me to posit that the most proximal variables to team creativity are team process-related behaviors associated with the extent to which members share information with each other and/or span boundaries, called "information-sharing" and "boundary-spanning," respectively. An example of information-sharing in teams is exchanging unique ideas and solutions to finish their project. Consistent with this, De Dreu (2007) describes information-sharing in teams to consist of behaviors such as sharing work-related issues with other members and exchange new and unique perspective and opinions with other members. An example of boundary-spanning in teams is meeting potential customers and understanding their needs, as well as negotiating project deadline with employees of other teams or organization. Consistent with this, Ancona and Caldwell (1992) describe boundary-spanning in teams to consist of behaviors such as understanding the external context, taskcoordinating, persuading external stakeholders, and protecting the teams. Since people's behaviors are influenced by people's affective states (cf. Frijda, 1986; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) and motivational states (cf. Locke & Latham, 1990; Vroom, 1964), and affective and motivational states in teams are often emergent in nature (cf. Chen & Kanfer, 2006; Kelly & Barsade, 2001), my hypothesizing next takes me to the emergent states in teams likely to influence the extent to which members will behave in information-sharing and/or boundary-spanning ways.
12
Specifically, I will review literature leading me to hypothesize that information sharing and boundary-spanning are each more likely to occur when team members experience higher levels of positive team affect (or feelings of being excited, strong, enthusiastic, and proud, cf. George, 1996; Barsade, 2002) and team empowerment (or believing in team's capability to accomplish goals, importance of their tasks, and team's ability to set the goals and determine work procedures, cf., Kirkman & Rosen, 1999). Cumulatively, at this point my initial set of hypotheses suggest that teams characterized by the emergent states of greater positive affect and empowerment will probably be more creative due to the greater likelihood of information-sharing and boundary-spanning that ought to occur in such teams. As a result, my hypothesizing next leads me to identify the team process behaviors as mediators of the emergent states' likely effect on team creativity. A key question that emerges at this point is what enables some teams, perhaps more than other teams, to experience emergent states associated with higher levels of positive affect and empowerment? I will hypothesize that team leader-behaviors (i.e., those relating to transformational leadership, empowering leadership, and boundaryspanning) trigger these emergent states; importantly, however, this is likely only if the teams' members have significant interaction with their leader, which may not always be the case. As a result, although I expect leader behaviors to potentially influence team creativity, I view these as less proximal than the teams' emergent states or team process-behaviors, hence potentially less influential. This is especially true in teams that feel highly empowered since such teams are, by definition, "self-managing" and
13
thereby less dependent on leaders to set goals and/or make decisions (cf., Kirkman & Rosen, 1999). My reason for presenting hypotheses about leader-influences last in my dissertation thus reflects my expectation that leader-influences may be less proximal in influencing team creativity relative to the influence that will probably be shown for team processes (teams' level of information-sharing and empowerment) and team emergent states (i.e., teams' degree of positive affect and empowerment). One leadership behavior that I conceptually treat differently than the others pertains to the leader's degree of boundary-spanning behavior. This is because boundary-spanning, unlike the other leader-behaviors, pertains to leaders' interacting with outsiders of the team for the purposes of obtaining resources that their team may need. The variable of "organizational support for creativity," shown in Figure 1, regards support from others in the organization—hence outsiders. If leaders have been successful at boundary-spanning, then they ought to gain more organizational support for creativity which, in turn, ought to help their teams to indeed be creative. Next, I provide the literature reviews leading me to the hypotheses described above, each in turn.
Team Process-Related Behaviors Likely to Influence Team Creativity There are two team process-related behaviors that I posit are likely to increase teams' creativity: (1) the extent to which team members experience informationsharing in the team, and (2) the extent to which team members experience boundaryspanning behaviors among its members. My reasons for expecting each of these positive relationships are reviewed next, each in turn.
14
The Likely Positive Effect of Information-Sharing on Team Creativity. Team information sharing, or information exchange among team members, involves conscious and deliberate attempts on the part of team members to exchange workrelated information, keep one another appraised of activities, and inform one another of key developments (Bunderson & Sutcliffe, 2002; Stasser & Titus, 1987), such as "informing other members about work-related issues," and "getting new fact, insights, and ideas from others" (De Dreu, 2007). Past studies on team creativity have found that higher levels of information sharing among team members tends to be significantly positively associated with teams' creativity (e.g., Hargadon & Bechky, 2006; Rhee, 2006). The types of "information sharing behaviors" that past studies have linked to greater team creativity include, in the case of Hargadon and Bechky (2006), the following actions: (1) active search of the assistance of others (i.e., helpseeking), (2) devotion of time and attention to assisting others (i.e., help-giving), (3) respectful attention to, and building upon, the comments and actions of others (i.e., reflective reframing), (and 4) active support of these behaviors (i.e., reinforcing). Similarly, the information-sharing actions examined by Rhee (2006) include: moralebuilding communication (e.g., exchanging positive and encouraging comments with other team members), active affirmation (e.g., support for other members' ideas and opinions), and building on ideas (e.g., developing and expanding others' original ideas). These actions thus seem to encompass interpersonal supportiveness with regard to how information is, both, given and received. The positive linkage that these information-sharing behaviors have with team creativity is therefore consistent with the tendency for employees to be more willing to share ideas, even expressions
15
of concern, in environments that they perceive as receptive, or safe (cf. Dutton & Ashford, 1993). Another reason why I expect teams with more information-sharing to be more creative is due to the information-specific benefits that scholars have linked to the availability of greater (presumably non-redundant) levels of information sharing in teams, and the fact that these information-related benefits (listed next) have each been identified as necessities of creativity (Amabile, 1996; Torrance, 1988). Specifically, in the presence of more rather than less information, numerous scholars have theorized that team members ought to be better able to: identify different aspects of their tasks including potential problems and issues, broaden the available job-related knowledge and skills by their team members' understanding of others' expertise, and be exposed to diverse perspectives that may then, with the supportiveness associated with information-sharing behaviors, be integrated (e.g., Donnellon, Gray, & Bougon, 1986; Liang, Moreland, & Argote, 1995; Mathieu, Heffner, Goodwin, Salas, & Cannon-Bowers, 2000). The informational benefits of information-sharing, coupled with the interpersonal sensitivity associated with descriptions of this construct, thus lead me to predict:
Hypothesis 1: Teams' engagement in team information sharing is positively associated with the degree to which teams are creative, as illustrated by Arrow A in Figure 1.
The Likely Positive Effect of Team Boundary-Spanning on Team Creativity. Team boundary-spanning is defined as the activities that a team engages in to
16
establish and maintain relationships and interactions with external actors (i.e., customers or potential customers, members of other teams or departmental or divisional areas in the organization whose knowledge, skills, and/or authority may be needed) that enable the team to meet its overall goals (Ancona & Caldwell, 1992; Faraj & Yan, 2009; Joshi, Pandey, & Han, 2009; Marrone, Tesluk, & Carson, 2007), such as "exporting information and/or resources to outsiders" to persuade external actors to support the team (i.e., "ambassador" activities; Ancona & Caldwell, 1988, p.475), "bringing information and/or resources need by the team in across the boundary" (i.e., "scout" activities; Ancona & Caldwell, 1988, p.472), and "policing the boundary by controlling the information and resources that external agents want to send into the group" to protect the team against uncertainties and disturbances from competing external demands (i.e., "sentry" activities; Ancona & Caldwell, 1988, p.477). More specifically, ambassador activities involve building formal and/or informal channel to communicate with outsiders ("building channels"), informing other groups about the team's progress ("informing"), resolving the issues of interdependent schedules ("coordinating"), and shaping the beliefs and behaviors of outsiders to support the team ("molding") (Ancona & Caldwell, 1988, 1992). Activities such as presenting the team's accomplishments to upper level management, persuading others to support the team, and seeking information regarding the political and strategic terrain of the organization constitute ambassadorial activities (Ancona & Caldwell, 1992). Scout activities involve mapping or understanding the characteristics of external environment ("modeling"; e.g., "who supports us and who
17
doesn't?," "what do people want us to do?"), gathering information and/or equipment for task-related issues ("gathering information and resources"), seeking information about events that might occur and might have relevance to the group ("scanning"), and collecting other groups' perceptions of the team's progress, product, members, or functioning ("feedback seeking") (Ancona & Caldwell, 1988, 1992). Sentry activities involve translating outsider's message into words that members would understand and accept ("translating"), and taking information from outsiders and delivering a smaller amount to the group ("filtering") (Ancona & Caldwell, 1988, 1992). Numerous studies have demonstrated that positive team outcomes tend to occur when team members engage in boundary-spanning, such as high team performance (Marrone, Tesluk, & Carson, 2007; Hirst & Mann, 2004; Tushman & Katz, 1980), and high team viability (Marrone et al., 2007; Ancona & Caldwell, 1992; Katz & Tushman, 1983). For two reasons, I expect the outcome of team creativity to also be greater in such teams. First, there is empirical support for greater team creativity to occur in teams whose members engage in more boundary-spanning. Specifically, in their case study of video game-developing teams, Cohendet and Simon (2007) qualitatively observed greater creativity (indicated by reviews by the critiques and customers as well as the degree of commercial success) in teams whose members more rather than less frequently engaged in boundary-spanning behaviors, such as interactions with local community, communication with customers and critics, and participation in professional associations. Similarly, in studies by Ancona and Caldwell (1992) of new product development teams and by Hülsheger and colleagues (2009) of numerous types of teams in their meta-analysis, a higher quality of team
18
innovation (indicated by measures of quality of technical innovation as well as adherence to budget and schedule) was generally found in teams whose members had engaged in more rather than fewer boundary-spanning behaviors, such as persuading external stakeholders (i.e., upper management team members, other teams at comparable or lower levels in the organization) to support the team and provide the team with resources as well as protecting the team from outside interference. The latter findings document that team members' boundary-spanning positively influence team creativity but do not explain why. My reason for expecting this positive relationship is that team members who engage in boundary-spanning behaviors are able to inform outsiders, who may be potential) customers, about their team's progress and outcomes, and thereby shape outsiders' beliefs and behaviors toward the team (e.g., Ancona & Caldwell, 1992; Woodman et al., 1993). If the beliefs and/or behaviors that boundary-spanning team members shape include the appropriateness of giving the team requested resources, then members who achieve this ought to have the support that is needed to be creative (e.g., Perry-Smith & Shalley, 2003). Additionally, if the beliefs and/or behaviors that boundary-spanning team members shape the usefulness of the product and idea they develop, then members who achieve this ought to be considered creative (cf. Csikszentmihalyi, 1996, 1999). Thus, I predict:
19
Hypothesis 2: Teams' engagement in team boundary-spanning is positively associated with the degree to which teams are creative, as illustrated by Arrow B in Figure 1.
Two Emergent States Likely to Influence Team Creativity There are two team emergent states that seem likely to increase the extent to which teams will experience the creativity-enhancing behaviors just described in the previous section-- namely: (1) the extent to which team members experience positive affectivity in the team, hereafter called "positive group affective tone" (cf. George, 1996); and (2) the extent to which members experience empowerment as a team. My reasons for expecting each of these positive relationships are reviewed next, each in turn. Why Might Group Positive Affective Tone Increase Creativity-Enhancing Behaviors in Teams? People's behaviors are influenced by people's affective states (cf. Frijda, 1986; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984); it is thus not surprising that the extent to which creativity-enhancing behaviors occurs in teams is influenced by the extent to which members of the team feel a shared degree of team-affect. But why might information-sharing and boundary-spanning behaviors, in particular, be more likely to occur in teams with more (rather than less) group positive affective tone? Next, I review literature that guides my expectation for these positive relationships to occur, each in turn. The Likely Effect of Positive Group Affective Tone on Team InformationSharing. For two reasons, I expect a higher frequency of information-sharing to occur
20
in teams with higher rather than lower levels of positive group affective tone. First, greater levels of proactivity (cf. Crant, 2000), including more information-related giving and seeking in particular, have been found to occur among individuals and in teams who feel higher levels of positive affect (Barsade, 2002; Fredrickson & Joiner, 2002; George, 1991; Rhee, 2006). For example, George (1991) found that positive affective experiences in salespeople led to greater information sharing behaviors with customers, such as "informing a customer of the important features of an item." While this description may seem like individual-level phenomena, team members tend to reciprocate the behaviors they see others in their team engaging in (cf. Seers, 1989); and therefore, when a positively affected team member behaves proactively, for example, by sharing information, this is likely to become a team norm, hence a team-level information sharing phenomenon. My second reason for expecting more information-sharing to occur in teams with a positive group affective tone, is that previous studies have found that when team members share similar affective experiences or reactions with other members, they are more rather than less likely to feel attached to the other members (George, 1995; Walter & Bruch, 2008), and thus, to engage in cooperative behaviors like sharing information and knowledge more rather than less frequently (e.g., Barsade, Ward, Turner, & Sonnenfeld, 2000; Reagans & McEvily, 2003). For example, Barsade and colleagues (2000) found that, when team members experienced different emotions, their level of cooperation tended to be less. Importantly, the logic here suggests that any shared affective state, hence even a negative one, will probably increase team members' attachment to each other, hence likelihood to engage in
21
cooperative (e.g., information-sharing) behavior. However, since idea-sharing is generally greater in situations that communicators perceive as "safe" (Alge, Ballinger, Tangirala, & Oakley, 2006; Dutton & Ashford, 1993), it is likely that the nature of shared team-affect that will lead to increased levels of information-sharing will be positive in nature. Thus, I predict:
Hypothesis 3: Teams' degree of group positive affective tone is positively associated with the frequency of information-sharing behaviors in the team, as illustrated by Arrow C in Figure 1.
The Likely Effect of Positive Group Affective Tone on Team BoundarySpanning. Why might teams with higher levels of positive group affective tone engage in more frequent team boundary-spanning behaviors? In short, similar to the case of team information sharing behaviors, I believe this is because team boundaryspanning behaviors are proactive in nature. As explained above, greater levels of proactivity have been found among individuals who feel higher levels of positive affect (e.g., Fredrickson & Joiner, 2002; George, 1991), and team members' proactive (and thus desirable, cf. Crant, 2000) behaviors tend to be copied and replicated by other team members through vicarious learning or modeling (e.g., Bandura, 1987) and via role-making among team members or team-member exchange (e.g., Seers, 1989). More specifically, Bandura (1997) theorized that people can replicate others' behaviors when they can see the others' behaviors and when they believe those behaviors are relevant and desirable. With regard to "seeing" other team members'
22
behaviors, this is likely given the typically interdependent nature of teams that, in turn, usually means that team members need to interact or coordinate with each other with a nontrivial frequency. With regard to believing that proactive behaviors, such as boundary-spanning, are desirable in teams, this is likely since boundary-spanning behaviors typically ease teams' ability to obtain needed resources from people outside the team (cf. Ancona & Caldwell, 1992). Another reason why teams with higher levels of positive group affective tone are likely to engage in more frequent team boundary-spanning behaviors is because the recent broaden-and-build theory of positive affective experiences suggests that positive affective experiences broaden actors' scope of attention and action, as well as build enduring physical, social, and psychological resources (Fredrickson, 1998, 2001). Consistent with this theory, Fredrickson and Joiner (2002) showed that individuals experiencing positive affect dealt with a problem using a wider range of perspectives and potential courses of actions such as thinking of different ways to deal with the problem or approaching to others and getting different perspectives from their owns in solving the problem (i.e., gathering information and resources, scanning). Also, because individuals with positive affective experiences are more rather than less likely to engage in cooperative behaviors (e.g., Barsade, 2002), and cooperative behaviors may help them to build friendships, they may develop relationships with others and influence their perception more rather than less easily (i.e., building channels, molding). Therefore, through modeling and team-member exchange, when team members experience positive affect more frequently, they may engage in higher levels of team boundary-spanning behaviors. Thus, I predict:
23
Hypothesis 4: Teams' degree of group positive affective tone is positively associated with the frequency of boundary-spanning behaviors in the team, as illustrated by Arrow D in Figure 1.
Why Might Team Empowerment Increase Creativity-Enhancing Behaviors in Teams? People's behaviors are influenced by the extent to which they feel confident about their abilities to do things and, relatedly, confident that others will respond positively to what they do— that is, by their motivational states (cf. Locke & Latham, 1990; Vroom, 1964). Since the extent to which people feel confident in their abilities is a key aspect of feeling empowered (cf. Kirkman & Rosen, 1999), it is natural that teams who feel greater confidence in their creativity-related abilities, or empowered to act creatively, will more frequently engage in creativity-enhancing behaviors. But why might information-sharing and boundary-spanning behaviors, in particular, be more likely to occur in teams with more (rather than less) team empowerment? Next, I review literature that guides my expectations for these positive relationships, each in turn. The Likely Effect of Team Empowerment on Team Information-Sharing. Why might information sharing be greater in teams with higher levels of team empowerment? This is because when team members believe they can positively influence positively their organization, they are more rather than less likely to speak up, or "voice" in general (e.g., Dailey & Morgan, 1978; Hansen, 1999; Jackson & King, 1983), and even be more likely to express concerns that they have, termed
24
"issue-selling" (Ashford & Dutton, 1993). Employees who believe that they can "make a difference" in their organization—that is, have impact—are characterized as feeling "empowered" (Spreitzer, 1995). As such, team members who perceive their team as highly empowered are also more likely to speak up, or share information with each other. Additionally, information sharing is a form of proactive behavior (cf., Crant 2000); and more empowered employees typically behave more proactively (cf. Kirkman & Rosen, 1999). Cumulatively, these reasons lead me to predict:
Hypothesis 5: Teams' degree of team empowerment is positively associated with the frequency of information-sharing behaviors in the team, as illustrated by Arrow E in Figure 1.
The Likely Effect of Team Empowerment on Team Boundary-Spanning. My reason for expecting a higher frequency of boundary-spanning in teams with higher rather than lower levels of team empowerment is, again, due to the fact that boundary-spanning (since it includes help-seeking) is proactive behavior (cf. Crant, 2000); and as just noted, more empowered employees tend to behave more proactively. Consistent with my thinking, building channels to outsiders and persuading them to support the team, collecting information and resources needed by the team and bringing them to the team have been found to occur among teams that experience higher levels of empowerment (Kirkman, Rosen, Tesluk, & Gibson, 2004; Marrone, Tesluk, & Carson, 2007). More specifically, Marrone and colleagues (2007) found that when team members felt more confident (especially in boundary-spanning behaviors), they tended to more frequently engage in boundary-spanning behaviors. 25
Similarly, although they did not empirically assess teams' boundary-spanning behaviors, Kirkman et al. (2004) found that empowered teams tended to have higher levels of process improvement, and they speculated that this was due to the more empowered teams having a greater amount of actions relating to members integrating with other teams inside and outside organization, and influencing organization-level strategy and direction. Thus, I predict:
Hypothesis 6: Teams' degree of team empowerment is positively associated with the frequency of boundary-spanning behaviors in the team, as illustrated by Arrow F in Figure 1.
Do Team Process-Behaviors Mediate Team Emergent State-Effects on Team Creativity? In summary, my hypothesizing to this point suggests that greater team creativity will occur in teams with a higher frequency of team process-behaviors associated with information-sharing and boundary-spanning, and that each of the latter behaviors will probably be more frequent in teams that have higher levels of positive group affective tone and team empowerment. This suggests, then, that teams with a more positive group affective tone and team empowerment will be more creative, and that the latter relationships are mediated by such teams' greater level of information sharing- and boundary spanning-behaviors. I know of no studies that have tested the mediation relationship I have just posited. However, empirical evidence exists to support a direct positive relationship between teams' level of
26
empowerment and their degree of process improvement, hence creativity (cf. Kirkman et al., 2004), as noted above; and to support a direct positive relationship between groups' level of positive affect and their degree of creativity. With regard to the latter relationship, in two laboratory studies involving undergraduate students, Grawitch, Munz, and Kramer (2003) and then later Grawitch, Munz, Elliott, and Mathis (2003) found that the teams who reported stronger levels of positive affect tended to produce more creative outcomes, as judged by independent raters of students' ideas relating to the design of a building in the first study and to ways to improve the quality of student life in the second study. And my theorizing in the previous section suggests that the reason why teams' positive affect and team empowerment influences creativity is because each of these emergent states evoke creativity-enhancing team process behaviors. Thus, I predict:
Hypothesis 7: Teams' degree of group positive affective tone is positively associated with their degree of team creativity due to two mediating processes: (1) the tendency for more positively affected teams' tendency to engage in more frequent information-sharing behaviors (represented in Figure 1 via arrows A and C); and (2) the tendency for more positively affected teams' tendency to engage in more frequent boundary-spanning behaviors (represented in Figure 1 via arrows B and D).
Hypothesis 8: Teams' degree of team empowerment is positively associated with their degree of team creativity due to two mediating processes: (1) the
27
tendency for more positively affected teams' tendency to engage in more frequent information-sharing behaviors (represented in Figure 1 via arrows A and E); and (2) the tendency for more positively affected teams' tendency to engage in more frequent boundary spanning behaviors (represented in Figure 1 via arrows B and F).
It is because one of my dissertation's primary aims is to illuminate understanding about why and how team emergent-states and team processes lead to high levels of team creativity that I have chosen to isolate the latter two mediating relationships from other possible mediating relationships in my theoretical model (e.g., team leader behaviors to team emergent states to team processes). As I note in my final chapter, future research is needed to examine a host of other possible mediating relationships that my model suggests may influence team creativity.
Possible Antecedents to Team Emergent States that Influence Team Creativity Until now my theorizing has pertained solely to the actions of team members (e.g., their degree of information-sharing and boundary-spanning) or to the affective states of team members (e.g., their degree of positive affect and their degree of empowerment) that may influence teams' level of creativity. But how do these emergent states, and ultimately team process-behaviors associated with them, come to be? Might teams' leaders influence this? In this section I review literature guiding hypotheses about the effect of team leader-behaviors (i.e., those relating to transformational leadership, empowering
28
leadership, and boundary-spanning) on the emergent states that team members have. I begin by reviewing what is known about the effects of transformational leadership on team emergent states. The Likely Effect of Transformational Leadership on Team Emergent States. How might team leaders' transformational leadership behaviors influence the positivity of teams' affective state? For two reasons I posit that transformational behaviors will increase teams' positivity. My first reason pertains to previous findings of the positive linkage between transformationl leadership behaviors and individual members' positive affective experiences (e.g., Bono, Foldes, Vinson, & Muros, 2007; Cherulnik, Donley, Wiewel, & Miller, 2001). My reason for positing that transformational leadership may similarly positively affect a team's level of positive affectivity is due to the tendency for individual team members to observe other members' public display of affect and, thereby, for individuals' public affective displays to transmit affective experiences to other team members through mood contagion or mechanisms that induce congruent affective states (Hatfield, Cacioppo, & Raptson, 1993; Kelly & Barsade, 2001); ultimately, this social influence of positive affectivity is thus likely to lead to team members' sharing a positive group affective tone (see Barsade, 2002; Sy, Côté, & Saavedra, 2005 for empirical support). My second reason for positing that transformational leadership may positively affect a team's level of positive affectivity is guided by Bono and Ilies's (2006) finding that leaders who engage in more transformational behaviors tend to use more positive affect words (e.g., good, happy) in their written and verbal communications, and thus, tend to have more positive affective experiences. Again, such positive affect, in turn,
29
tends to influence team members' affective experiences in congruent ways (Sy, Côté, & Saavedra, 2005) because team members tend to mimic people's facial expressions, movements, and posture (i.e., mood contagion, cf. Hatfield, Cacioppo, & Rapson, 1994). Indeed, George (1996) suggests that leader's positive affective experiences lead to positive group affective tone. Thus, based on the two reasons above, I predict:
Hypothesis 9: Leaders' degree of transformational leadership behaviors is positively associated with the degree to which teams have a positive affective tone, as illustrated by Arrow G in Figure 1.
Might team leaders' transformational leadership behaviors also influence the extent to which team members feel empowered as a team? For three reasons, this seems likely. First, transformational leaders tend to give followers "idealized influence." When leaders do this, they tend to more frequently express confidence in teams' collective efforts and provide positive feedback to followers. This type of behavior has been shown to enhance the levels of team members' efficacy beliefs (Dvir, Eden, Avolio, & Sharmir, 2002; Kark, Shamir, & Chen, 2003), which is an integral part of descriptions of feeling empowered (Kirkman & Rosen, 1999; Spreitzer, 1995). A second reason why I expect team empowerment to be higher when team leaders engage in more rather than fewer transformational behaviors pertains to Bass's (1985) theorizing that leaders who engage in more transformational behaviors tend to more frequently provide the importance and significance of the tasks (i.e.,
30
idealized influence), which, in turn, may increase team members' beliefs in their responsibility and task-significance. A third reason is because leaders who engage in more transformational behaviors tend to more frequently provide team members opportunity to discover new ideas and experiment new approaches (i.e., intellectual stimulation), which, in turn, may increase team members' beliefs in their autonomy. For example, team members whose leaders are encouraging them to reformulate problems, be imaginative, and/or to experiment with new ways of solving problems seem likely to believe that they have substantial freedom, independence, and discretion in their work. Cumulatively, given team members' beliefs in efficacy in teams, tasksignificance or meaningfulness, and autonomy are led by transformational behaviors, and they are the components of team empowerment (Kirkman & Rosen, 1999), I predict:
Hypothesis10: Leaders' degree of transformational leadership behaviors is positively associated with the degree to which teams feel empowered, as illustrated by Arrow H in Figure 1.
The Likely Effect of Empowering Leadership on Team Emergent States. How might team leaders' empowering leadership behaviors influence the positivity of teams' affective state? Guided by theorizing and empirical findings regarding the effects of empowering leadership, it is likely that leaders who are more (rather than less) empowering will lead team members to believe in their tasks' importance and
31
meaningfulness, their capability and efficacy, and their freedom to choose their own goals and generate solutions when facing problems (e.g., Kirkman & Rosen, 1999; Manz & Sims, 1987; Oldham & Cummings, 1996). These types of beliefs have previously been found to be significantly associated with feeling: interested, excited, proud, and determined (e.g., Deci & Ryan, 1987; McAuley & Courneya, 1992; Smith & Ellsworth, 1987); and all of these feelings have been identified as examples of positive affect (Barrett & Russell, 1998; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988). Thus, I expect that when team leaders engage in more rather than fewer empowering behaviors, team members may have more rather than less positive affective experiences in teams. Therefore:
Hypothesis 11: Leaders' degree of empowering leadership behaviors is positively associated with the degree to which teams feel positive group affective tone, as illustrated by Arrow I in Figure 1.
Might team leaders' empowering leadership behaviors also influence the extent to which team members feel empowered as a team? The findings of past studies suggest that this is indeed likely. More specifically, when leaders engage in more empowering behaviors (e.g., delegating responsibilities, asking for employee input, enhancing personal control), team members are more likely to feel: (1) a higher level of meaning in their work (Hackman, 1987) and (2) a higher level of autonomy and choice in their work (Thomas & Velthouse, 1990) - both of these feelings being used in descriptions of empowerment at the individual-level (cf. Spreitzer, 1995) and
32
team-level (Kirkman & Rosen, 1999). Additionally, it has been found that, when leaders engage in seeking team member's input in decision making, members tend to expand their knowledge, learn from each other, and acquire new skills (Srivastava, Bartol, & Locke, 2006), all of which are likely to enhance feelings of confidence as a team, hence team empowerment. Thus, I predict:
Hypothesis 12: Leaders' degree of empowering leadership behaviors is positively associated with the degree to which teams feel empowered, as illustrated by Arrow J in Figure 1.
The Likely Effect of Leader's Boundary-Spanning Behaviors on Team Emergent States. How might team leaders' boundary-spanning behaviors influence team emergent states? For several reasons I posit that these behaviors will increase teams' sense of empowerment. First, leaders who engage in more boundary-spanning behaviors tend to engage in behaviors that protect their teams from feeling threatened or overwhelmed (e.g., "protecting the team from outside interference," "absorbing outside pressure for the team so it can work free of interference," cf. Ancona & Caldwell, 1992). Typically, people feel a greater sense of efficacy when they feel that the task they are handling is "manageable," hence not too overwhelming. Therefore, greater efficacy (which is a key ingredient of empowerment, cf. Spreitzer, 1995) ought to be felt by those whose leaders engage in boundary-spanning behaviors. Consistent with this, studies in the stress literature consistently demonstrate that employees tend to express higher levels of efficacy (for various tasks) when their
33
stress level is low (e.g., Major, Richards, Cooper, Cozzarelli, & Zubek, 1998; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Furthermore, Jex and Thomas (2003) found that teams with higher levels of job stressors (e.g., average number of hours spent working per day, role overload, work-family conflict, interpersonal conflict) developed lower degree of team efficacy beliefs. A second reason why I expect team empowerment to be higher when team leaders engage in more rather than fewer boundary-spanning behaviors pertains to Ancona and Caldwell's (1992) theorizing that team leaders who engage more boundary-spanning behaviors tend to more frequently attempt to influence the external environment and shape the beliefs and behaviors of outsiders, through behaviors such as persuading outsiders that the team's activities are important, talking up their teams to outsiders, and persuading outsiders to support their team's products. Through these behaviors, team members can receive more rather than less positive feedback about their products (e.g., creative ideas) from outsiders, which can influence their efficacy beliefs by being considered as a mastery experience (Bandura & Cervone, 1986). Consistent with this, Gist and Mitchell (1992) theorized that supportive task environment should enhance efficacy beliefs. A third reason why I expect team creative empowerment to be higher when team leaders engage in more rather than fewer ambassadorial behaviors pertains to Ancona and Caldwell's (1992) theorizing that team leaders who engage more boundary-spanning behaviors tend to more frequently attempt to construct a picture of the external environment, including predicting future trouble spots or potential allies, through behaviors such as attempting to answer questions such as who supports
34
their teams and who doesn't, and what outsiders want their teams to do. Through these behaviors, team members can find out the needs of outsiders, and become aware of the external demands toward themselves, which result in increase of their understanding of meaning and significance of their works. Cumulatively, the theorizing and related findings reviewed above lead me to predict:
Hypothesis 13: Leaders' degree of boundary-spanning behaviors is positively associated with the degree to which teams feel empowered, as illustrated by Arrow K in Figure 1.
The Likely Effect of Organizational Support for Creativity on Team Creativity Until now, my theorizing has assumed that team creativity is influenced by the affective and motivational states and actions of team members and/or actions of team leaders. However, team's level of creativity may be influenced by other factors, like organizational support for team creativity (e.g., Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby, & Herron, 1996; Scott & Bruce, 1994). For this reason, my model shows a direct relationship between organizational support for team creativity and teams' level of creativity. Indirect support is found from studies examining individual-level creativity (e.g., Amabile et al., 1996; Scott & Bruce, 1994; Zhou & George, 2001). For example, Scott and Bruce (1994) theorized and found that individual employees are generally more creative when they perceive that creativity is more (rather than less) valued and supported by an organization, presumably because more supportive organizations are less likely to cause employees concern about the potential risks
35
associated with creativity (e.g., unsuccessful attempts to insert changes and new approaches into an existing system). When team members perceive the degrees of organizational support for their team's creativity in a similar way, and thus their perceptions about the policies, practices, and procedures that their organization have about creative ideas and products are shared with each other, they might develop a unique team-level cognition of how much a creative team as a whole is supported and desired by the organization (cf., Li, Liang, & Crant, 2010; Naumann & Bennett, 2000). This teamlevel cognition, or team climate of organizational support for team creativity, might be related to team members' collective attitudes and behaviors, thus related to the levels of team creativity. Therefore, I predict:
Hypothesis 14: The extent to which team members perceive organizational support for team creativity to be high is positively associated with the degree to which teams are creative, as illustrated by Arrow L in Figure 1.
Do Team Leader Behaviors Influence Organizational Support for Team Creativity? Generally, organizational support for team creativity is assumed to be determined by factors at organization-level (cf. Amabile et al., 1996; Woodman et al.1993). However, I expect a certain action of team leaders— namely, boundaryspanning actions— may increase the level of organizational support that their teams receive.
36
Why might team leaders' engagement in more rather than fewer boundaryspanning behaviors lead to higher rather than lower levels of organizational support for team creativity? It might be because, as explained above, leaders' boundaryspanning behaviors include persuading external stakeholders, including upper management and other teams at comparable or lower levels in the organization, to support the team so to protect the team from outside interference (i.e., ambassador behaviors) and providing the team with resources and/or equipment as well as protecting the team from outside interference (i.e., scout behaviors; cf. Ancona & Caldwell, 1992). Additionally, my expectation of the positive relationship between leaders' boundary-spanning behaviors and organizational support for team creativity is because of the finding that leaders who span boundaries more frequently tend to obtain high levels of power in the organization (e.g., Floyd & Wooldridge, 1997), which may result in the leaders' and their teams' receiving more respects, rewards, and recognition from the organization. Thus, I predict:
Hypothesis 15: Leaders' degree of boundary-spanning behaviors is positively associated with the degree to which teams are creative, as illustrated by Arrow M in Figure 1.
In the next chapter, I describe the sample, procedure, and measures I used to test my hypotheses.
37
CHAPTER 3: METHODS
Research Setting and Sample Consistent with previous studies on team creativity (e.g., Pirola-Merlo & Mann, 2004; Shin & Zhou, 2007), survey data was collected from ongoing research and development (R&D) teams who fit selection criteria (described subsequently) and were part of a Fortune 100 multinational company within the telecommunication industry, and whose plant locations were in the United States (U.S.) and Korea. Although this multinational company has plant locations elsewhere in the world, the U.S. and Korea were identified by senior HR managers in this company as their largest; neither alone, however, was large enough to be my only source of datacollection. Because the plants are located in different countries, I took care to create surveys for the U.S. and Korea in English and Korean, respectively; and to engage in actions assuring each survey's meaning-equivalence (as described in the "General Procedure" section below). Additionally, as shown in the "Measures section" later in this chapter, I took care to include questions in the survey that assess participants' "collectivism" and "power distance," which are cultural values that have previously been found to distinguish Asians and U.S. Americans (cf., Hofstede, 1980; Kirkman & Shapiro, 2001). Importantly, as I explain in "Analytic Strategy" later in this chapter, the Korean and U.S. American participants did not significantly differ from each other on these cultural values; as a result, there was no need to statistically control for these when testing hypotheses. At the team-level, I also found an aggregate level of "psychological collectivism" (Jackson, Colquitt, Wesson, & 38
Zapata-Phelan, 2006) to not significantly differ across the U.S. versus Korean R&D teams. The teams I accessed fit the following selection criteria: (1) the teams were engaged in R&D tasks, hence in tasks requiring creativity; (2) the R&D team on which employees were members had functioned as a team for at least three weeks prior to the launch-date of this study's survey; (3) the R&D team had no more than two formally-assigned leaders; and (4) the R&D team-size was at least 2 members (the senior HR managers said the average R&D team size in their company was 2-3 members). This description of team-size was verifiable in the U.S., but not in the Korean, plant location. This is because a full listing of R&D team members was provided to me by the HR manager in the U.S. location only (whose average teamsize was 2.7); in contrast, in Korea, the HR manager was willing only to provide me the names of three R&D team members per team leader. This is one of the limitations of this study that I identify in Chapter 5. With regard to the type of R&D tasks that the teams in my study were engaged in, half of the teams were engaged in either applied or mission-oriented research and slightly less than half were engaged in new product or process development— activities that are similar to descriptions of previously-studied R&D teams (e.g., Keller, 1992, 2006). With regard to the stability of the teams participating in my study, the average team tenure of the team leaders and team members were 42.94 months and 33.83 months, respectively, which is also similar to characteristics of previously-studied R&D teams (e.g., Keller, 1992). On the other hand, there was high variability regarding team-tenure of the team leaders and team members participating in my study, evidenced by high standard deviations in team leaders' and
39
team members' tenure (seen in Table 3, which shows the demographic characteristics comprising this dissertation's sample). This variability, however, characterized the R&D teams in both plant-locations.Therefore, I controlled for team members' tenure diversity when testing my hypotheses (see "Control Variables" in Chapter 3). -----------------------------------Insert Table 3 about here -----------------------------------One difference between the R&D teams in the Korean versus U.S.-plant locations was observed. Specifically, I found that the average number of team members responding to the study surveys was slightly larger in South Korea than in the U.S. plant-location (3 versus 2.35 members per team in these two locations, respectively). However, I found similarities in teams in both locations, in that all teams had only one leader, they had been functioning for at least three weeks, they had at least two members, and they were involved in similar functions (i.e., research and development). Thus, the qualities of this sample enabled me to study employees involved in team-tasks requiring creativity in teams, and to study team leader behavior as well as team-processes that may contribute to the creativity of teamoutcomes. To gain access to these R&D teams, the following actions were taken. First, helped by my ability to speak Korean and via a personal introduction to a senior Korean HR manager at this company, I was able to meet with one of this company's senior managers and explain in Korean this study's purpose and its potential benefits to participating companies. More specifically, I explained that the overriding purpose
40
was to improve understanding about how creativity occurs in teams, that conducting the survey required little administration on the part of the company since I would be using web-based surveys and managing the website myself, and that the benefits of participating included the receipt of an "executive report" whose content would describe the study's key findings in aggregated ways that would protect all participants' identity. This initial conversation led to others with more senior managers at this company, and ultimately to the company's senior management agreeing to let me email web-based surveys to its employees once I signed documents stating that this study's findings, in any form (including future publications), would never state the identity of the company or its participants. Additionally, an HR manager of this company supplied me with a list of members' email addresses (of those belonging to teams matching criteria for selection, as described above) so that I could email them web-based surveys. Although I had hoped to also receive a list of R&D team assignments, this was deemed infeasible by the managers in the Korea location who instead provided me with the names of three employees per R&D team leader. As promised, the senior managers sent a "call" out for participation to teams fitting the four characteristics in both of these centers-locations (to 100 teams in 5 divisions in South Korea and to 22 teams in 2 divisions in the U.S.). In South Korea positive replies were received from 40 teams from 5 divisions, reflecting a team response-rate of 40%; and in the U.S. positive replies were received from all teams, reflecting a team response-rate of 100%. I created a list of contact information for these study-volunteers, being careful to note which participants belonged to which
41
teams, and who each team's leaders were. For the South Korean-centered participants, this list consisted of 40 teams - 40 team leaders and 120 team members (an average of 3 members per team). For the U.S. centered participants, this list consisted of 22 teams - 22 team leaders, and 51 team members (an average of 2.32 members per team). The cumulative number of study volunteers in this study (across the two locations) was 62 team leaders (one leader per team) and 171 team members in 7 divisions. As I explain in the "General Procedure" section below, the initial sample of 62 teams shrank to 52 due to elimination criteria associated with missing data and low levels of agreement among members' perceptions of study variables (i.e., too much variance among members' perception of study variables to warrant team level analysis), as I explain in the "Analysis" section later in this chapter. These final 52 teams consisted of 52 team leaders (20 from the U.S., and 32 from South Korea) and 143 team members (47 from the U.S., and 96 from South Korea). Thus, this dissertation's team-related analyses.consisted of responses from 2.75 members per team. Possible limitations associated with this relatively low team-size are discussed in Chapter 5. Table 4 shows the demographic characteristics associated with this final team-sample. -----------------------------------Insert Table 4 about here ------------------------------------
42
General Procedure All participants in this study received three different surveys by email, which was made possible by the participant contact information that I received from the company's HR Department. The content of the first, second, and third surveys, and the order in which these were sent to participants, matches the ordering of variables shown in my hypothesized model (see Figure 1). The first survey was received in late January 2009, the second survey was received in late March 2009, and the third survey was received in late May 2009. Two reasons I sent three surveys at different times (e.g., each 8 weeks apart) were, first, to reflect the causal relationships between variables in my theoretical model, and second, to minimize the possible confounding effects from measuring all variables at the same time (i.e., common method biases, Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). Exceptions to this timeline occurred when survey-recipients failed to return the previously-sent survey; on these occasions I sent an email-reminder and usually within two days I would receive the survey that would then enable me to send the next one. All team leaders and members were asked to finish each survey within two weeks after receiving a survey so that the study could stay on schedule; all were informed that they would be receiving a total of three surveys, with the length of each subsequent survey shorter than the previous one. More specifically, the first survey was approximately 20 minutes for team members and 12 minutes for team leaders, the second survey was approximately 5 minutes shorter in length for both of these groups, and the third survey (which assessed only team creativity) was shortest (2 minutes) for both groups.
43
Unlike the first and second surveys whose content differed for team members and team leaders (in ways described in the section titled "Surveys for Team Members versus Team Leaders"), the content of the third survey received by team members and team leaders was the same. This last survey (the briefest) consisted solely of questions assessing how creative the R&D team had been. The third survey's content is shown in Appendix A; its Korean version is shown in Appendix B. To minimize the possibility of social desirability biases and encourage honest responses, confidentiality of the completed surveys was guaranteed. More specifically, all leaders and members were informed that the company would not have access to their individual responses, and the final report would be based on only the overall results from the survey (e.g., means, standard deviations). Also, they were informed that they provided data directly from their own computer, and only the researcher could access the dataset, thereby eliminating any possibility of the company's access to their response. Additionally, an Informed Consent Form preceded each survey to ensure that this information was salient each time; this Informed Consent Form also stated that participation was voluntary, not required, and that participants could choose without incurring any penalty to not participate. Indeed, some participants did choose to stop participating along the way. When more than one team member failed to return a survey, or when any team's leader (since each team had only one leader) failed to return a survey, the team was eliminated from the sample. Because survey-participants were South Korean as well as U.S. American, the survey-content needed to be understandable to both of these country-populations.
44
To ensure this, each survey that was sent to South Koreans was first translated from English to Korean, and then back-translated to English to assure that the Korean translation remains consistent with the initial meanings of the survey-content. Bilingual speakers of Korean and English who are unfamiliar with the study's hypotheses did the initial translation from English to Korean, and then the backtranslation from Korean to English. Doing this is consistent with the advice of Brislin (1980) for conducting research in more than one culture.
Surveys for Team Members versus Team Leaders The first two surveys received by team members and team leaders differed in some content, but shared some content-similarities. The similarities in the first survey pertained to questions about demographic characteristics and cultural values, the specifics for which are named in the "Measures" section later in this chapter. The substantive differences in the first survey were as follows: Team leaders were asked to identify the primary objective of their current team project (i.e., whether this objective was new product development or applied research). In contrast, team members were asked the extent to which they perceived transformational-, empowering-, and boundary-spanning behaviors from their team leader and about their own attitudes and/or preferences regarding team work (i.e., preference for workgroup), and team members' perception of the degree of interdependence among other members to achieve their goals (i.e., team interdependence). The English versions of the first survey for the team leader and team member are shown in
45
Appendices C and D, respectively; and the Korean versions of the first survey for the team leader and team member are shown in Appendices E and F, respectively With regard to the second survey, their similarities for team members and team leaders regarded questions about the frequency of team members' informationsharing and boundary-spanning behaviors. Their substantive differences were as follows: Unlike team leaders who assessed only the latter behaviors of team members, the team members were additionally asked questions about the extent to which they perceived organizational support for team creativity during the past four weeks (i.e., since completing the first survey), and felt empowered as a team and positive affect during the past four weeks. My reason for not asking team leaders about the latter emergent-states is because these pertain to internal (non-observable) feelings. The second survey's English versions for the team leader and team member are shown in Appendices G and H, respectively; and its Korean versions for the team leader and team member are shown in Appendices I and J, respectively.
Measures Team Leader's Behaviors Team leader's transformational behaviors. To assess the extent to which team leaders engage in transformational leadership behaviors, I replicated how Shin and Zhou (2007) did this; and therefore, I asked team members to assess team leaders' transformational leadership behaviors via their completion of the 20-item measure (which were anchored by 1 = "not at all", and 5 = "frequently, if not always") by Avolio and Bass (2004), termed "MLQ 6," and aggregated it to the team level. These
46
20 items represent the four dimensions of transformational leadership behaviors, such as: (1) idealized influence (e.g., "my team leader displays a sense of power and confidence"), (2) inspirational motivation (e.g., "my team leader talks optimistically about the future"), (3) intellectual Stimulation (e.g., "my team leader gets others to look at problems from many different angles)." and (4) individualized consideration (e.g., "my team leader considers each individual as having different needs, abilities, and aspirations from others"). The Cronbach's alphas for the four dimensions were 0.900, 0.858, 0.857, and 0.741, respectively. The Cronbach's alpha for this scale as a whole was 0.955. Importantly, given that transformational behaviors were multi-dimensional ones as mentioned above (e.g., Avolio & Bass, 2004), I adopted hierarchical or second-order factor approach (Wold, 1982, 1988) to measure this. More specifically, in my analytical procedures, I first assigned the 20 items to their purported dimensions (e.g., idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, individualized consideration) by averaging their scores, and then assigned these four dimensions to transformational behavior variable. Ths score of each team leader's transformational behaviors was calculated via principle component analysis. Team leader's boundary-spanning behaviors. To assess the extent to which team leaders engage in boundary-spanning behaviors, I asked team members to assess team leaders' boundary-spanning behaviors via their completion of the 21-item measure (which were anchored by 1 = "strongly disagree", and 7 = "strongly agree") by Ancona & Caldwell (1992) and aggregated it to the team level. These 21 items
47
represent the three dimensions of boundary-spanning behaviors, such as: (1) ambassadorial behaviors or the behaviors that involve the export of information and/or resources to outsiders (e.g., "my team leader keeps other groups in the company informed of my project team's activities," "my team leader persuades others to support the project team's decisions"), (2) scouting behaviors or the behaviors that bring information and/or resources needed by the team in across the boundary (e.g., "my team leader acquires resources (e.g., money, new members, equipment) for the project team," "my team leader procures things which the project team needs from other groups or individuals in the company"), and (3) sentry behaviors or the behaviors that control the information and resources that external agents want to send into the group to police the boundary (e.g., "my team leader absorbs outside pressures for the project team so it can work free of interference," "my team leader protects the project team from outside interference") (cf. Ancona & Caldwell, 1988). The Cronbach's alphas for the three dimensions were 0.923, 0.944, and 0.938, respectively. The Cronbach's alpha for this scale as a whole was 0.967. Importantly, like team leader's transformational behaviors, team leader's boundary-spanning behaviors were constructed using hierarchical or second-order factor approach (Wold, 1982, 1988) by using its three dimensions - ambassadorial, scouting, and sentry behaviors. Ths score of each team leader's transformational behaviors was calculated via principle component analysis. Team leader's empowering behaviors. To assess the extent to which team leaders engage in empowering behaviors, I asked team members to assess team leaders' empowering behaviors via their completion of the 14-item measure (which
48
were anchored by 1 = "strongly disagree", and 7 = "strongly agree") by Kirkman and Rosen (1997) and aggregated it to the team level. Sample items include "my team leader gives my team many responsibilities," "my team leader asks the team for advice when making decisions," "my team leader encourages my team to take control of its work," "my team leader allows my team to set its own goals," "my team leader encourages my team to figure out the causes/solutions to its problems," "my team leader tells the tem to expect a lot from itself," and "my team leader trusts my team." The Cronbach's alpha for this scale was 0.915. Importantly, the hierarchical or second-order factor approach (Wold, 1982, 1988) was not used for team leader's empowering behaviors because of three reasons. First, these behaviors have previously been theorized and reported as uni-dimensional (e.g., Kirkman & Rosen, 1999). Second, previous studies measuring team leaders' empowering behaviors assessed these via a uni-dimensional approach (e.g., Kirkman & Rosen, 1999; Kirkman et al., 2004). And thirdly, consistency with past practice helps ensure that my findings can build on ones reported previously in the literature.
Team Emergent State Factors Team's level of positive affective tone. To assess the extent to which the team experiences positive emotions, I replicated how this has been done in previous studies (e.g., George, 1995; George & Zhou, 2002; 2007) and therefore, I measured each team member's positive affective experience and then aggregated it to the team level of analysis. For doing this, first, each team member's positive affective experiences were measured with the 10 markers of positive affects from the Positive and Negative
49
Affect Scale (PANAS; Watson et al., 1988). More specifically, team members were asked to indicate, on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (very slightly or not at all) to 5 (extremely), how strongly they felt ten positive moods - namely: interested, excited, strong, enthusiastic, proud, alert, inspired, determined, attentive, and active during the past four weeks. To be consistent with the hypothesized model, I chose the 4-week time frame to ensure that I was measuring team members' affective experiences not traits. In particular, Watson and colleagues suggested that the PANAS assess affective states when used with instructions for respondents to report how they feel during specific time frames, such as the 4-week time frame I used in the present study (e.g., Watson et al., 1988). The Cronbach's alpha for this scale was 0.903. Team's level of empowerment. To assess the extent to which the team believes they are empowered, I replicated how Kirkman and colleagues (2004) assessed this; and therefore, I asked team members to indicate (via a scale anchored by 1=strongly disagree and 7=strongly agree) how strongly they agree with 12 items which were originally developed by Kirkman and Rosen (1999) and shortened and used by Kirkman and colleagues (2004), and aggregated it to the team level of analysis. Sample items include "my team has confidence in itself," "my team believes that its projects are significant," "my team can select different ways to do the team's work," and "my team has a positive impact on this company's customers." The Cronbach's alpha for this scale was 0.932.
50
Team Process Factors Team's level of information-sharing. To assess the extent to which the team experiences information sharing among its members, I replicated how De Dreu (2007) assessed this; and therefore, I asked team members to indicate (via a scale anchored by 1= totally disagree and 7=totally agree) how strongly they agree with the following six items: (1) "communicating is a problem in my team," (2) "members of my team inform each other about work-related issues," (3) "the quality of information exchange in our team is good," (4) "I get new facts, insights, and ideas from my colleagues," (5) "during work meetings, we tell each other what we know already and do not exchange new information," and (6) "we do not repeat ourselves during team meetings." Importantly, the first and fifth items are stated reversely. Also, for comparison purpose, leaders were also asked to assess how much information sharing they observed in the team using the measure described above; when doing this the referent changed from "my team" to "this team" and from "we" to the pronouns of "they" and "their." The Cronbach's alpha for this scale was 0.752 from team members and 0.951 from team leaders. The degree of team members' and team leaders' perceptual aggrement on the degree of team information sharing was .790, which ensured team members' assessment on team information sharing is more rather than less likely to be accurate, and hence, appropriate to be used in my hypothesistesting. Team's level of boundary-spanning. To assess the extent to which the team engages in boundary-spanning behaviors, I asked team members to indicate (via a
51
scale anchored by 1= not at all, and 7= to a very great extent) the extent to which their team engages in the following 21 actions developed by Ancona and Caldwell (1992). Consistent with previous studies on team boundary-spanning behaviors (e.g., Ancona & Caldwell, 1992; Faraj & Yan, 2009), the items used to measure team boundaryspanning behaviors are the same to those items to measure team leader's boundaryspanning behaviors except the referent. More specifically, here, the referent "my team leader" was replaced to "my team members." Also, like team information sharing, for comparison purpose, leaders were also asked to assess how much boundary-spanning they observed from the team members using the measure described above. The Cronbach's alphas for the three dimensions were 0.848, 0.852, and 0.828 from team members and 0.986, 0.929, and 0.948 from team leaders, respectively. The Cronbach's alpha for this scale as a whole was .921 from team members and .995 from team leaders. Importantly, like team leader's boundary-spanning behaviors, team's level of boundary-spanning behaviors were constructed using hierarchical or second-order factor approach (Wold, 1982, 1988) by using its three dimensions - ambassadorial, scouting, and sentry behaviors (Ancona & Caldwell, 1988). The degree of team members' and team leaders' perceptual agreement on the degree of team boundaryspanning was .760, which ensured team members' assessment on team boundaryspanning is more rather than less likely to be accurate, and hence, appropriate to be used in my hypothesis-testing.
52
Contextual Factor Team's level of organizational support for team creativity. To assess the extent to which the team perceives support for team creativity from its organization, I asked team members to indicate (via a scale anchored by 1=strongly disagree, and 7=strongly agree) the extent which their team agrees to the 4 statements originally developed by Scott and Bruce (1994) and used by Zhou and George (2001). Importantly, since the original statements are developed for individual-level creativity, I modified them to reflect team-level creativity. More specifically, the original 4 statements are: (1) "creativity is encouraged at our company," (2) "our ability to function creatively is respected by the leadership," (3) "the reward system here encourages innovation," and (4) "our company publicly recognizes those who are innovative." The revised and used statements in this dissertation are: (1) "creativity in teams is encouraged at our company," (2) "our ability as a team to function creatively is respected by the leadership," (3) "the reward system here encourages creativity in team," and (4) "our company publicly recognizes creative teams." Team members' responses to these 4 statements are aggregated so they reflect team level perception of organizational support for team creativity. My reason for treating this perception at the team-level rather than at the organizational-level is because the level of perceived organizational support for creativity seems likely to differ across teams due to the fact that teams, just like organizational subgroups in general, often have different experiences (e.g., Gelade & Ivery, 2003; Martin, 1992; Zohar & Luria, 2005) as well as due to the fact that statistically it does not make
53
sense to treat this as an organization-level variable given that the data for this study is collected from one organization. The Cronbach's alpha for this scale was 0.886.
Team Outcome Variable Team's level of creativity. To assess the extent to which the team produces creative outcomes, I replicated how Shin and Zhou (2007) assessed this; and therefore, I asked team leaders to compare the team they were leading with other teams performing similar tasks. More specifically, they were asked to indicate (via a scale anchored by 1= poorly and 7= very much) how creative they perceive the team to be. These four statements were: (1) "compared with other teams of similar function, how creative do you consider the team your are leading to be?," (2) "compared with other teams of similar function, how well does the team you are leading produce new ideas?" (3) "compared with other teams of similar function, how significant are those ideas to your organization?," and (4) "compared with other teams of similar function, how useful are those ideas?" My reason for choosing this four-item measure is due to Shin and Zhou's (2007) using it to assess team creativity and due to its consistency with Amabile's (1996) description of the essential aspects of creativity being idea's newness, significance, and usefulness. The Cronbach's alpha for team creativity scale from team leaders was 0.969. Besides team leaders, for comparison purposes, team members also assessed team creativity using the measure developed by Shin and Zhou (2007) with the replacement of "the team you are leading" with "your team." Specifically, team members were asked to indicate (via a scale where 1= poorly and 7=very much) how
54
well their team has been creative, produced new ideas, produced significant ideas, and produced useful ideas. The Cronbach's alpha for team creativity scale from team members was 0.957. The degree of team members' and team leaders' perceptual agreement on the degree of team creativity was .936; this near-perfect alignment between team members' and team leaders' perceptions of team creativity suggests that it is appropriate to use team members' perceptions of this in my hypothesistesting. My reason for using team leaders' judgment of team creativity rather than the judgement of team leaders or members on other teams is due to the greater difficulty that outsiders would likely have in evaluating this in light of the R&D teams projects' technical and complex nature. Importantly, in my analysis, I used the residuals of team creativity (assessed by team leaders) regressed by three categorical variables, including (1) primary objective of team project (e.g., Keller, 1992; Shin & Zhou, 2007), (2) division, and (3) country-location, instead of team leaders' original assessment of it. More specifically, the procedure I took was as follows. First, I created three sets of dummy variables for each of them. Second, I regressed the team creativity variable on the three sets of dummy variables, and saved the residuals. Third, I used those residuals as indicators of the final outcome variable in my analytical model. I did this instead of using all of them as a "control" variables in the analysis because, first, the analytical technique I employed (i.e., PLS-SEM which is described in detail in the section titled "Test of measurement model validity" later in this chapter) requires that all the variables in my analyses be metric, hence not categorical (Chin, 1998; Wold, 1982); and second, the "listserv" group of PLS-SEM researchers (SmartPLS Forum;
55
http://www.smartpls.de/forum/index.php advise partialling out the control variables prior to the analysis. The Cronbach's alpha for the residuals of this scale was .952. The correlation between the average of original team creativity variable (assessed by team leader) and residuals of team creativity (assessed by team leader) was 0.871 (p < .01).
Control Variables Variables that have previously been positively significantly associated with teams' creativity (as shown in Table 2), but are tangential to the hypothesized relationships I aim to test in my dissertation, were measured and used for statistical control variables. More specifically, I controlled for two sets of team-attribute factors— team composition and task design factors (as shown in Table 1) in ways that I describe below. Below, in addition to describing how I assessed each control variable, I explain why each variable may influence team creativity. Team Composition Factors. The first set of control variables pertained to team composition factors (e.g., Campion, Medsker, & Higgs, 1993; Gladstein, 1984). Campion and his colleagues (1993) identified several dimensions of team composition factors, including individual team members' ability, preference for workgroup, and job-related diversity. Thus I constructed team composition factor variable based on the dimensions identified by Campion and colleagues (1993). The measure I used to assess individual team members' ability pertained to creative ability-assessment, specifically the self-reported measure developed by Shalley, Gilson, and Blum (2009). My reason for measuring creative ability is because past
56
studies found that the average level of individual team members' creative ability in teams is positively associated with the teams' levels of creativity (Pirola-Merlo & Mann, 2004; Taggar, 2002). For calculating teams' average level of individual team members' ability, I used an additive composition model (Chan, 1998). The Cronbach's alpha for this scale was 0.890. This approach to assessing mean-level of individual team members' ability enabled me to keep anonymous the identity of team members who opted to participate in this study since I did not need to ask team leaders for this assessment. Although self-assessments are always at risk for social desirability biases, previous self-assessment of creativity have been found to be similar to team leaders' assessments of members' creativity (Axtell, Holman, Unsworth, Wall, Waterson, & Harrington, 2000).The measure I used to assess team members' preference for workgroup (versus solo) was that which was previously used by Jackson, Colquitt, Wesson, and Zapata-Phelan (2006). Similarly to individual team members' creative ability, I used an additive composition model (Chan, 1998) to aggregate team members' response to team-level variable. To assess the job-related diversity among team members, I calculated the degree of team-tenure diversity using Blau's (1977) index, which takes into account how team members are distributed among the possible categories of a variable. This index is represented by the formula shown below.
D? 1??? (Pi )2
57
The Pi is the proportion of members in the i category. Since a perfectly homogenous population would have a diversity index score of 0, and a perfectly heterogeneous population would have a diversity index score of 1. For calculating team-tenure diversity score, I followed the procedure used by Kearney, Gebert, and Voelpel (2009) and thus I transformed them into categorical variables first, and then calculated the degree of their diversity based on Blau's (1977)'s index; the following categories were used: "less than 1 year", "1~2 years," "2~3 years," "3~4 years," "4~5 years," and "more than 5 years." After calculating team-tenure diversity score, I constructed a formative variable1 for the team composition using the three measures of (1) the average level of individual team members' creative ability, (2) team members' preference for work group, and (3) team-tenure diversity. Task Design Factors. The second set of control variables pertained to task design factors— specifically, the extent of team interdependence factor (e.g., Campion et al., 1993). The reason why higher team interdependence may be associated with higher team creativity is because high levels of team interdependence stimulate high levels of interpersonal interaction and cooperation among team
1
By formative variable, I mean one in which the indicators (in this case,
individual team members' ability, preference for team work, and team-tenure diversity) are expected to cause certain attributes of the latent variable (here, team composition), while the indicators are not expected to be highly correlated with each other (Bollen & Lenox, 1991; Edwards & Bagozzi, 2000; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). It is different from the more general type of latent construct, which cause the indicators (i.e., reflective variable).
58
members (cf. Campion et al., 1993; Hülsheger et al., 2009) which may influence the levels of team creativity beyond the effect of information-sharing on it. Consistent with this, as shown in Table 2, team interdependence has been reported to be positively associated with team creativity (e.g., Gilson & Shalley, 2004). To measure team interdependence, I used Campion and his colleagues' (1993) items of task interdependence, goal interdependence, and interdependent feedback and rewards. Importantly, similar to the team composition variable, I added the scores of these three dimensions as indicators to form a team interdependence variable since the degree of team interdependence should be determined by the degrees of these three dimensions, not vice versa. The Cronbach's alphas for the three dimensions were 0.690, 0.737, and 0.739, respectively. The Cronbach's alpha for this scale as a whole was 0.826. Individual Difference Factors - Team members' and team leaders' cultural values. Finally, I asked team members and team leaders to indicate their cultural values in terms of four dimensions that previous studies have found to differentiate Asians from U.S. Americans (e.g., Hofstede, 1980). Specifically, I assessed participants' collectivism-individualism (or the extent to which individuals put groupinterests ahead of individual needs), power distance (or the extent to which individuals accept power-inequality, such as the need to show deference to authorities), uncertainty avoidance (or the extent to which individuals prefer to avoid situations of uncertainty or high risk), and masculinity-femininity (or the extent to which individuals stress achievement over harmony.) Consistent with previous management studies involving more than one country as sites for data collection (e.g.,
59
Kirkman & Shapiro, 2001), I measured these values using the individual-level 22item cultural value assessment created by Dorfman and Howell (1988), which includes six items for individualism-collectivism, six items for power distance, five items for uncertainty avoidance, and five items for masculinity-femininity. The Cronbach's alphas for the four dimensions were 0.683, 0.651, 0.615, and 0.689 from team members and 0.653, 0.682, 0.732, and 0.781 from team leaders.
Analytic Strategy There are two sets of analytic strategies that I will describe here: (1) analyses I engaged in prior to testing my hypotheses, and (2) hypothesis-testing analyses I describe these two sets of analyses next, each in turn.
Pre-Hypothesis Testing Analyses. Prior to testing my hypotheses, I conducted several analyses, including: (1) an analysis of independent samples t-test to investigate whether or not team members and team leaders in the U.S. have different cultural values from those in South Korea, and hence, to determine whether or not I need to control for the effect of cultural values in my hypotheses-testing analyses, (2) an empirical analysis (i.e., reliability within group, or "rwg", cf. James, Demaree, & Wolf, 1984; intra-class correlations, or the "ICC-approach," cf. Bliese, 2000) to justify the appropriateness of aggregating team members' perceptions; and (4) a structural equation modeling (SEM) approach using partial least squares (PLS) to test the validity of my hypothesized model, a
60
procedure called "PLS-SEM" (described in detail below). The results of these analyses are described next, each in turn. Test of cultural differences. With regard to the first pre-hypothesis testing analysis, the result from the t-test revealed no significant differences between team members and leaders in the U.S. and team members and leaders in the South Korea on all dimensions of cultural values, such as collectivism-individualism (t = .131, p > .10 for team members; t = .014, p > .10 for team leaders), power distance (t = .919, p > .10 for team members; t = .615, p > .10 for team leaders), uncertainty avoidance (t = .584, p > .10 for team members; t = 1.25, p > .10 for team leaders), and masculinity-femininity (t = .205, p > .10 for team members; t = .129, p > .10 for team leaders). This result might be due to the fact that majority of the team leaders and members in the U.S. were Asian or Asian American as shown in Table 3. Based on these findings I concluded that team members and team leaders in the U.S. had similar cultural values with those in South Korea, and thus, I decided not to use their cultural values as control variables in my hypothesis-testing. Test of aggregation appropriateness. With regard to my conceptual analysis, clarification in this way is one of the important steps to ensuring appropriate construct measurement, data analysis, and interpretation within the context of organizational research; another important step is to then empirically justify the level of analysis that I claim as appropriate (cf., Dansereau, Alutto, & Yammarino, 1984; Kenny, Kashy, & Cook, 2006; Klein & Kozlowski, 2000). Toward the goal of conceptual clarification, I clarify here that the level of analysis that is appropriate for testing my hypothesized model is the team-level. This is because the overarching question driving my
61
dissertation is: "What are the antecedents to team creativity, and to what extent might these antecedents pertain to team leader behaviors in the team (hence as collectively perceived by team members), and to emergent-states and team process-variables as collectively perceived by team members?" As a result, all variables in my hypothesized model are at the team-level. To empirically justify that the team-level of analysis is indeed appropriate for testing my model, I utilized the assessments of the variables shown in the theoretical model (in Figure 1) from members of 52 teams to calculate the reliability within group (rwg; James, Demaree, & Wolf, 1984; 1993) and the intra-class correlations (ICC(1), ICC(2); Bliese, 2000). The results of the reliability within group, ICC(1), and ICC(2) analyses are presented below in Table 5. ------------------------------Insert Table 5 about here ------------------------------As can be seen from Table 5, for all variables used in my model, median Rwgs range from .795 to .895, which suggest that team members within the team shared similar perceptions about all the study variables (James et al., 1984; 1993), thereby justifying aggregation of member-responses to team level variables. Additional support for aggregating member responses comes from my finding the ICC(1) values of all study variables to be higher or equal to the median ICC(1) of .12 (which ranges from .108 to .235), a pattern that James (1982) says indicates that there is a good amount of between-team variability relative to within-team in team members' perceptions of study variables. Importantly, the ICC(2) values of my study
62
variables are relatively low compared to the ICC(2) values reported in the organizational literature (cf. Bliese, 2000; Chen & Bliese, 2002). The relatively low ICC(2) values might not be surprising considering the small number of team members per a team (i.e., in average, 2.75 members per a team) which heavily influence the value of ICC(2) (Bliese, 2000). However, they should not prevent aggregation if aggretaion is justified by theory and supported by high rwg and ICC(1) (Chen & Bliese, 2002; Liao & Chuang, 2007). Moreover, if I find support for my theoretical model despite the relatively low ICC(2), this will suggest that my model is robust. Therefore, I proceeded with aggregation, acknowledging that the relationship between the aggregated measure of my study variables might be underestimated.. Test of measurement model validity. The last analysis I ran prior to testing hypotheses pertained to testing the validity of my hypothesized model in order to ensure that it is appropriate to conceptually treat my model's variables as distinct constructs when testing hypotheses. To test the model's validity I used a structural equation modeling (SEM) approach using partial least squares (PLS), or what is called "PLS-SEM" (Wold, 1982, 1985). My choice of this approach is due to the fact that this is recommended for research in which: (1) the theoretical model is new or not well formed; (2) the model is relatively complex (i.e., large number of latent variables and/or structural paths); (3) the model requires the modeling of latent variables in different modes (i.e., formative and reflective); (4) the assumptions of normality may not be met; and (5) the sample size is relatively small (Chin & Newsted, 1999; Wold, 1985). All of these factors are characteristic of the present study, thereby supporting the selection of PLS-SEM for these analyses. The PLS-
63
SEM approach has been used across a broad set of business research domains, including strategy (e.g., Cording, Christmann, & King, 2008; Hulland, 1999), entrepreneurship (e.g., Moreno & Casillas, 2008), marketing (e.g., Fornell & Bookstein, 1982), management information systems (e.g., Pavlou & Fygenson, 2006), decision sciences (e.g., Preston, Leider, & Chen, 2008), and organization studies (e.g., Goldberg & Waldman, 2000). Moreover, several leadership studies (e.g., Bass, Avolio, Jung, & Berson, 2003; Howell & Avolio, 1993; Howell & Hall-Merenda, 1999; Middleton, 2005; Shamir, Zakay, Breinin, & Popper, 1998; Sosik, Avolio, & Kahai, 1997) have also used this approach. With the regard to the sample size, Chin (1998) suggested a "10 times" rule of thumb for the minimum sample size in PLS analysis. More specifically, the sample size is determined by (a) the latent variable with largest number of formative indicators or (b) the dependent latent variable with largest number of independent latent variable impacting it. The minimum sample size is suggested to be 10 times either (a) or (b), whichever is greater, according to Chin (1998). In the research model of this study, the largest number of formative indicator is 2 (e.g., team member diversity, team member creativity) and the largest number of independent latent variables that impact the same dependent variable is 5. Therefore, the minimum required sample size for this study is 50. This study collected 62 data samples and selected 52 data samples from on-going research and development teams, which is larger than 50, the minimum requirement of sample size. In PLS-SEM, relationships among latent variables are estimated and tested within the context of a measurement model, essentially using a combined regression
64
and factor analysis within the same statistical procedure. Importantly, to do this (and to do my hypothesis-tests, which will be presented in Chapter 4), I added two control variables that have been identified as antecedents of team creativity to my research model shown in Figure 1, such as "team composition factors" (e.g., team member's individual-level creativity, team members' preference for workgroup, team tenure diversity among team members) and all those associated with "task design factors." All PLS-SEM analyses were conducted using the SmartPLS software application (Ringle, Wende, & Will, 2005). The significance of the path coefficients (i.e., t-statistic) are estimated using a bootstrap procedure using random samples (e.g., 1,000) from the original data set (n=52) using replacement sampling since PLS-SEM makes no distributional assumptions (Chin, 1998). More specifically, this procedure uses a data sample (observed data set) as a proxy for the population and draws a subsample with replacement from the data sample. In this study, the significance of a path will be tested with the bootstrap running with sub-sample size of 52 and 500 repetitions. The significance of a path will then be determined with an ordinary t-test distribution with df = 500. Since all hypotheses are directional in this study, a one tail t-test will be used. According to one tail t-test (df = 500), 99% significance level or p < .01 requires t-value greater than 2.334, 95% significance level or p < .05 requires tvalue greater than 1.648, and 90% significance level or p < .10 requires t-value greater than 1.283. Like other structural equation models, PLS models are analyzed and interpreted in two stages. The first stage involves an assessment of the validity and reliability of the measurement model. The second stage involves the assessment and
65
interpretation of the structural (i.e., theoretical) model including hypothesis testing. The details of these statistics and procedures will be explained in more detail in Chapter 4, discussed within the context of the study's results.
Power Analysis Since the variable in the hypothesized model is team creativity and there are five antecedent paths leading to it (e.g., team information sharing, team boundaryspanning, perceived organizational support for the creativity by team members, team composition, team interdependence), using the convention of 10 cases, the minimal sample size is 50 cases (i.e., teams). To obtain a more specific estimate for the purpose of this study, the G*Power software application (Faul, 2007) was used to estimate the power of the statistical methods used. Given the size of the present sample (n=52), the endogenous variable with the greatest number of predictors (i.e., 5), and a conventional level (alpha=.05), adequate power (>.80) was achieved to detect small to medium size. Since the hypothesized model deals with relatively new constructs, like team creativity, the achieved power level is sufficient to make prediction from the PLS-SEM results (e.g., Cohen, 1977).
66
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS
The results associated with analyses investigating the appropriateness of aggregating variables in my model were presented in the previous chapter, Chapter 3. Adjustments that those results identified as necessary, such as reducing the sample to 52 teams, have been made prior to the analyses I ran subsequently, all of which are described and their respective results reported in this chapter. More specifically, in this chapter, I present descriptive statistics, the results of testing the appropriateness of my theoretical model, and the results of all hypothesis-tests associated with a sample of 52 R&D teams, each of which is led by one team leader.
Descriptive Statistics Table 6 presents means, standard deviations, and bivariate correlations for all study variables. Importantly, all of these scores are calculated after aggregating team members' responses to the team-level, given that the team-level is this dissertation's conceptual level of analysis (for reasons explained in the previous chapter). -------------------------------------Insert Table 6 about here --------------------------------------
Measurement Model Evaluation Consistent with previous work using PLS-SEM (Bass, et al., 2003; Barclay, Higgins, & Thompson, 1995; Howell & Avolio, 1993; Sosik et al., 1997), I tested the
67
measurement model by examining three indicators of its quality: (1) individual item reliability, (2) internal consistency, and (3) discriminant validity. First, to examine individual item reliability, I examined the factor loadings of the measures on their corresponding constructs. A common rule of thumb in PLSSEM is to accept items with more explanatory power than error variance (Fornell & Bookstein, 1982). A general guideline is that indicator loadings greater than .7 indicate that more shared variance between the latent variable and its measures as opposed to error variance. However, if there are additional indicators related to the latent variable to which they can be compared, indicator loadings of .5 or .6 may be acceptable (Chin, 1998). Table 7 shows the factor loadings of measures used to test the theoretical model. Most items had factor loadings on their respective constructs that were greater than .7; exceptions were one item for leaders' empowering behaviors, two items for team members' positive affective experiences, three items for team members' team empowerment experiences, and two items for the team composition factor. Because the factor loadings of these items were greater than .5 and their respective latent variable had additional indicator variables (e.g., 13 other items for leaders' empowering behaviors), all items used in this study showed acceptable individual item reliability. -------------------------------------Insert Table 7 about here -------------------------------------Second, to examine each construct measure's internal consistency, I computed two measures: (1) each variable's composite scale reliability (Fornell & Larcker,
68
1981) and (2) each variable's "average variance extracted," or AVE (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). The composite scale reliability is similar to Cronbach's alpha and uses the items' loadings estimates within the measurement model and has a criterion cut-off of .7 or more; but unlike Cronbach's alpha, the composite scale reliability is not influenced by the number of items in the scale. For comparison purposes, both measures of internal consistency are presented for all relevant latent variables in Table 8 where both measures are above the recommended level of .7 for all latent variables. -------------------------------------Insert Table 8 about here -------------------------------------Additional support for the internal consistency of the study variables comes from examining the AVE (Fornell & Larcker, 1981), a statistic that reflects the amount of variance that a latent variable extracts from its indicators relative to the amount of measurement error (Chin, 1998). Chin explains that this statistic is applicable for reflectively modeled latent variables and that measures of AVE should generally be greater than .5, indicating that at least 50% of the variance of the indicators has been accounted for. Based on the results shown in Table 8, all latent variables had AVEs greater than the recommended value. Finally, to examine the discriminant validity among the constructs comprising my theoretical model, I used criteria similar to a multitrait/multimethod analysis (Barclay et al., 1995; Howell & Avolio, 1993). One criterion is that the construct represented by the items should share more variance with its items than with other
69
constructs in the model (Carmines & Zeller, 1979). A matrix is shown in Table 6, in which the diagonal elements show the square root of the average variance shared by a variable with its items. For adequate convergent and discriminant validity, the diagonal elements should be greater than entries in the corresponding rows and columns. Results summarized in Table 6 indicate this criterion was met. Another criterion is that no measurement item should load more highly on another construct than it does on the construct it purports to measure (Carmines & Zeller, 1979). Results summarized in Table 6 indicate that this criterion also was met. Thus, the assessment of reliability and validity suggest that the measurement model is satisfactory. In summary, the three indicators of my theoretical model's quality each indicate that the model is appropriate as is; as such, I proceeded to test the hypotheses that the model illustrates. The results of doing so are presented next.
Hypothesis Test Results Before presenting the results of testing each hypothesis, let me clarify that the control variables of "team composition factors" and "task design factors" were indeed generally positively associated with the extent of team creativity (? = .222, t = 2.227, p < .05 for team composition factors; ? = .204, t = 1.779, p < .05 for task design factors.) As such, my plan to control for these variables when testing my hypotheses is appropriate. Table 9 presents the bootstrap output with mean path coefficient (i.e., average of path coefficient from 500 repetitions), standard deviation for path coefficient (i.e.,
70
standard deviation for path coefficient from 500 repetitions), and t-statistics for path coefficient. Figure 2 illustrates this result. -------------------------------------Insert Table 9 about here --------------------------------------------------------------------------Insert Figure 2 about here -------------------------------------I report the results of all hypothesis-tests next, in the following order. I begin by reporting "Team Process Behavior-Effects on Team Creativity" (Hypotheses 1 and 2). Then I report "Team Emergent State- associations with Team Process Behaviors" (Hypothesis 3 to Hypothesis 6). Next, I report "Team Leader Behavior Effects on Group Positive Affective Tone and Empowerment" (Hypotheses 9 to Hypotheses 13). Then, I report the results of the mediation hypotheses pertaining to the possibility that the team emergent state-effects on team creativity may be due to teams' degree of information-sharing and boundary-spanning behaviors (Hypotheses 7 and 8). Finally, I report "Organizational Support for Team Creativity Effect on Team Creativity" and "Team Leader Boundary-Spanning Behavior Effects on Organizational Support for Team Creativity."
Team Process Behavior-Effects on Team Creativity Consistent with Hypothesis 1, team members' frequency of informationsharing behaviors in their team was indeed generally positively associated with teams'
71
level of creativity. Evidence supporting the significance of this relationship can be seen in several ways. First, as seen in the correlation matrix in Table 6, the Pearson correlation between these two variables was .413 (p < .01). Second, as shown in the results in Table 9 and Figure 2, the path represented by this hypothesized relationship is significant (? = .305, t = 2.056, p < .05). Cumulatively, all of these results suggest that Hypothesis 1 was supported. Hypothesis 2, which predicted that team members' frequency of boundaryspanning behaviors in their team would generally be positively associated with teams' level of creativity, was marginally and inconsistently supported. Evidence of this questionable level of support is the following. First, as seen in the correlation matrix in Table 6, frequency of teams' boundary-spanning behaviors and team creativity were significantly positive correlated (r = .392, p < .01). Yet, as shown in the results in Table 9 and Figure 2, the path represented by this hypothesized relationship is only marginally significant (? = .131, t = 1.341, p < .10). Taken together, these results suggest that there is only marginal support for Hypothesis 2.
Team Emergent State-Associations with Team Process Behaviors Consistent with Hypothesis 3, teams' level of positive affective tone was indeed generally positively associated with the level of information-sharing behaviors in the team. Evidence supporting the significance of this relationship can be seen in several ways. First, as seen in the correlation matrix in Table 6, the Pearson correlation between these two variables was .377 (p < .01). Second, as shown in the results in Table 9 and Figure 2, the path represented by this hypothesized relationship
72
is significant (? = .210, t = 1.792, p < .05). Cumulatively, all of these results suggest that Hypothesis 3 was supported. Consistent with Hypothesis 4, teams' level of positive affective tone was indeed generally positively associated with the level of boundary-spanning behaviors in the team. Evidence supporting the significance of this relationship can be seen in several ways. First, as seen in the correlation matrix in Table 6, the Pearson correlation between these two variables was .627 (p < .01). Second, as shown in the results in Table 9 and Figure 2, the path represented by this hypothesized relationship is significant (? = .384, t = 4.580, p < .01). Cumulatively, all of these results suggest that Hypothesis 4 was supported. Consistent with Hypothesis 5, teams' level of empowerment was indeed generally positively associated with the level of information-sharing behaviors in the team. Evidence supporting the significance of this relationship can be seen in several ways. First, as seen in the correlation matrix in Table 6, the Pearson correlation between these two variables was .476 (p < .01). Second, as shown in the results in Table 9 and Figure 2, the path represented by this hypothesized relationship is significant (? = .377, t = 3.074, p .10). Contrary to Hypothesis 11, the frequency with which team leaders engaged in empowering behaviors was NOT generally positively associated with the extent of team's positive affective tone. Evidence supporting the non-significance of this relationship can be found from the Table 9 and Figure 2, where the path represented by this hypothesized relationship is not significant (? = .148, t = 1.204, p > .10).
74
Consistent with Hypothesis 12, the frequency with which team leaders engaged in empowering leadership behaviors was indeed generally positively associated with the extent of team empowerment. Evidence supporting the significance of this relationship can be seen in several ways. First, as seen in the correlation matrix in Table 6, the Pearson correlation between these two variables was .425 (p < .01). Second, as shown in the results in Table 9 and Figure 2, the path represented by this hypothesized relationship is significant (? = .354, t = 2.267, p < .05). Cumulatively, all of these results suggest that Hypothesis 12 was supported. Contrary to Hypothesis 13, the frequency with which team leaders engaged in boundary-spanning behaviors was NOT generally positively associated with the extent of team empowerment. Evidence supporting the non-significance of this relationship can be found from the Table 9 and Figure 2, where the path represented by this hypothesized relationship is not significant (? = .035, t = 0.038, p > .10).
Do Team Process Behaviors Mediate Team Emergent State-Effects on Team Creativity? Hypothesis 7 predicted that the tendency for teams' level of positive affective tone to be positively related to team creativity would be, at least, partially mediated by the frequency with which information-sharing and boundary-spanning behaviors occurs in the team. Guided by Baron and Kenny (1986), support for this mediating hypothesis would require me to observe three patterns involving teams' frequency of information-sharing and three patterns involving teams' frequency of boundaryspanning. First, with regard to information-sharing in the team, I would need to see
75
that higher levels of positive affective tone in the team are significantly positively associated with higher levels of team creativity. To do this, I added the direct path from team's level of positive affective tone to team creativity and omitted the path from and to the team's level of information-sharing and boundary-spanning behaviors. As can be seen in the "Direct Effect Model" column of Table 10, this positive directeffect did indeed occur. Second, I would need to see that higher levels of informationsharing behaviors and boundary-spanning behaviors in the team are significantly positively associated with higher levels of team creativity; data supporting this was already noted when reporting the Hypothesis 1 and 2-related results above. Third, I would need to see that the significant positive relationship between teams' positive affective tone and team creativity weakens when the frequency of informationsharing behaviors and boundary-spanning behaviors in the team are each controlled, while continued significant positive linkages occur with team creativity by, both, information-sharing and boundary-spanning behaviors.. To do this, I added direct paths from teams' level of positive affective tone to team creativity, while maintaining the paths from and to the teams' level of information-sharing behaviors and boundary-spanning behaviors. After doing this, the direct paths from teams' level of positive affective tone to team creativity remained significant when team information sharing and team boundary-spanning were controlled (? = .245, t = 1.866, p < .05), and team creativity remained significantly positively associated with team information sharing (? = .264, t = 1.828, p < .05), but not with team boundaryspanning (? = .032, t = 0.431, p > .10). Consequently, these results suggest that only teams' level of information sharing partially mediates the relationship between teams'
76
level of positive affective tone and team creativity (i.e., such mediation did not occur via teams' level of boundary-spanning behaviors). Besides the procedure of Baron and Kenny (1986), I also conducted Sobel's (1982, 1988) test to further explore the possible mediating effect of team information sharing and team boundary-spanning in the relationship between teams' level of positive affective tone and team creativity and between teams' level of team empowerment and team creativity. It is because Sobel's (1982, 1988) test was shown to be superior to Baron and Kenny's (1986) procedure in terms of power (MacKinnon, Lockwood, Hoffman, West, & Sheets, 2002) and many recent studies employing PLS-SEM technique used this test to determine mediation effect (e.g., Cording et al., 2008; Thompson, Mamilton, & Rust, 2005; Wetzels, Odekerken-Schröder, & VanOppen, 2009). Importantly, the reason I tested the mediating role of team information sharing and team boundary-spanning in the relationship between teams' level of team empowerment and team creativity is because some researchers (e.g., Collins, Graham, & Flaherty, 1998; James, Mulaik, & Brett, 1982; Shrout & Bolger, 2002) have suggested that showing a direct relationship between the exogenous variable (e.g., team empowerment) and dependent variable (e.g., team creativity) is not fundamental to establishing complete mediation. Indeed, Kenny, Kashy, and Bolger (1998), in their elaboration on the Baron and Kenny's (1986) procedure, wrote that "Step 1 [or testing direct effect of independent variable on dependent variable] is not required, but a path from the initial variable to the outcome is implied if Steps 2 [or testing the direct effect of independent variable on mediating variable] and Step 3 [or testing the direct effect of mediating variable on dependent variable] are met" (p.260), especially
77
when the correlation between independent variable and mediating variable is higher than the correlation between mediating variable and dependent variable (i.e., suppressor; cf. Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003), which is what my previous tests of Hypothesis 1, 2, 5, and 6 showed. As can be seen in the "Sobel t-Test" in Table 10, only team information sharing was found to have a mediating role in the relationship between positive group affective tone and team creativity (t = 1.381, p < .10), which is consistent with my previous test. Cumulatively, all of these results suggest that Hypothesis 7 was partially supported due to the fact that team information-sharing behaviors (but not by team boundary-spanning behaviors) mediate the relationships that team creativity have with teams' positive affective tone. Hypothesis 8 predicted that the tendency for teams' level of empowerment to be positively related to team creativity would be, at least, partially mediated by the frequency with which information-sharing and boundary-spanning behaviors occurs in the team. As can ben seen in the "Sobel t-Test" in Table 10, both team information sharing and team boundary-spanning were found to have a mediating role in the relationship between team empowerment (t = 1.790, p < .05) and team creativity (t = 1.326, p < .10). Thus, although team empowerment didn't have direct effect on team creativity, it did influence team creativity positively and significantly indirectly, through team members' information sharing behaviors and boundary-spanning behaviors. Thus, Hypothesis 8 was also supported.
78
-------------------------------------Insert Table 10 about here --------------------------------------
Organizational Support for Team Creativity Effect on Team Creativity Contrary to Hypothesis 14, the level of organizational support for team creativity was not generally positively associated with teams' level of creativity. Evidence supporting the non-significance of this relationship can be found from the Table 9 and Figure 2, where the path represented by this hypothesized relationship is not significant (? = .087, t = 0.577, p > .10).
Team Leader Boundary-Spanning Behavior Effects on Organizational Support for Team Creativity Consistent with Hypothesis 15, the frequency with which team leaders engaged in boundary-spanning behaviors was indeed generally positively associated with the degree of organizational support for team creativity. Evidence supporting the significance of this relationship can be seen in several ways. First, as seen in the correlation matrix in Table 6, the Pearson correlation between these two variables was .466 (p < .01). Second, as shown in the results in Table 9 and Figure 2, the path represented by this hypothesized relationship is significant (? = .534, t = 6.501, p < .05). Cumulatively, all of these results suggest that Hypothesis 15 was supported. In summary, I found support for ten of my fifteen hypotheses. Moreover, support for my overall model is found via various tests, like correlation analysis,
79
PLS-SEM test, and mediation test. Consequently, I conclude that my theoretical model is generally supported. In the next chapter I discuss the implications of my findings for, both, team members and team leaders interested in enhancing team creativity.
80
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION
Taken together, how do my dissertation's findings advance understanding about antecedents to team creativity? In this chapter I posit that my findings advance this understanding in three ways. First, unlike Taggar (2002) who theorized that team creativity can be enhanced by "team creativity-relevant processes," such as providing constructive feedback, and eliciting and appreciating different ideas, needs, and viewpoints, I offer empirical support for the positive effect that information sharing behaviors have on team creativity. Similarly, unlike Gilson and Shalley (2004) who theorized that team creativity can be enhanced by "team creative processes," such as linking ideas from multiple sources, delving into unknown areas to find better or unique approaches to a problem, and seeking out novel ways of performing a task (all of which seem related to boundary-spanning as well as information-sharing), I offer empirical support for this. Such empirical support is woefully lacking in the team creativity literature, a conclusion reached by George (2008) and Shalley and colleagues (2004). The near-absence of empirical support for team process-effects on team creativity is due to the tendency for the studies of team creativity to be sparse in number and/or in laboratory settings that lack teams whose assigned tasks allow scholars to study team boundary-spanning as well as information-sharing behaviors (e.g., Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006; Paulus & Van der Zee, 2004). Although Shin and Zhou (2007) studied natural ongoing teams in an organizational setting, their study did not include measures of teams' information-sharing behavior or boundaryspanning behavior.
81
A second way my dissertation findings advance understanding about antecedents to team creativity pertains to my finding circumstances that may encourage team creativity-enhancing process-behaviors to occur. Specifically, my findings suggest that the team creativity-enhancing process behaviors of informationsharing and boundary-spanning are both more likely to occur when teams have a higher positive affective tone and a higher degree of empowerment. This finding thus suggests there is value in conceptually distinguishing rather than lumping together "mediating variables" that regard team process-behaviors versus team emergent states. On the other hand, since I assessed teams' process behaviors and emergentstates at the same time (i.e., in the second of three surveys), future research is needed to determine with more certainty than my data allows whether indeed team emergent states lead to team creativity-enhancing behaviors or if, instead, the causal order may be reversed. Although my findings cannot resolve this uncertainty, they hopefully help scholars recognize the need to design future team creativity studies in a manner that may enable this resolution to occur. Such future studies will add to the paucity of team creativity studies that exist and build on my dissertation's efforts to sensitize team scholars to the need to conceptually distinguish as antecedents to team creativity: (1) team emergent-states versus (2) team process-behaviors. This bifurcation is not seen in previous studies of team creativity. Furthermore, my finding regarding how teams' level of positive group affective tone and team empowerment related to team creativity-enhancing process behaviors and teams' level of creativity raises several important theoretical issues. Specifically, my finding positive group affective tone to be significantly positively
82
associated with team creativity provides empirical support at the team-level for Fredrickson's (1998, 2001) individual-level "broaden-and-build theory of positive affective experiences." Consistent with the latter theory, this finding suggests that team members with more positive affective experiences tend to broaden their awareness and engage in novel, varied, and exploratory actions, such as exchanging their unique perspectives and job-related skills with others, or interacting with upper management or members of other teams to facilitate their work processes. These broadenend actions, in turn, may build skills and resources for team members' creative ideas and ultimately assist product-generation in teams. Additionally, my finding that positive group affective tone has both indirect and direct effects on team creativity (through team process behaviors) suggests that previous findings that link individuals' affective experiences to their levels of motivation (e.g., Seo, Bartunek, & Barrett, 2010) and creativity (e.g., Isen, Daubman, & Nowicki, 1987) are applicable to team-level phenomena. Secondly, my finding team empowerment to be significantly positively associated with team creativity reinforces Shin and Zhou's (2007) empirically guided conclusion that team members' self-efficacy enhances team creativity. However, my inclusion of team process behaviors enabled me, unlike Shin and Zhou (2007), to also observe that the positive effect that team empowerment has on team creativity is indirect and only possible when it leads to teams' information-sharing behaviors and boundary-spanning behaviors. One possibility that is suggested by this finding is that teams with higher levels of team empowerment engage in more information sharing behaviors and boundary-spanning behaviors; and it may be the latter behaviors that
83
ultimately enable the teams to be more creative. This possibility is consistent with the theorizing of Marks and colleagues (2001) that team emergent states tend to become new inputs to subsequent team processes that ultimately influence team outcomes. On the other hand, it is also possible that, if in any case team empowerment does not lead to team members' information-sharing behaviors and boundary-spanning behaviors, the positive association between team empowerment and team creativity may disappear. For example, when team members don't prefer working by their own goals and controlling their own behaviors (e.g., high on power-distance dimension; Kirkman & Shapiro, 2001), team empowerment may not lead to team creativity because it might not lead team members to engage in information sharing and boundary-spanning (cf. Kirkman & Shapiro, 1997) - a priori requirement of the positive association between team empowerment and team creativity. However, the causal order of emergent states and team process behaviors cannot be known with certainty until future study designs enable causality to be determined; and thus it is also possible that the teams with higher levels of information sharing and boundary-spanning are the ones that are highly empowered. This latter possibility also extends the empirically-guided conclusions of Shin and Zhou (2007), however, since they theoretically and empirically assumed that the "trigger" of teams' self-efficacy was solely team leader behavior. Future research is needed to examine what the various team member- as well as team leader-related sources of team empowerment may be and to examine, more specifically, the extent to which one of these sources may be the extent to which members share information
84
with each other and span their team boundary or the extent to which the latter behaviors are a consequence of team empowerment A third way my dissertation findings advance understanding about antecedents to team creativity pertains to my finding that teams' emergent states are directly influenced by team leader behaviors, after controlling for fundamental teamattributes such as "team composition factors" (e.g., the mean level of individual team members' creativity, team members' preference for work group, team-tenure diversity among team members) and "team design factors" (i.e., task interdependence, goal interdependence, interdependent rewards and feedback). This conclusion is guided by my finding team leaders' perceived level of engagement in transformational behaviors to be significantly positively associated with teams' reported level of positive affect and team leaders' perceived level of empowering behaviors to be significantly positively associated with the level of empowerment reported by teams. This conclusion echoes the theorizing of Zaccaro and colleagues' (2001) that team leaders' importance on team success is due to their effect on developing coherence among team members and thus developing their coordinating and cooperating behaviors. However, my findings further explain how team leaders may develop the coherence among team members. This is because my findings show a positive association between team leaders' transformational behaviors and team members' positive affective experiences and a positive association between team leaders' empowering behaviors and team members' enhanced empowerment feeling in teams. Consistent with this, Kozlowski, Gully, Salas, and Cannon-Bowers (1996) theorized that team coherence results from team members' collective affective,
85
motivational, and cognitive experiences, which are formd through team leaders' inspirational and supportive behaviors. Interestingly, I expected team leaders' transformational behaviors to also influence teams' level of empowerment, their empowering behaviors to also influence teams' level of positive affective experiences, and their boundary-spanning behaviors also influence team's level of empowerment, but the latter three relationships were not observed. This raises the possibility that various types of leadership behaviors affect team creativity via different emergent states. Since I found, consistent with the findings of Grawich, Munz, and Kramer (2003) and Shin and Zhou (2007), that team members' feeling of positive affect and empowerment are each important to team creativity, it may behoove leaders who wish to enhance teams' creativity to engage in both transformational and empowering behaviors. This suggests that team leaders, not only team members, have a critical role to play in helping teams be creative. In summary, the three ways that my dissertation findings advance understanding about how team creativity occurs pertains to: (1) identifying team process-behaviors that enhance team creativity (i.e., information-sharing and boundary spanning in teams); (2) identifying team emergent states (i.e., group positive affective tone and team empowerment) that help bring about processbehaviors that enhance team creativity; and (3) team leader behaviors that help bring about team creativity-enhancing emergent states. Importantly, the latter two ways reinforce and extend Shin and Zhou's (2007) observation that team leaders' transformational behaviors and team members' feeling of confidence and optimism is an important determinant of team creativity. Cumulatively, these insights suggest that
86
if teams are to be maximally creative, they probably need positive behaviors on the part of team members and team leaders, which is why future studies of antecedents to team creativity will probably benefit by studying interaction-effects involving actions and/or perceptions of both of these groups.
Limitations of the Study Despite this study's contributions, there are some limitations. First, as I noted when describing my team-sample, the size of the teams averaged 2.75 members; and as such, it remains unclear if the patterns I observed in my data would hold true for teams whose size is 10 members or more. Relatedly, the teams in the Korean location (unlike the U.S. location) may possibly have been larger than 2.75 members per team; the Korean HR managers' refusal to provide me this information makes the team size in Korea an uncertainty (though they did say the average team-size is between 3-10 members). The question of whether the team-related phenomena I observed would occur in teams larger than 2.75 members is one of the needs of future team creativity research that my dissertation helps illuminate as needed. Secondly, as I noted earlier, the ICC(2) aggregation-statistics were lower than ideal, making questionable whether aggregation was appropriate in this study. On the other hand, the ICC(2) statistic is contingent on team-size; and as noted above, this was relatively small in this study. Moreover, the fact that my theoretical model was nevertheless nearly fully supported despite relatively low ICC(2) suggests that my theoretical model may be robust. Testing the veracity of this assumption is another need in future research.
87
Thirdly, all of the leaders and members were recruited from a single organization. Since leaders' and members' behaviors are embedded within the organizational context (e.g., Ilgen, 1995; Sparrowe & Liden, 1997), the result of my dissertation may be due to the specific characteristics of the recruited organization. On the other hand, given that my study's purpose was to test theorized relationships rather than the generalizability of previously-established findings, the homogeneity of company- and industry-culture is a strength associated with my study participants all belonging to one company. Thus, despite the potential concern of sampling from a single organization, my dissertation contributes to the literature on team creativity. A fourth limitation of this study pertains to the tendency for leaders to engage in more than one type of leader behavior (Bass, 1985) and the fact that I did not conceptualize nor empirically test the likelihood that interactive effects among the leader-behaviors in my theoretical model probably exist. Again, this raises a question in need of future team creativity research. Hopefully, this study will serve as an impetus for such future studies to occur. A fifth limitation of this study is my testing only two mediating relationships between team emergent-states, team processes, and team creativity from other possible mediating relationships in my theoretical model. For example, it is possible that team leaders' transformational behaviors can enhance the degrees of team creativity through team emergent states, as found by Shin and Zhou (2007), or through other types of team emergent states and team processes. Additionally, it is possible that team leaders' empowering behaviors can enhance the degrees of team creativity through team emergent states and/or team processes. These possibilities
88
also suggest that there might be other important mediating relationships to explain team creativity that need to be examined in future research. A sixth limitation of this study, mentioned earlier in this chapter, regards my assessing team emergent states and team process behaviors in the same survey (in the second of three surveys). This was not my originally intended research design, but I found it difficult to get the participating company to agree to have its team leaders and team members complete more than three surveys. Balancing practical versus theory-testing demands is part of the challenge of studying teams in natural organizational settings, and is perhaps why so few team scholars do this (George, 2008). While my dissertation has these limitations, hopefully the general support that was found for my theoretical model and the research questions that my findings suggest are next in need of testing will encourage more studies about antecedents to team creativity to occur, especially in real teams where team emergent states and information-sharing and boundary-spanning behaviors and other actions (on the part of members as well as team leaders) may be observed. A seventh limitation of this study is that my empirical assessment of information sharing processes in teams, though consistent with the one used by DeDreu (2007), is narrower than the qualitative descriptions of information sharing behaviors described by Hargadon and Bechky (2006) and Seddon and Biassutti (2009), such as help-seeking, help-giving, reflective reframing, and reinforcing. My measurement choice was due to my aim to build upon previous works on team creativity or team creativity-related studies and thus my need to replicate how others
89
have measured team information sharing behaviors. Nevertheless, the development of a broader empirical assessment of these behaviors is needed in future research. An eighth limitation of this study is that my empirical assessments excluded measures of the team's life cycle and the specific targets of boundary-spanning behaviors engaged in by the team leaders or by team members. If I had included these measures, perhaps I might be able to explain why team creativity was only marginally influenced by the boundary-spanning behaviors of team members and not at all influenced by the boundary-spanning behaviors of team leaders. For example, Shalley and Perry-Smith (2008) theorized that the positive relationship between team members' boundary-spanning behaviors and team creativity might depend on the stage of development of the ideas and products because it affects team members' level of familiarity with one another and with the task, as well as the degree of necessity to interact with external stakeholders. Also, regarding the target of externalinteraction, Ancona (1990) showed that the effect of team leaders' boundaryspanning on team innovation depends on not only the frequency but also whom the team leaders interact with (e.g., leaders/members of other teams, customers, upper management). Therefore, future research on the effect of team leaders' and team members' boundary-spanning behaviors on team creativity needs to assess team life cycle and target of boundary-spanning behaviors in addition to the frequency of these behaviors. A ninth limitation of this study regards my adopting PLS-SEM to test my hypotheses. Since PLS-SEM minimizes residual variance and maximize variance explained among study variables, my findings in this study might be more prediction-
90
oriented rather than comfirmation-oriented, and more data-driven than theory-driven (Fornell & Bookstein, 1982). On the other hand, since I ensured the validity of measurement model and sufficient level of power before adopting PLS-SEM, my result might reflect the real team phenomenon that researchers using other statistica techniques might find (cf. Wilkinson, Blank, & Gruber, 1996). Indeed, my additional OLS-regression analyses on all of the hypothesized relationships showed identical results with what I reported here, in that all significant paths in Chapter 4 were shown to have significant coefficient with the same direction. Additionally, the Sobel t-test results using results from OLS-regression analyses confirmed the mediating tests results I reported here (t = 1.746, p < .10 and t = 1.690, p < .10 for the mediating effect of team information sharing and team boundary-spanning on the relationship between positive group affective tone and team creativity, respectively; t = 2.195, p < .05 and t = 1.719, p < .10 for the mediating effect of team information sharing and team boundary-spanning on the relationship between team empowerment and team creativity, respectively.) Thus, despite the potential concern of using PLS-SEM, my findings reflect the real phenomenon in teams to explain how and why team creativity occurs.
Implications for Management Scholars This dissertation's findings have numerous implications for management scholars, minimally the identification of research questions in need of future team creativity research that occur in the previous section. Additionally, my findings suggest that the conclusions from previous studies on team creativity, which are
91
shown in Table 2, need revising in ways that go beyond "direct effects" on team creativity. Toward this goal, I provide Table 11 which distinguishes direct effects versus indirect effects on team creativity (labeled "Direct Antecedents" and "Indirect Antecedents," respectively). Additionally, Table 11 identifies "Team Inputs" that help to explain the indirect effects that are noted in the table. Importantly, although all of the conclusions shown in Table 11 are suggested by my dissertation's findings, all are in need of future research due to the fact that this dissertation study is not limitationfree. As such, Table 11 in addition to the research questions I identify in the previous section, offer management scholars numerous ways to further advance understanding about how and why team creativity occurs. If my conclusions, as a set, are generally correct, then they extend Zaccaro and colleagues' (2001) theorizing that team leaderrelated attributes (e.g., team leader behaviors) are significant predictors of team success (e.g., team creativity), This is because, collectively, the conclusions guided by my dissertation's findings suggest that team success, such as team creativity, may be linked less proximally to team leader-related attributes than to team-related attributes (e.g., team emergent-states, team process). The importance of the latter "team inputs" may be due to the possibility that these team inputs substitute for the positive effect of team leader-related attributes (cf. Kerr & Jermier, 1978). Importantly, however, my dissertation's findings also suggest that team leaders may act as "triggers" of team creativity since the emergent states and team processes (team inputs) were significantly linked to, hence presumably developed at least in part by, team leaders' behaviors. This possibility is consistent with Shin and Zhou (2007) finding team leader behaviors to be instrumental in enhancing team members'
92
collective efficacy beliefs and thereby also team creativity. In summary, testing the conclusions I offer via Table 11, plus the questions in need of future research identified earlier in this chapter, are important implications of my findings for management scholars. ------------------------------------Insert Table 11 about here -----------------------------------Implications for Managers My findings provide four practical implications for managers who are interested in enhancing team creativity. First, my finding that team leaders' transformational and empowering behaviors have important roles in team creativity has implications for areas such as selection, assignment, and training. With regard to selecting leaders for team assignments where creativity is needed, such as R&D tasks, it may behoove managers to identify leaders likely to be transformational and empowering. This may be achieved by using tests that assess personality tests, such as NEO-PI (Costa & McCrae, 1992) and IPIP (Goldberg, 1999), that assess the extent to which leaders are high on ageeeableness, conscientiousness, extraversion, emotional stability, and openness-to-experience, since these are all dimensions of personality that have been linked to more transformational behaviors (e.g., Bono & Judge, 2004; Judge & Bono, 2000). Since more supportiveness has been linked to higher levels of emotional intelligence (e.g., Rubin, Munz, & Bommer, 2005), identifying leaders' level of emotional intelligence—for example, via the instrument
93
called "MSCEIT" (Mayer, Salovey, Caruso, & Sitarenios, 2002)— may help identify leaders likely to be supportive via transformational and/or empowering behaviors. A second implication for managers pertains to the fact that leader behaviors are developable and trainable (e.g., Bass, 1990; Latahm, 1998); and as such, it may behoove managers to provide leadership training for transformational- and empowering- behaviors (e.g., Mullen & Kelloway, 2009) and/or emotion-abilities that have been linked to greater levels of these types of leadership behaviors. A third implication for managers is that my findings suggest that emergent states and team processes are more proximal than team leader behaviors in influencing team creativity; and as such, actions that likely enhance these mediating states (which may or may not relate to leader-actions) are also likely to enhance team creativity. For example, managers may need to take actions in multiple areas of human resource policies to enhance the degree to which team members feel positive and empowered in teams and eager to engage in information sharing- and boundaryspanning behaviors. More specifically, given that team members' positive affective experiences in teams are associated with their affective experiences in non-work settings (Madjar, Oldham, & Pratt, 2002), it may be beneficial for managers to provide support to, not just employees, but also their family members like spouse and children. Additionally, adopting human resources policies including providing team members with team-based rewards, cross-training, and opportunities to make staffing decisions may be helpful for those managers given that these policies are associated with team members' experiences of team empowerment (Gibson & Kirkman, 1999; Manz & Sims, 1993; Guzzo, Yost, Campbell, & Shea, 1993).
94
A final implication of my dissertation's findings for managers is that none of the actions suggested above are likely, alone, to be effective in enhancing team creativity. This is because, as my theoretical model suggests, the "blackbox" of team creativity involves multiple variables, hence potentially many interventions, that influence each other. Hopefully, my dissertation will spark enthusiasm on the part of managers as well as management scholars to examine the direct and indirect antecedents of team creativity, as well as their interrelationships, that my dissertation suggests exist.
95
APPENDIX A
THE THIRD SURVEY FOR TEAM LEADERS & MEMBERS IN THE U.S.
I.
Please answer the following questions by placing a number to the left of each item using the scale provided below. (1 = poorly, 4 = medium, 7 = very much) Compared with other teams of similar function, how creative do you consider the team you are leading to be? Compared with other teams of similar function, how well does the team you are leading produce new ideas? Compared with other teams of similar function, how significant are those ideas to your organization? Compared with other teams of similar function, how useful are those ideas?
1. 2. 3. 4.
96
APPENDIX B
THE THIRD SURVEY FOR TEAM LEADERS & MEMBERS IN SOUTH KOREA ????????????/????????????????????. ???????????????, ????????????????????????????. (1=???????, 7=?????) ???????????. ????????????????????. ??? (????) ?????????????????????. ??? (????) ????????????????.
I.
1. 2. 3. 4.
97
APPENDIX C
THE FIRST SURVEY FOR TEAM LEADERS IN THE U.S.
I. 1. 2. 3.
Please provide the following demographic information about yourself. How old are you? ( ) years old. What is your gender? (1) Male (2) Female How would you describe your ethnicity and/or race? (1) Native American / Alaska Native (2) Asian American / Asian / Pacific Islander (3) African American / Black (4) Caucasian / White (5) Hispanic / Latino Please indicate your highest educational level attained. (1) Some college - no degree (2) Two-year college degree (Associates) (3) Four-year college degree (Bachelors) (4) Post graduate degree - Master's Degree (5) Advanced degree - Ph.D., JD, etc. How long have you been in your current project group? ( ) months How long have you been in your current occupation/line of work? ( ) months
4.
5. 6.
II. In this section, we ask you to tell us about your personal beliefs and values. For each statement, please choose the number that best represents your beliefs and values where 5 = strongly agree, 4 = somewhat agree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree, 2 = somewhat disagree, and 1= strongly disagree. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Group welfare is more important than individual rewards. It is important to have job requirements and instructions spelled out in detail so that employees always know what they are expected to do. Meetings are usually run more effectively when they are chaired by a man. Managers should make most decisions without consulting subordinates. Group success is more important than individual success. Managers expect employees to closely follow instructions and procedures. It is more important for men to have a professional career than it is for women to have a professional career. It is frequently necessary for a manager to use authority and power when dealing with subordinates. Being accepted by the members of your work group is very important. Rules and regulations are important because they inform employees what the organization expects of them.
98
11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22.
Men usually solve problems with logical analysis; women usually solve problems with intuition. Managers should seldom ask for the opinions of employees. Employees should only pursue their goals after considering the welfare of the group. Standard operating procedures are helpful to employees on the job. Solving organizational problems usually requires an active forcible approach which is typical of men. Managers should avoid off-the-job social contacts with employees. Managers should encourage group loyalty even if individual goals suffer. Instructions for operations are important for employees on the job. It is preferable to have a man in a high level position rather than a woman. Employees should not disagree with management decisions. Individuals may be expected to give up their goals in order to benefit group success. Managers should not delegate important tasks to employees.
III. Please choose the primary function of the team you are leading from the categories below. (choose one) 1. 2. 3. 4. Basic research to create broad-based new knowledge Applied or mission-oriented research that creates new knowledge for application to a particular problem New product or process development that takes existing knowledge and produces a new product or process Technical service or existing product or process development that modifies or improves a current product or process.
99
APPENDIX D
THE FIRST SURVEY FOR TEAM MEMBERS IN THE U.S.
I. 1. 2. 3.
Please provide the following demographic information about yourself. How old are you? ( ) years old. What is your gender? (1) Male (2) Female How would you describe your ethnicity and/or race? (1) Native American / Alaska Native (2) Asian American / Asian / Pacific Islander (3) African American / Black (4) Caucasian / White (5) Hispanic / Latino Please indicate your highest educational level attained. (1) Some college - no degree (2) Two-year college degree (Associates) (3) Four-year college degree (Bachelors) (4) Post graduate degree - Master's Degree (5) Advanced degree - Ph.D., JD, etc. How long have you been in your current project group? ( ) months How long have you been in your current occupation/line of work? ( ) months
4.
5. 6.
II. In this section, we ask you to tell us about your personal beliefs and values. For each statement, please choose the number that best represents your beliefs and values where 5 = strongly agree, 4 = somewhat agree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree, 2 = somewhat disagree, and 1= strongly disagree. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Group welfare is more important than individual rewards. It is important to have job requirements and instructions spelled out in detail so that employees always know what they are expected to do. Meetings are usually run more effectively when they are chaired by a man. Managers should make most decisions without consulting subordinates. Group success is more important than individual success. Managers expect employees to closely follow instructions and procedures. It is more important for men to have a professional career than it is for women to have a professional career. It is frequently necessary for a manager to use authority and power when dealing with subordinates. Being accepted by the members of your work group is very important. Rules and regulations are important because they inform employees what the organization expects of them.
100
11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22.
Men usually solve problems with logical analysis; women usually solve problems with intuition. Managers should seldom ask for the opinions of employees. Employees should only pursue their goals after considering the welfare of the group. Standard operating procedures are helpful to employees on the job. Solving organizational problems usually requires an active forcible approach which is typical of men. Managers should avoid off-the-job social contacts with employees. Managers should encourage group loyalty even if individual goals suffer. Instructions for operations are important for employees on the job. It is preferable to have a man in a high level position rather than a woman. Employees should not disagree with management decisions. Individuals may be expected to give up their goals in order to benefit group success. Managers should not delegate important tasks to employees.
III. Please think about the project groups to which you currently belong, and have belonged to in the past. The items below ask about your relationship with, and thoughts about, those particular groups. Respond to the following questions, as honestly as possible, using the response scales provided. (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. I prefer to work in my project team rather than working alone. Working in my project team is better than working alone. I want to work with my project team as opposed to working alone. I feel comfortable counting on my project team members to do their part. I am not bothered by the need to rely on project team members. I feel comfortable trusting my project team members to handle their tasks. The health of my project team is important to me. I care about the wellbeing of my project team. I am concerned about the needs of my project team. I follow the norms of my project team. I follow the procedures used by my project team. I accept the rules of my project team. I care more about the goals of my project team than my own goals. I emphasize the goals of my project team more than my individual goals. My project team's goals are more important to me than my personal goals.
IV. The items below consist of statements about your project team, and how your project team functions as a group. Please indicate the extent to which each statement describes your team, using the response scales provided. (1=strongly agree, 5=strongly disagree). 1. I cannot accomplish my tasks without information or materials from other members of my team.
101
2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.
Other members of my team depend on me for information or materials needed to perform their tasks. Within my team, jobs performed by team members are related to one another. My work goals come directly from the goals of my team. My work activities on any given day are determined by my team's goals for that day. I do very few activities on my job that are not related to the goals of my team. Feedback about how well I am doing my job comes primarily from information about how well the entire team is doing. My performance evaluation is strongly influenced by how well my team performs. Many rewards from my job (e.g., pay, promotion, etc.) are determined in large part by my contributions as a team member.
V. In this section, we ask you to tell us about yourself or the work you produce. For each statement, please choose the number that best represents yourself or the work you produce where 4 = strongly agree, 3 = somewhat agree, 2 = somewhat disagree, and 1= strongly disagree. 1. The work I produce is creative. 2. The work I produce is original. 3. The work I produce is novel.
VI. In this section, using the scale below, please indicate how frequently your project team's leader engages in the following behaviors. (1 = not at all, 2 = once in a while, 3 = sometimes, 4 = fairly often, 5 = frequently, if not always) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. My team leader re-examines critical assumptions to question whether they are appropriate. My team leader talks about his/her most important values and beliefs. My team leader seeks differing perspectives when solving problems. My team leader talks optimistically about the future. My team leader instills pride in me for being associated with him/her. My team leader talks enthusiastically about what needs to be accomplished. My team leader specifies the importance of having a strong sense of purpose. My team leader spends time teaching and coaching. My team leader goes beyond self-interest for the good of the group. My team leader treats me as individuals rather than just as a member of the group. My team leader acts in ways that build my respect. My team leader considers the moral and ethical consequences of decisions. My team leader displays a sense of power and confidence. My team leader articulates a compelling vision of the future. My team leader considers me as having different needs, abilities and aspirations from others.
102
16. 17. 18. 19. 20.
My team leader gets me to look at problems from many different angles. My team leader helps me to develop my strengths. My team leader suggests new ways of looking at how to complete assignments. My team leader emphasizes the importance of having a collective sense of mission. My team leader expresses confidence that goals will be achieved.
VII. In this section, using the scale below, please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements concerning your project team's leader. (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. My team leader gives my team many responsibilities. My team leader makes my team responsible for what it does. My team leader asks the team for advice when making decisions My team leader uses team suggestions and ideas when making decisions. My team leader controls much of the activities of the team. My team leader encourages my team to take control of its work. My team leader allows my team to set its own goals. My team leader encourages my team to come up with its own goals. My team leader stays out of the way when the team works on its performance problems. My team leader encourages my team to figure out the causes/solutions to its problems. My team leader tells the team to expect a lot from itself. My team leader encourages my team to go for high performance. My team leader trusts my team. My team leader is confident in what my team can do. My team leader absorbs outside pressures for the project team so it can work free of interference. My team leader protects the project team from outside interference. My team leader prevents outsiders from "overloading" the project team with too much information or too many requests. My team leader persuades other individuals that the project teams' activities are important. My team leader scans the environment inside your organization for threats to the product project team. My team leader "talks up" the project team to outsiders. My team leader persuades others to support the project team's decisions. My team leader acquires resources (e.g., money, new members, equipment) for the project team. My team leader reports the progress of the project team to a higher organizational level. My team leader finds out whether others in the company support or oppose my project team's activities.
103
25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35.
My team leader finds out information on my company's strategy or political situation that may affect the project. My team leader keeps other groups in the company informed of my project team's activities. My team leader resolves project problems with external groups. My team leader coordinates activities with external groups. My team leader procures things which the project team needs from other groups or individuals in the company. My team leader negotiates with others for delivery deadlines. My team leader reviews project plan with outsiders. My team leader finds out what competing firms or groups are doing on similar projects. My team leader scans the environment inside or outside the organization for marketing ideas/expertise. My team leader collects technical information/ideas from individuals outside of the project team. My team leader scans the environment inside or outside the organization for technical ideas/expertise.
104
APPENDIX E
THE FIRST SURVEY FOR TEAM LEADERS IN SOUTH KOREA
???????????????????. ???????????, ?????? ?? ?. ?????: ? ( )? ?????: (1) ? (2) ? ?????: (1) ?????? (2) ?????? (3) ????? (4) ??? (??) ?? (5) ??? (??) ???? ????????????????????? ( )?? ???????????????????????????????? ( ? ?
I.
1. 2. 3.
4. 5.
)
II. ?????????????????????????. ?????????? ??????????????????????????. (1=?????????, 2= ?????????, 3=?????, 4=???????, 5=???? ????) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. ?????????????????????. ???????????????????????????, ???????????????????????????????????. ???????????????????????????. ?????????????????????????????????. ???????????????????. ???????????????????????????????. ????????????????????????. ?????????????????????????????????. ???????????????????????????????. ???????????????????????????????????? ????. ?????????????????????, ??????????????????. ???????????????????????. ?????????????????????????????????. ??????????????????????.
105
15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22.
????????????????????, ???????????? ??????????????. ??????????????????????????. ????????????????????????????????????? ???. ?????????????????????????. ?????????????????????????????. ??????????????????????????. ??????????????????????????????????? ? . ??????????????????????????.
III. ???????????/???????????????. ??????, ?? ????????????????????? (?????????????? ???????????.) 1. 2. 3. 4. ?????????(??)?????????????????????? ? . ??????????????????(??)????????????? ????. ?????(??)???????????????????????/??? ? . ??????????????????????????????/?? ? ?
106
APPENDIX F
THE FIRST SURVEY FOR TEAM MEMBERS IN SOUTH KOREA
???????????????????. ???????????, ?????? ?? ?. ?????: ? ( )? ?????: (1) ? (2) ? ?????: (1) ?????? (2) ?????? (3) ????? (4) ??? (??) ?? (5) ??? (??) ???? ????????????????????? ( )?? ???????????????????????????????? ( ? ?
I.
1. 2. 3.
4. 5.
)
II. ?????????????????????????. ?????????? ??????????????????????????. (1=?????????, 2= ?????????, 3=?????, 4=???????, 5=???? ????) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. ?????????????????????. ???????????????????????????, ???????????????????????????????????. ???????????????????????????. ?????????????????????????????????. ???????????????????. ???????????????????????????????. ????????????????????????. ?????????????????????????????????. ???????????????????????????????. ???????????????????????????????????? ????. ?????????????????????, ??????????????????. ???????????????????????. ?????????????????????????????????. ??????????????????????.
107
15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22.
????????????????????, ???????????? ??????????????. ??????????????????????????. ????????????????????????????????????? ???. ?????????????????????????. ?????????????????????????????. ??????????????????????????. ??????????????????????????????????? ? . ??????????????????????????.
III. ?????????????????????????????. ?????? ????, ????????????????????????????. (1=?? ?????, 5=?????) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. ??????????????????????????. ????????????????????????. ??????????????????????????. ????????????????????????. ???????????????????????????. ????????????????????. ????????????????????. ??????????????. ???????????????????. ??????????. ???????????????. ??????????????. ?????????????????. ??????????????????. ??????????????????????.
IV. ?????????????????????????????????. ? ????????????????????????????????? ????. (1= ??????, 2=????, 3=?????, 4=?????, 5=??? ? ? ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. ???????????????????????????????????? ???. ?????????????????????????????????? ?. ????????????????????. ??????????????????????????. ?????????????????????????????.
108
6. 7. 8. 9.
??????????????????????????????????. ?????????????????????????????????? ? ? . ?????????????????????????????. ?????????(?: ??, ???)??????????????????????????.
V. ?????????????????????????. ??????????, ????????????????????????????. (1=????? ??, 4=?????) 1. ?????????????. 2. ?????????????. 3. ??????????????.
VI. ?????????????????. ?????????????????? ????????????, ???????????????????, ??? ????????????. (1=??????, 2=???????, 3=?????, 4=?????, 5=???????). 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. ?????????????????????????????. ????????????????????????????. ????????????, ?????????????. ?????????????????????. ??????????, ???????????. ??????????????????????????????. ????????????????????????????. ??????????????????????. ?????????????????????????. ?????????????????, ??????????????. ???????????????????. ????????????????, ??????????. ???????????????. ?????????????????????????. ?????????????????????????????. ?????????????????????????. ???????????????????. ??????????????????????????????. ???????????????????????????????. ???????????????????.
VII. ?????????????????????????. ??????????? ?????????????????, ????????????
109
???????, ???????????????. (1=?????????, 7=??????). 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. ????????? (?????) ?????????. ???????? (????) ???????????????. ?????????????? (?????) ??????. ????????????? (????) ????????????. ???????? (????) ???????????. ???????? (????) ????????????????????? ?. ???????? (????) ??????????????????. ???????? (????) ??????????????????. ???????? (????) ???????????????????? ? ? . ???????? (????) ??????????????????????? ? ?. ???????? (????) ??????????. ???????? (????) ??????????????. ???????? (????) ????. ???????? (????) ????????????? ???????? (????) ???????????????????????????. ???????? (????) ?????????????. ???????? (????) ???????????????????????????????. ??????????????? (????) ?????????????. ????????????? (????) ?????????????????????. ??????????? (???????) ?????????????. ?????????????? (????) ??????????????. ???????? (????) ????????? (?: ?, ??, ??)???????????. ???????? (????) ???????????????????. ?????????????????? (????) ???????????????????????. ????????? (?????) ????????????????????????????. ????????????????? (????) ??????????. ????????????????????????????????. ??????????????????????. ???????? (????) ??????????????????????????????. ???????????????????????/??????????? ????????.
110
31. 32. 33. 34. 35.
?????????????????????????. ???????? (????) ???????????????????????????????????? ??. ??????????????????????????????????? ? ?. ??????? (???) ???????????????????????? ?. ?????????????????????????????????? ?????.
111
APPENDIX G
THE SECOND SURVEY FOR TEAM LEADERS IN THE U.S.
I.
Using the scale below, please indicate how strongly you agree to the following statements regarding the project team you are leading. (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree) Communicating is a problem in my project team. Members of my project team inform each other about work-related issues. The quality of information exchange in our project team is good. I get new facts, insights, and ideas from my colleagues. During work meetings, we tell each other what we know already and do not exchange new information. We do not repeat ourselves during team meetings. My project team members absorb outside pressures for the project team so it can work free of interference. My project team members protect the project team from outside interference. My project team members prevent outsiders from "overloading" the project team with too much information or too many requests. My project team members persuade other individuals that the project teams' activities are important. My project team members scan the environment inside your organization for threats to the product project team. My project team members "talk up" the project team to outsiders. My project team members persuade others to support the project team's decisions. My project team members acquire resources (e.g., money, new members, equipment) for the project team. My project team members report the progress of the project team to a higher organizational level. My project team members find out whether others in the company support or oppose my project team's activities. My project team members find out information on my company's strategy or political situation that may affect the project. My project team members keep other groups in the company informed of my project team's activities. My project team members resolve project problems with external groups. My project team members coordinate activities with external groups. My project team members procure things which the project team needs from other groups or individuals in the company. My project team members negotiate with others for delivery deadlines. My project team members review project plan with outsiders.
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23.
112
24. 25. 26. 27.
My project team members find out what competing firms or groups are doing on similar projects. My project team members scan the environment inside or outside the organization for marketing ideas/expertise. My project team members collect technical information/ideas from individuals outside of the project team. My project team members scan the environment inside or outside the organization for technical ideas/expertise.
113
APPENDIX H
THE SECOND SURVEY FOR TEAM MEMBERS IN THE U.S.
I.
Based on your experiences of previous month in your company, please provide your perspective on the following statements, using the response scales provided. (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree) Creativity in teams is encouraged at our company. Our ability as a team to function creatively is respected by the leadership. The reward system here encourages creativity in teams. Our company publicly recognizes creative teams.
1. 2. 3. 4.
II. This section consists of a number of words that describe different feelings and emotions. Read each item and then indicate to what extent you have generally felt this way during the past four weeks. (1 = not at all, 5 = extremely so) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. interested excited strong enthusiastic proud alert inspired determined attentive active
III. Using the scale below, please indicate how strongly you agree to the following statements regarding the project team you are working for. (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. My project team has confidence in itself. My project team can get a lot done when it works hard. My project team believes that it can be very productive. My project team believes that its projects are significant. My project team feels that its tasks are worthwhile. My project team feels that its work is meaningful. My project team can select different ways to do the project team's work. My project team determines as a team how things are done in the team. My project team makes its own choices without being told by management. My project team has a positive impact on this company's customers. My project team performs tasks that matter to this company. My project team makes a difference in this organization.
114
13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39.
Communicating is a problem in my project team. Members of my project team inform each other about work-related issues. The quality of information exchange in our project team is good. I get new facts, insights, and ideas from my colleagues. During work meetings, we tell each other what we know already and do not exchange new information. We do not repeat ourselves during team meetings. My project team members absorb outside pressures for the project team so it can work free of interference. My project team members protect the project team from outside interference. My project team members prevent outsiders from "overloading" the project team with too much information or too many requests. My project team members persuade other individuals that the project teams' activities are important. My project team members scan the environment inside your organization for threats to the product project team. My project team members "talk up" the project team to outsiders. My project team members persuade others to support the project team's decisions. My project team members acquire resources (e.g., money, new members, equipment) for the project team. My project team members report the progress of the project team to a higher organizational level. My project team members find out whether others in the company support or oppose my project team's activities. My project team members find out information on my company's strategy or political situation that may affect the project. My project team members keep other groups in the company informed of my project team's activities. My project team members resolve project problems with external groups. My project team members coordinate activities with external groups. My project team members procure things which the project team needs from other groups or individuals in the company. My project team members negotiate with others for delivery deadlines. My project team members review project plan with outsiders. My project team members find out what competing firms or groups are doing on similar projects. My project team members scan the environment inside or outside the organization for marketing ideas/expertise. My project team members collect technical information/ideas from individuals outside of the project team. My project team members scan the environment inside or outside the organization for technical ideas/expertise.
115
APPENDIX I
THE SECOND SURVEY FOR TEAM LEADERS IN SOUTH KOREA
???????????????????????????. ?????? ????, ????????????????????????????. (1=?? ?????, 7=?????) ?????????????????. ?????????????????????????. ???????????????????????. ???????????????????????, ????????. ?????, ????????????????????????, ???????????????. ?????????????????????????????????? ? ? . ????????????? (??) ???????????????????????????????. ????????????? (??) ?????????????. ????????????? (??) ????????????????????????????????. ???????????????????? (??) ?????????????. ?????????????????? (??) ?????????????????????. ???????????????? (?????) ?????????????. ??????????????????? (??) ??????????? ? ?? . ????????????? (??) ????????? (?: ?, ??, ??)???????????. ????????????? (??) ?????????????????? ?. ????????????????????????????????????? ????????????. ?????????????? (???) ????????????????????????????. ?????????????????????? (??) ????????? ?. ????????????????????????????????? ?? ?. ??????????????????????????.
I.
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.
116
21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27.
????????????? (??) ????????????????? ?????????????. ???????????????????????????/?????? ?????????????????. ?????????????????????????????. ????????????? (??) ?????????????????????????????????? ????. ????????????????????????????????????? ????. ??????????????????????????????. ???????????????????????????????????? ???????.
117
APPENDIX J
THE SECOND SURVEY FOR TEAM MEMBERS IN SOUTH KOREA
??????????????????????????????????? ?????????. ?????????????, ??????? ?????????????????????. (1=???????, 7=?? ?? ? ) ???????????????. ????????????????????. ??????????????????. ????????????????????????????.
I.
1. 2. 3. 4.
II. ??????????????????????. ???????????? ?????????????????????????? ???????? ???????????????????????. (1=???????, 2=?? ?????, 3=?????, 4=?????, 5=???????) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ???? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
III. ?????????????????????????????. ?????? ????, ????????????????????????????. (1=?? ?????, 7=?????) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. ??? (????) ??????????. ??? (????) ???????????????. ??? (????) ????????????????. ??? (????) ????????????????. ??? (????) ?????????????????. ??? (????) ?????????????????. ??? (????) ???????????????????????. ??? (????) ?????????????????????????.
118
9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35.
??? (????) ???????????????????????? ???????????. ??? (????) ???????????????????. ??? (????) ???????????????. ??? (????) ????????????????????. ???????????????. ????????????????????????. ????????????????????. ???? (????) ???????????????, ????????. ?????, ??? (????) ??????????????????, ???????????????. ??? (????) ???????????????????????. ??? (????) ??? (????) ???????????????????????????????. ??? (????) ?????? (????) ?????????????. ??? (????) ?????? (????) ????????????????????????????????. ??? (????) ?????????? (????) ?????????????. ??? (????) ???????? (????) ?????????????????????. ??? (????) ??????? (???????) ?????????????. ??? (????) ????????? (????) ???????????? ?? . ??? (????) ???? (????) ????????? (?: ?, ??, ??)???????????. ??? (????) ??? (????) ????????????????? ? ?. ??? (????) ????????????? (????) ???????????????????????. ??? (????) ???? (?????) ????????????????????????????. ??? (????) ???????????? (????) ???????? ? ?. ??? (????) ?????????????????????????? ?. ??? (????) ?????????????????. ??? (????) ??? (????) ??????????????????????????????. ??? (????) ??????????????????/?????????????????? ????. ??? (????) ????????????????????.
119
36. 37. 38. 39.
??? (????) ??? (????) ???????????????? ??????????????????????. ??? (????) ????????????????????????????????. ??? (????) ?????????????????????. ??? (????) ??????????????????????????????????.
120
TABLE 1. EMPIRICAL STUDIES OF THE ANTECEDENTS OF CREATIVITY FROM 1990 TO 2010 IN MANAGEMENT LITERATURES
Author Firestien Murray et al. Caird Shalley Kabanoff & Bottger * Kelly & Karau Dollinger & Clancy Tetlock et al. Redmond et al. Foxall & Hackett Eisenberger & Selbst Whitney et al. Shalley Helson et al. Psychology * McLeod & Lobel Amabile et al. Oldham & Cummings Hirt et al. Livingstone et al. Eisenberger & Armeli Simonton * * * Sosik et al. Rodriguez Sosik et al. Chatman et al. Zhou Carnevale & Probst Eisenberger et al. Simonton 1996 1996 1996 1996 1997 1997 1997 1997 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 Small Group Research Academy of Management Journal Academy of Management Journal Journal of Personality & Social British Journal of Management Journal of Management Journal of Personality & Social Psychology Journal of Personality & Social Psychology Journal of Applied Psychology Small Group Research Small Group Research Administrative Science Quarterly Journal of Applied Psychology Journal of Personality & Social Psychology Journal of Personality & Social Psychology Journal of Personality & Social Psychology Year Publication 1990 Small Group Research 1990 Journal of Personality & Social Psychology 1991 1991 1991 1993 1993 1993 1993 1994 1994 1994 1995 1995 British Journal of Management Journal of Applied Psychology Journal of Organizational Behavior Small Group Research Journal of Personality & Social Psychology Journal of Personality & Social Psychology Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes British Journal of Management Journal of Personality & Social Psychology Journal of Personality & Social Psychology Academy of Management Journal Journal of Personality & Social
*
Psychology Coopey et al. 1997
121
TABLE 1. (CONT'D)
Author Amabile & Conti Buttner et al. Arndt et al. Eisenberger et al. * * Swann et al. Paulus & Yang Shalley et al. Ford & Gioia Axtell et al. Friedman & Förster Zhou & George George & Zhou Kickul & Gundry Eisenberger & Rhoades Friedman & Förster Shalley & Perry-Smith Polzer et al. Taggar Madjar et al. Tierney & Farmer George & Zhou Van Dyne et al. Behavior Elsbach & Kramer Farmer et al. * * * Grawitch et al. Jaussi & Dionne Kahai et al. Shin & Zhou Swann et al. Bulletin Zhou Carson et al. *** Gilson & Shalley * Miura & Hida 2003 2003 2004 2004 Journal of Applied Psychology Journal of Personality & Social Psychology Journal of Management Small Group Research 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 2003 Academy of Management Journal Academy of Management Journal Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice Leadership Quarterly Leadership Quarterly Academy of Management Journal Personality and Social Psychology Year 1999 1999 1999 1999 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 Publication Academy of Management Journal British Journal of Management Journal of Personality & Social Psychology Journal of Personality & Social Psychology Journal of Personality & Social Psychology Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes Academy of Management Journal Journal of Management Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology Journal of Personality & Social Psychology Academy of Management Journal Journal of Applied Psychology Journal of Management Journal of Personality & Social Psychology Journal of Personality & Social Psychology Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes Administrative Science Quarterly Academy of Management Journal Academy of Management Journal Academy of Management Journal Journal of Applied Psychology Journal of Organizational
* *
122
TABLE 1. (CONT'D)
Author Paletz et al. Tierney & Farmer Miron et al. Förster et al. Kuncel et al. Seibt & Förster * * * Beersma & De Dreu Chirumbolo et al. Choi & Thompson Amabile et al. Friedman & Förster ** * Hargadon & Bechky Goncalo & Staw Fong Perry-Smith Alge et al. Baer & Oldham Ohly et al. Griskevicius et al. Kray et al. Cohendet & Simon ** *** Shin & Zhou George & Zhou Porath & Erez Von Nordenflycht Fleming et al. Choi Probst et al. Eikhof & Haunschild Svejenova et al. Tschang Year Publication 2004 Small Group Research 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 Journal of Organizational Behavior Journal of Management Journal of Organizational Behavior Journal of Personality & Social Psychology Journal of Personality & Social Psychology Journal of Personality & Social Psychology Journal of Personality & Social Psychology Small Group Research Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes Administrative Science Quarterly Journal of Personality & Social Psychology Organization Science Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes Academy of Management Journal Academy of Management Journal Journal of Applied Psychology Journal of Applied Psychology Journal of Organizational Behavior Journal of Personality & Social Psychology Journal of Personality & Social Psychology Journal of Organizational Behavior Journal of Applied Psychology Academy of Management Journal Academy of Management Journal Academy of Management Journal Administrative Science Quarterly Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology Journal of Organizational Behavior Journal of Organizational Behavior
*
*** Pirola-Merlo & Mann
2007 Organization Science
123
TABLE 1. (CONT'D)
Author Fleming et al. Pearsall et al. Ng & Feldman Janssen & Xu Thatcher & Greer Madjar De Dreu et al. Hirt et al. Sivanathan et al. Cattani & Ferriani Year Publication 2007 Organization Science 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 Journal of Applied Psychology Journal of Applied Psychology Journal of Management Journal of Management Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology Journal of Personality & Social Psychology Journal of Personality & Social Psychology Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes Organization Science Small Group Research Journal of Applied Psychology Academy of Management Journal Academy of Management Journal Academy of Management Journal Journal of Personality & Social Psychology Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes Small Group Research Journal of Applied Psychology Journal of Applied Psychology Leadership Quarterly Academy of Management Journal Administrative Science Quarterly Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology Journal of Personality & Social Psychology Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes
*
Baruah & Paulus Neubert et al. Gong et al. Hirst et al. Shalley et al. Maddux & Galinsky Davis Porath & Erez
** Seddon & Biasutti *** Hülsheger et al.
Zhou et al. Atwater & Carmeli Zhang & Bartol
**
Lingo & O'Mahony Unsworth & Clegg Thrash et al.
* *
Giambatista & Bhappu Gino et al.
124
TABLE 1. (CONT'D)
Author Byron et al. Year Publication
2010 Journal of Applied Psychology
* ** ***
Studies on team creativity in laboratory teams Studies on team creativity in ongoing teams with qualitative methodology Studies on team creativity in ongoing teams with quantitative/statistical methodology
125
TABLE 2. CONCLUSIONS FROM PREVIOUS STUDIES ON TEAM CREATIVITY
Category 1 Team Leader Behavior Factors
Conclusion Teams will generally be more creative when they are led by team leaders who engage in more rather than less "transformational" behaviors. Teams will generally be more creative when they are led by team leaders who engage in more rather than less "boundary-spanning" behaviors. Teams will generally be more creative when their team members have more rather than less positive affective experiences in their team - that is, when they have higher levels of "positive group affective tone." Teams will generally be more creative when their team members have stronger rather than weaker beliefs in their efficacy and independence while working as a team, as well as the importance and significance of their works in teams - that is, when they have higher levels of "team empowerment."
Related Studies Shin & Zhou, 2007 Sosik et al. 1997
2
Lingo & O'Mahony, 2010
3
Grawitch et al. 2003 Pearsall et al. 2008
Team Emergent State Factors
4
Shin & Zhou, 2007 Sosik et al. 1997
5 Team Process Factors
Teams will generally be more creative when their team members engage in more rather than less "information sharing" behaviors with their team members. Teams will generally be more creative when their team members engage in more rather than less "boundary-spanning" behaviors with members of other teams or outsiders.
Gilson & Shalley, 2004 Hargadon & Bechky, 2006 Hülsheger et al., 2009 Seddon & Biasutti, 2009 Taggar, 2002 Cohendet & Simon, 2007 Gilson & Shalley, 2004 Hülsheger et al., 2009
6
126
TABLE 2. (CONT'D)
Category 7
Conclusion Teams will generally be more creative when they have team members with stronger rather than weaker "creative ability". Teams will generally be more creative when they have team members with more positive rather than negative attitudes toward their team - that is, when they have higher levels of "preference for workgroup." Teams will generally be more creative when they have team members with more rather than less diverse functional backgrounds and team tenure - that is, when they have higher levels of "job-related diversity."
Related Studies Pirola-Merlo & Mann, 2004 Taggar, 2002 West & Anderson, 1996
8 Team Compositi on Factors 9
Gilson & Shalley, 2004 Hülsheger et al., 2009
Choi & Thompson, 2005 De Dreu & West, 2001 Hülsheger et al., 2009
Task Design Factors
10
Teams will generally be more creative whey they need higher rather than lower interdependence among team members to achieve their goals - that is, when they have higher levels of "team interdependence."
Gilson & Shalley, 2004 Hülsheger et al., 2009
127
TABLE 3. THE DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF INITIAL SAMPLE
Total Total S.K. Team Leaders Team Members Team Leaders 1. Age (yrs) 2. Team Tenure (months) 3. The Ratio of Males 4. The Ratio of Females 5. The Ratio of Doctors 6. The Ratio of Masters 7. The Ratio of Bachelors 8. The Ratio of Asian / Asian American 9. The Ratio of Caucasian 10. The Ratio of African American 11. The Ratio of Hispanic 12. The Ratio of Native American 13. Total Number 40.15 (5.87) 42.94 (40.76) 100.0% 0.0% 53.6% 25.0% 21.4% 87.1% 12.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 62 35.69 (5.95) 33.83 (26.79) 95.3% 4.7% 26.3% 51.3% 22.4% 90.2% 6.8% 1.8% 0.6% 0.6% 171 40.47 (3.68) 58.47 (43.77) 100.0% 0.0% 76.5% 17.6% 5.9% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 40
U.S. S.K. U.S. Team Leaders Team Members Team Members 39.60 (8.49) 18.93 (18.65) 100.0% 0.0% 18.2% 45.4% 36.4% 63.6% 36.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 22 34.39 (3.79) 39.63 (26.29) 95.1% 4.9% 27.2% 55.4% 17.4% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 120 39.05 (8.67) 21.28 (23.54) 91.8% 8.2% 24.5% 42.9% 32.6% 67.7% 22.4% 5.9% 2.0% 2.0% 51
Note. The number in the parenthesis in the row of "Age" and "Team Tenure" shows standard deviation. "S.K." refers to South Korea, "U.S." refers to the United States.
128
TABLE 4. THE DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF FINAL SAMPLE
Total Total S.K. Team Leaders Team Members Team Leaders 1. Age (yrs) 2. Team Tenure (months) 3. The Ratio of Males 4. The Ratio of Females 5. The Ratio of Doctors 6. The Ratio of Masters 7. The Ratio of Bachelors 8. The Ratio of Asian / Asian American 9. The Ratio of Caucasian 10. The Ratio of African American 11. The Ratio of Hispanic 12. The Ratio of Native American 13. Total Number 40.56 (6.04) 41.87 (39.56) 100.0% 0.0% 54.0% 24.0% 22.0% 88.5%1 1.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 52 35.92 (6.10) 34.21 (28.41) 95.1% 4.9% 24.5% 51.0% 24.5% 90.2% 7.0% 1.4% 0.7% 0.7% 143 41.22 (3.48) 59.81 (42.02) 100.0% 0.0% 78.1%1 5.6% 6.3% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 32
U.S. S.K. U.S. Team Leaders Team Members Team Members 38.83 (9.12) 18.46 (18.36) 100.0% 0.0% 20.0% 45.0% 35.0% 65.0%3 5.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 20 34.21 (3.57) 40.23 (24.84) 93.7% 6.3% 23.9% 55.2% 20.9% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 96 39.21 (5.29) 24.23 (23.84) 97.9% 2.1% 25.5% 42.6% 31.9% 70.3% 2 1.3% 4.2% 2.1% 2.1% 47
Note. The number in the parenthesis in the row of "Age" and "Team Tenure" shows standard deviation. "S.K." refers to South Korea, "U.S." refers to the United States.
129
TABLE 5. RELIABILITY-WITHIN-GROUP (rwg), ICC(1), and ICC(2)
Variable Team Leader Behavior Transformational Behaviors (Total) Idealized Influence Inspirational Motivation Intellectual Stimulation Individulized Consideration Empowering Behaviors Boundary-Working Behaviors (Total) Ambassadorial Behaviors Scouting Behaviors Sentry Behaviors Team Emergent State Factor Positive Group Affective Tone Team Empowerment Team Process Factor Team Information Sharing Team Boundary-Work (Total) Ambassadorial Behaviors Scouting Behaviors Sentry Behaviors Contextual Factor Organizational Support for Team Creativity Task Design Factor Team Interdependence Task Interdependence Goal Interdependence Interdependent Feedback and Rewards Team Outcome Team Creativity 0.814 0.211 0.501 0.831 0.853 0.867 0.108 0.135 0.161 0.324 0.375 0.418 0.868 0.122 0.302 0.877 0.892 0.861 0.865 0.839 0.197 0.178 0.195 0.188 0.173 0.652 0.442 0.506 0.467 0.429 0.856 0.863 0.188 0.142 0.572 0.438 0.895 0.886 0.862 0.865 0.863 0.885 0.889 0.874 0.847 0.795 0.226 0.235 0.229 0.208 0.231 0.231 0.204 0.198 0.221 0.197 0.682 0.648 0.658 0.603 0.601 0.530 0.599 0.603 0.528 0.565 Median rwg ICC(1) ICC(2)
130
TABLE 6. MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, AND INTERCORRELATIONS FOR STUDY VARIABLES
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Variable Team Member Creativity Preference for Workgroup Team Tenure Diversity Task Interdependence Goal Interdependence Interdependent Reward and Feedback Leaders' Transformational Behaviors Leaders' Empowering Behaviors Leaders' Boundary-Spanning Behaviors Positive Group Affective Tone Team Empowerment Team Information Sharing Organizational Support for Team Creativity Team Boundary-Spanning Team Creativity
Mean
2.861 3.939 0.531 3.651 3.810 3.780 3.319 4.943 4.908 3.535 5.334 3.644 3.570 4.884 0.007
s.d.
0.437 0.370
1
0.146
2
3
4
5
6
7
0.249 -0.020 0.472 0.445 0.486 0.290 0.321 0.160
* *
.088 .283 * .405 .445 ** .588 ** .493
** ** **
-.085 .169 .304 * -.183 -.074 -.078 -.055 -.096 .040 .616 ** .442 ** .300 * .241 .228 .111 .261 .069 .265 .377 ** .296 *
*
.542 ** .197 .177 .140 .188 .324 * .058 .361 .364 ** .287 *
**
0.528 -0.014 0.702 0.730 0.414 0.601 0.493 0.297 0.788 0.787 0.161 0.045 0.078 0.090 0.017 0.087 0.165 0.222
.331 * .292 .198 .197 .127 .073 .335 .361 ** .299 *
* *
(0.926 ) .717 ** .728 ** .358 ** .413 ** .400 ** .589 ** .385 ** .246
.489 .419 ** .366 ** .217 .491 .304 * .265 *
**
.051 -.144 .129
Note. Boldface elements on the diagonal represent the square root of the average variance extracted. Off-diagonal elements are correlations between constructs. For adequate discriminant validity, the elements in each row and column should be smaller than the boldfaced element in the row or column. * p < .05, ** p < .01
131
TABLE 6. (CONT'D)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Variable Team Member Creativity Preference for Workgroup Team Tenure Diversity Task Interdependence Goal Interdependence Interdependent Reward and Feedback Leaders' Transformational Behaviors Leaders' Empowering Behaviors Leaders' Boundary-Spanning Behaviors Positive Group Affective Tone Team Empowerment Team Information Sharing Organizational Support for Team Creativity Team Boundary-Spanning Team Creativity
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
(0.815) .668 ** (0.902) .304 ** .425 .306 *
**
.194 (0.752) .352 ** .514 ** (0.752) .351 ** .377 ** .476 ** (0.829) .466 ** .627 ** .653 ** .449 ** (0.821 ) .516 ** .249 .358 * .175 .234 .391 ** .241 .413 ** .337 * .392 ** (0.880) .248 (0.856)
.520 .471 ** .204
**
Note. Boldface elements on the diagonal represent the square root of the average variance extracted. Off-diagonal elements are correlations between constructs. For adequate discriminant validity, the elements in each row and column should be smaller than the boldfaced element in the row or column. * p < .05, ** p < .01
132
TABLE 7. INTERNAL AND CROSSLOADINGS OF THE ITEMS
Leaders'
Leaders'
Leaders' Boundary-
Transformational Empowering Behaviors Leaders' Idealized Influence Leaders' Inspirational Motivation Leaders' Intellectual Stimulation Leaders' Individualized Consideration Leaders' Empowering Behaviors #1 Leaders' Empowering Behaviors #2 Leaders' Empowering Behaviors #3 Leaders' Empowering Behaviors #4 Leaders' Empowering Behaviors #5 Leaders' Empowering Behaviors #6 Leaders' Empowering Behaviors #7 Leaders' Empowering Behaviors #8 Leaders' Empowering Behaviors #9 Leaders' Empowering Behaviors #10 Leaders' Empowering Behaviors #11 Leaders' Empowering Behaviors #12 Leaders' Empowering Behaviors #13 Leaders' Empowering Behaviors #14 0.910 0.961 0.929 0.903 0.510 0.413 0.440 0.518 0.587 0.554 0.615 0.616 0.561 0.660 0.697 0.775 0.562 0.616 Behaviors 0.685 0.671 0.649 0.678 0.803 0.692 0.751 0.819 0.801 0.869 0.851 0.842 0.813 0.861 0.783 0.802 0.857 0.848 0.695 0.728 0.657 0.671 0.561 0.373 0.471 0.621 0.515 0.496 0.617 0.604 0.583 0.630 0.719 0.644 0.613 0.625
Positive Group Team Information Spanning Empowerment Sharing Behaviors 0.245 0.373 0.475 0.337 0.143 0.192 0.264 0.329 0.422 0.263 0.218 0.307 0.212 0.097 0.186 0.450 0.333 0.349 0.351 0.337 0.383 0.378 0.346 0.176 0.228 0.324 0.507 0.350 0.355 0.378 0.290 0.307 0.298 0.426 0.439 0.472
Team Affective Tone 0.322 0.367 0.365 0.321 0.138 0.118 0.133 0.244 0.341 0.230 0.244 0.295 0.239 0.147 0.329 0.312 0.330 0.251
Note. Boldface elements represent internal loadings.
133
TABLE 7. (CONT'D)
Leaders'
Leaders'
Leaders' Boundary-
Transformational Empowering Behaviors Leaders' Ambassadorial Behaviors Leaders' Scouting Behaviors Leaders' Sentry Behaviors Members' Positive Affective Experiences #1 Members' Positive Affective Experiences #2 Members' Positive Affective Experiences #3 Members' Positive Affective Experiences #4 Members' Positive Affective Experiences #5 Members' Positive Affective Experiences #6 Members' Positive Affective Experiences #7 Members' Positive Affective Experiences #8 Members' Positive Affective Experiences #9 Members' Positive Affective Experiences #10 Members' Experiences of Team Empowerment #1 Members' Experiences of Team Empowerment #2 Members' Experiences of Team Empowerment #3 Members' Experiences of Team Empowerment #4 Members' Experiences of Team Empowerment #5 0.681 0.627 0.696 0.314 0.184 0.136 0.292 0.236 0.268 0.515 0.254 0.421 0.162 0.313 0.347 0.223 0.346 0.276 Behaviors 0.663 0.632 0.632 0.273 0.247 0.055 0.323 0.178 0.401 0.374 0.162 0.272 0.217 0.312 0.473 0.422 0.385 0.318 0.928 0.897 0.882 0.174 0.125 -0.026 0.135 0.191 0.279 0.316 0.121 0.298 0.114 0.160 0.240 0.248 0.257 0.207
Positive Group Team Information Spanning Empowerment Sharing Behaviors 0.314 0.284 0.092 0.809 0.721 0.605 0.761 0.832 0.813 0.751 0.720 0.802 0.673 0.495 0.496 0.350 0.543 0.500 0.344 0.310 0.308 0.529 0.288 0.129 0.441 0.444 0.547 0.519 0.355 0.402 0.316 0.736 0.738 0.765 0.831 0.863
Team Affective Tone 0.366 0.357 0.269 0.302 0.339 -0.036 0.277 0.326 0.329 0.404 0.342 0.425 0.178 0.370 0.398 0.355 0.381 0.485
Note. Boldface elements represent internal loadings.
134
TABLE 7. (CONT'D)
Leaders'
Leaders'
Leaders' Boundary-
Transformational Empowering Behaviors Members' Experiences of Team Empowerment #6 Members' Experiences of Team Empowerment #7 Members' Experiences of Team Empowerment #8 Members' Experiences of Team Empowerment #9 Members' Experiences of Team Empowerment #10 Members' Experiences of Team Empowerment #11 Members' Experiences of Team Empowerment #12 Members' Information Sharing Behaviors #1 Members' Information Sharing Behaviors #2 Members' Information Sharing Behaviors #3 Members' Information Sharing Behaviors #4 Members' Information Sharing Behaviors #5 Members' Information Sharing Behaviors #6 Members' Ambassadorial Behaviors Members' Scouting Behaviors Members' Sentry Behaviors Organizational Support for Team Creativity #1 Organizational Support for Team Creativity #2 Organizational Support for Team Creativity #3 Organizational Support for Team Creativity #4 0.336 0.327 0.288 0.153 0.407 0.293 0.131 0.293 0.410 0.392 0.246 0.196 0.315 0.445 0.326 0.514 0.343 0.301 0.350 0.358 Behaviors 0.340 0.452 0.300 0.153 0.414 0.235 0.126 0.316 0.247 0.256 0.267 0.154 0.300 0.447 0.370 0.398 0.394 0.445 0.369 0.431 0.294 0.370 0.436 0.309 0.281 0.221 0.133 0.311 0.369 0.349 0.263 0.158 0.365 0.396 0.319 0.439 0.416 0.472 0.475 0.475
Positive Group Team Information Spanning Empowerment Sharing Behaviors 0.488 0.320 0.388 0.163 0.544 0.428 0.180 0.192 0.400 0.353 0.486 0.252 0.353 0.571 0.563 0.423 0.168 0.212 0.285 0.234 0.825 0.794 0.648 0.697 0.772 0.779 0.622 0.430 0.383 0.479 0.480 0.244 0.411 0.572 0.517 0.545 0.322 0.352 0.229 0.253
Team Affective Tone 0.439 0.445 0.364 0.325 0.269 0.319 0.241 0.775 0.838 0.891 0.869 0.716 0.869 0.377 0.412 0.324 0.266 0.137 0.143 0.096
Note. Boldface elements represent internal loadings.
135
TABLE 7. (CONT'D)
Leaders'
Leaders'
Leaders' Boundary-
Transformational Empowering Behaviors Team Creativity #1 Team Creativity #2 Team Creativity #3 Team Creativity #4 Team Member Creativity Preference for Workgroup Team Tenure Diversity Task Interdependence Goal Interdependence Interdependent Reward and Feedback 0.327 0.324 0.066 0.128 -0.017 -0.014 -0.173 0.195 0.333 0.296 Behaviors 0.263 0.259 0.088 0.106 0.174 0.061 -0.082 0.187 0.285 0.252 0.348 0.331 0.080 0.168 0.053 0.076 -0.028 0.173 0.257 0.226
Positive Group Team Information Spanning Empowerment Sharing Behaviors 0.428 0.378 0.318 0.288 0.093 0.021 -0.039 0.212 0.224 0.139 0.313 0.242 0.137 0.208 0.091 0.104 -0.068 0.328 0.139 0.252
Team Affective Tone 0.399 0.300 0.295 0.376 0.022 0.087 0.031 0.052 0.056 0.068
Note. Boldface elements represent internal loadings.
136
TABLE 7. (CONT'D)
Team BoundarySpanning Leaders' Idealized Influence Leaders' Inspirational Motivation Leaders' Intellectual Stimulation Leaders' Individualized Consideration Leaders' Empowering Behaviors #1 Leaders' Empowering Behaviors #2 Leaders' Empowering Behaviors #3 Leaders' Empowering Behaviors #4 Leaders' Empowering Behaviors #5 Leaders' Empowering Behaviors #6 Leaders' Empowering Behaviors #7 Leaders' Empowering Behaviors #8 Leaders' Empowering Behaviors #9 Leaders' Empowering Behaviors #10 Leaders' Empowering Behaviors #11 Leaders' Empowering Behaviors #12 Leaders' Empowering Behaviors #13 Leaders' Empowering Behaviors #14 0.410 0.469 0.541 0.494 0.318 0.290 0.372 0.472 0.403 0.373 0.337 0.479 0.267 0.303 0.421 0.536 0.458 0.438
Organizational Support for Team Creativity Creativity 0.398 0.397 0.371 0.260 0.440 0.438 0.304 0.445 0.279 0.423 0.322 0.299 0.340 0.447 0.358 0.459 0.394 0.415 0.186 0.235 0.311 0.206 0.101 0.165 0.124 0.181 0.219 0.173 0.108 0.075 0.070 0.161 0.274 0.275 0.212 0.246
Team Composition -0.049 -0.101 -0.109 -0.090 0.184 0.048 0.053 0.070 0.132 0.134 0.135 0.128 0.054 0.002 0.103 0.066 0.172 0.045
Team Interdependence 0.355 0.338 0.346 0.249 0.240 0.256 0.242 0.277 0.172 0.245 0.213 0.149 0.141 0.229 0.251 0.407 0.298 0.281
Note. Boldface elements represent internal loadings.
137
TABLE 7. (CONT'D)
Team BoundarySpanning Leaders' Ambassadorial Behaviors Leaders' Scouting Behaviors Leaders' Sentry Behaviors Members' Positive Affective Experiences #1 Members' Positive Affective Experiences #2 Members' Positive Affective Experiences #3 Members' Positive Affective Experiences #4 Members' Positive Affective Experiences #5 Members' Positive Affective Experiences #6 Members' Positive Affective Experiences #7 Members' Positive Affective Experiences #8 Members' Positive Affective Experiences #9 Members' Positive Affective Experiences #10 Members' Experiences of Team Empowerment #1 Members' Experiences of Team Empowerment #2 Members' Experiences of Team Empowerment #3 Members' Experiences of Team Empowerment #4 Members' Experiences of Team Empowerment #5 0.466 0.476 0.325 0.494 0.415 0.210 0.610 0.471 0.563 0.508 0.466 0.510 0.315 0.520 0.521 0.484 0.484 0.548
Organizational Support for Team Creativity Creativity 0.507 0.455 0.451 0.289 0.120 -0.012 0.145 0.168 0.250 0.193 0.160 0.199 0.362 0.191 0.097 0.173 0.176 0.170 0.246 0.340 0.182 0.260 0.163 0.011 0.260 0.310 0.387 0.361 0.381 0.515 0.248 0.342 0.246 0.262 0.015 0.060
Team Composition 0.061 0.100 0.009 -0.018 -0.160 -0.101 0.124 -0.027 0.297 -0.025 0.079 0.118 -0.007 0.078 0.153 0.179 -0.053 0.014
Team Interdependence 0.239 0.300 0.202 0.115 -0.175 -0.066 0.230 0.127 0.303 0.199 0.289 0.340 0.155 0.281 0.176 0.226 0.079 0.103
Note. Boldface elements represent internal loadings.
138
TABLE 7. (CONT'D)
Team BoundarySpanning Members' Experiences of Team Empowerment #6 Members' Experiences of Team Empowerment #7 Members' Experiences of Team Empowerment #8 Members' Experiences of Team Empowerment #9 Members' Experiences of Team Empowerment #10 Members' Experiences of Team Empowerment #11 Members' Experiences of Team Empowerment #12 Members' Information Sharing Behaviors #1 Members' Information Sharing Behaviors #2 Members' Information Sharing Behaviors #3 Members' Information Sharing Behaviors #4 Members' Information Sharing Behaviors #5 Members' Information Sharing Behaviors #6 Members' Ambassadorial Behaviors Members' Scouting Behaviors Members' Sentry Behaviors Organizational Support for Team Creativity #1 Organizational Support for Team Creativity #2 Organizational Support for Team Creativity #3 Organizational Supprot for Team Creativity #4 0.531 0.532 0.575 0.433 0.572 0.411 0.293 0.270 0.358 0.412 0.481 0.278 0.413 0.900 0.844 0.703 0.305 0.291 0.219 0.290
Organizational Support for Creativity 0.162 0.329 0.460 0.315 0.370 0.267 0.261 0.165 0.089 0.143 0.193 0.011 0.235 0.224 0.208 0.335 0.781 0.908 0.915 0.907
Team Creativity 0.168 0.348 0.267 0.105 0.343 0.157 0.001 0.241 0.300 0.318 0.376 0.356 0.392 0.250 0.298 0.366 0.124 0.171 0.234 0.309
Team Team Composition Interdependence -0.007 0.167 0.163 0.015 0.107 -0.056 -0.105 0.033 -0.050 0.096 0.063 0.132 0.085 0.117 0.243 -0.193 0.126 0.147 0.009 0.084 0.150 0.368 0.304 0.075 0.326 0.157 0.080 0.123 -0.021 0.078 0.052 0.118 0.029 0.261 0.259 0.387 0.401 0.370 0.376 0.412
Note. Boldface elements represent internal loadings.
139
TABLE 7. (CONT'D)
Team BoundarySpanning Team Creativity #1 Team Creativity #2 Team Creativity #3 Team Creativity #4 Team Member Creativity Preference for Workgroup Team Tenure Diversity Task Interdependence Goal Interdependence Interdependent Reward and Feedback 0.421 0.387 0.215 0.212 0.085 -0.057 0.079 0.353 0.325 0.240
Organizational Support for Team Creativity Creativity 0.261 0.251 0.144 0.161 0.159 0.098 -0.141 0.365 0.357 0.377 0.880 0.871 0.818 0.855 0.242 0.164 0.136 0.292 0.305 0.283
Team Composition 0.241 0.307 0.324 0.216 0.761 0.515 0.429 0.308 0.262 0.174
Team Interdependence 0.389 0.320 0.279 0.205 0.282 0.027 0.167 0.820 0.855 0.795
Note. Boldface elements represent internal loadings.
140
TABLE 8. INTERNAL CONSISTENCY INDEX
Items Leaders' Transformational Behaviors Leaders' Empowering Behaviors Leaders' Boundary-Working Behaviors Positive Group Affective Tone Team Empowerment Team Information Sharing Team Boundary-Work Organizational Support for Creativity Team Creativity 4 14 3 10 12 6 3 4 4
AVE
0.857 0.664 0.814 0.565 0.565 0.687 0.672 0.774 0.733
Cronbach's Composite Scale Alpha Reliability
0.960 0.965 0.929 0.928 0.939 0.929 0.859 0.932 0.916 0.945 0.961 0.886 0.915 0.929 0.908 0.749 0.901 0.879
Note. AVE represents average variance extracted.
141
TABLE 9. RESULTS FOR THE HYPOTHESIZED PATHS (HYPOTHESES 1-6 AND HYPOTHESES 11-15)
Model Path Hypothesis & Proposed Path H2 Team Boundary-Spanning H5 Team Empowerment -Spanning H6
beta
0.316 0.142 0.224 0.394 0.373 0.441 0.292 0.159
s.d.
0.148 0.097 0.117 0.084 0.123 0.092 0.157 0.111 0.123 0.156 0.119 0.066 0.080
t statistic
2.056 * 1.341 1.793 * 4.580 ** 3.074 ** 4.881 ** 1.848 * 1.194 1.204 2.267 * 0.045 0.577 6.501 **
ctive Tone H13 Leader's BoundaryH15 Leaders' BoundaryControls Team
0.194 0.399 0.157 0.087 0.534
0.255 0.241
*
0.099 0.115
2.225 * 1.778 *
Note. p < .10
p < .05
**
p < .01, one-tailed.
142
TABLE 10. RESULTS OF MEDIATION TESTING (HYPOTHESES 7-8)
Direct Effect Model Path (a b c) (a c) beta H7 H8 0.349 0.349 0.008 0.008 t statstic 2.786 2.786 0.079 0.079 p < .10 p > .10 p < .05 p < .10 Sobel t-test
143
TABLE 11. CONCLUSIONS FROM MY DISSERTATION IN NEED OF FUTURE RESEARCH
Category
Direct Antecedents
Variable
Conclusion
Teams will generally be more creative when their team members Team Emergent Positive Group have more rather than less positive affective experiences in their State Factors Affective Tone team - that is, when they have higher levels of "positive group affective tone." Team InformationSharing Team Process Factors Team BoundarySpanning Teams will generally be more creative when their team members engage in more rather than less "information sharing" behaviors with their team members. Teams will generally be more creative when their team members engage in more rather than less "boundary-spanning" behaviors with members of other teams or outsiders.
Indirect Antecedents Teams will generally be more creative when they are led by team Transformational leaders who engage in more rather than less "transformational" Behaviors behaviors that generally facilitate teams' development of higher rather than lower levels of "positive group affective tone." Teams will generally be more creative when they are led by team Empowering leaders who engage in more rather than less "empowering" Behaviors behaviors that generally facilitate teams' development of higher rather than lower levels of "team empowerment." Teams will generally be more creative when their team members have stronger rather than weaker beliefs in their efficacy and independence while working as a team, as well as the importance
Team Leader Behavior Factors
Team Emergent
Team
Empwerment andhseirgnifiecanoce"ofatheiermpoorws rin State Factors teatmsndthausisa,rwhienltyheo have hig lev ls f te m -t e l ke t e men " a th engage in more rather than less "information sharing" and "boundary-spanning" behaviors. wk y
144
TABLE 11. (CONT'D)
Category Team Inputs
Variable
Conclusion
Team Member Teams will generally be more creative when they have team Creativity members with stronger rather than weaker "creative ability". Teams will generally be more creative when they have team Preference for members with more positive rather than negative attitudes Workgroup toward their team - that is, when they have higher levels of "preference for workgroup." Job-Related Diversity Teams will generally be more creative when they have team members with more rather than less diverse functional backgrounds and team tenure - that is, when they have higher levels of "job-related diversity."
Team Composition Factors
Task Design Factors
Teams will generally be more creative whey they need higher Team rather than lower interdependence among team members to Interdependence achieve their goals - that is, when they have higher levels of "team interdependence."
145
FIGURE 1. THEORETICAL MODEL OF TEAM CREATIVITY
Team Leader's Frequency of Transformational Behaviors
H10 H(+)
H9 G(+)
Teams' Level of Positive Group Affective Tone
H11 I(+) H4 D(+)
H3 C(+)
Teams' Level of Information Sharing
H1 A(+)
Team Leader's Frequency of Empowering Behaviors
H12 J(+) H5 E(+)
Teams' Level of Creativity
Team Level of Team Empowerment
H13 K(+)
H6 F(+)
Teams' Level of BoundarySpanning
H2 B(+)
Team Leader's Frequency of Boundary-Spanning Behaviors
H14 L(+)
H15 M(+)
Organizational Support for Team Creativity
146
FIGURE 2. EMPIRICAL MODEL OF TEAM CREATIVITY
.349
Team Leader's Frequency of Transformational Behaviors
.159
.292*
Team Composition Factors
Teams' Level of Positive Group Affective Tone
.194 .394**
.224*
Teams' Level of Information Sharing
.316*
.255*
Team Leader's Frequency of Empowering Behaviors
.399** 373** .142
Teams' Level of Creativity
Team Level of Team Empowerment
.441**
Teams' Level of BoundarySpanning
Team Leader's Frequency of Boundary-Spanning Behaviors
.241* .157
.008
.534**
Organizational Support for Team Creativity
Task Design Factors
.087
Note. Solid line r*epresents*significant linkages; dotted line represents insignificant (but hypothesized) linkages. p < .10 p < .05 * p < .01, one-tailed. 147
REFERENCES
Alge, B. J., Ballinger, G.A., Tangirala, S., & Oakley, J. L. 2006. Information privacy in organizations: Empowering creative and extrarole performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91: 221-232. Amabile, T. M. 1988. A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. In B. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, 10: 127-137. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Amabile, T. M. 1996. Creativity in Context. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. 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. Ancona, D. G. 1990. Outward bound: Strategies for team survival in an organization. Academy of Management Journal, 33: 334-365. Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. 1988. Beyond task and maintenance. Group & Organization Management, 13: 468-494. Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. 1992. Bridging the boundary: External activity and performance in organizational teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37: 634-665. Avolio, B. J. & Bass, B. M. 2004. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Manual and Sampler Set (3rd ed.). Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden. Axtell, C. M., Holman, D. J., Unsworth, K. L., Wall, T. D., Waterson, P. E., & Harrington, E. 2000. Shopfloor innovation: Facilitating the suggestion and
148
implementation of ideas. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73: 265-285. Bandura, A. 1997. Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: W. H. Freeman. Bandura, A., & Cervone, D. 1986. Differential engagement of self-reactive influences in cognitive motivation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 38: 92-113. Barclay, D., Higgins, C., & Thompson, R. 1995. The partial least squares approach to causal modeling: Personal computer adoption and Use as an Illustration. Technology Studies, 2: 285-309. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. 1986. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 51: 1173-1182. Barrett, L. F., & Russell, J. A. 1998. Independence and bipolarity in the structure of current affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74: 967-984. Barsade, S. G. 2002. The ripple effect: Emotional contagion and its influence on group behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47: 645-675. Barsade, S. G., Ward, A. J., Turner, J. D. F., & Sonnenfeld, J. A. 2000. To your heart's content: A model of affective diversity in top management teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45: 802-836. Baruah, J., & Paulus, P. B. 2008. Effects of training on idea generation in groups. Small Group Research, 39: 523-541.
149
Bass, B. M. 1985. Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations. New York: Free Press. Bass, B. M. 1990. Bass & Stogdill's Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research, & Managerial Applications (3rd ed.). New York: Free Press. Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y. 2003. Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: 207-218. Blau, P. M. 1977. Inequality and Heterogeneity. New York: Free Press. Bliese, P. D. 2000. Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In K. Klein & S. W. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel Theory, Research, and Methods in Organizations: 349-381. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Bollen, K., & Lennox, R. 1991. Conventional wisdom on measurement: A structural equation perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 110: 305-314. Bono, J. E., & Ilies, R. 2006. Charisma, positive emotions and mood contagion. Leadership Quarterly, 17: 317-334. Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. 2004. Personality and transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89: 901-910. Bono, J. E., Foldes, H. J., Vinson, G., & Muros, J. P. 2007. Workplace emotions: The role of supervision and leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92: 13571367.
150
Brislin, R. W. 1980. Translation and content analysis of oral and written materials. In H. C. Triandis & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology: Methodology (vol. 2): 389-444. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Bunderson, J. S., & Sutcliffe, K. M. 2002. Comparing alternative conceptualizations of functional diversity in management teams: Process and performance effects. The Academy of Management Journal, 45: 875-893. Byron, K., Khazanchi, S., & Nazarian, D. 2010. The relationship between stressors and creativity: A meta-analysis examining competing theoretical models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95: 201-212. Campion, M. A., Medsker, G. J., & Higgs, A. C. 1993. Relationships between work group characteristics and effectiveness: Implications for designing effective work groups. Personnel Psychology, 46: 823-847. Carmines, E. G., & Zeller, R. A. 1979. Reliability and Validity Assessment. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Cattani, G., & Ferriani, S. 2008. A core/periphery perspective on individual creative performance: Social networks and cinematic achievements in the Hollywood film industry. Organization Science, 19: 824-844. Chan, D. 1998. Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83: 234-246 Chen, G., & Bliese, P. D. 2002. The role of different levels of leadership in predicting self- and collective efficacy. Evidence for discontinuity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 549-556.
151
Chen, G., & Kanfer, R. 2006. Toward a systems theory of motivated behavior in work teams. In B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, 27: 223268. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Cherulnik, P. D., Donley, K. A., Wiewel, T. R., & Miller, S. R. 2001. Charisma is contagious: The effect of leaders' charisma on observers' affect. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31: 2149-2159. Chin, W. W. 1998. The partial least squares approach for structural equation modeling. In G. A. Marcoulides (Ed.), Modern Methods for Business Research: 295-336. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Chin, W. W., & Newsted, P. R. 1999. Structural equation modeling analysis with small samples using partial least squares. In R. Hoyle (Ed.), Statistical Strategies for Small Sample Research: 307-341. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Cohen, J. 1977. Statistical Power Analysis for The Behavioral Sciences. New York: Academic Press. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. 2003. Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (3rd ed.) Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. 1997. What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23: 239-290.
152
Cohendet, P., & Simon, L. 2007. Playing across the playground: Paradoxes of knowledge creation in the videogame firm. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28: 587-605. Collins, L. M., Graham, J. W., & Flaherty, B. P. (1998). An alternative framework for defining mediation. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 33, 295-312. Cording, M., Christmann, P., King, D. R. 2008. Reducing causal ambiguity in acquisition integration: Intermediate goals as mediators of integration decisions and acquisition performance. Academy of Management Journal, 51: 744-767. Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor (NEO-FFI) Inventory ProfessionalManual. Odessa, FL: PAR. Crant, J. M. 2000. Proactive behavior in organizations. Journal of Management, 26: 435-462. Csikszentmihalyi, M. 1996. Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention. New York: HarperCollins. Csikszentmihalyi, M. 1999. Implications of a systems perspective for the study of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of Creativity: 313-335. New York: Cambridge University Press. Dailey, R. C., & Morgan, C. P. 1978. Personal characteristics and job involvement as antecedents of boundary spanning behavior: A path analysis. Journal of Management Studies, 15: 330-339.
153
Dansereau, F., Alutto, J. A., & Yammarino, F. J. 1984. Theory Testing in Organizational Behavior: The Variant Approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Davis, M. A. 2009. Understanding the relationship between mood and creativity: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108: 25-38. De Dreu, C. K. W. 2007. Cooperative outcome interdependence, task reflexivity, and team effectiveness: A motivated information processing perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92: 628-638. De Dreu, C. K. W., Baas, M., & Nijstad, B. A. 2008. Hedonic tone and activation level in the mood-creativity link: Toward a dual pathway to creativity model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94: 739-756. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. 1987. The support of autonomy and the control of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53: 1024-1037. Donnellon, A., Gray, B., & Bougon, M. G. 1986. Communication, meaning, and organized action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31: 43-55. Dorfman, P. W., & Howell, J. P. 1988. Dimensions of national culture and effective leadership patterns: Hofstede revisited. Advances in International Comparative Management, 3: 127-150. Dutton, J. E., & Ashford, S. J. 1993. Selling issues to top management. Academy of Management Review, 18: 397-428.
154
Dvir, T., Eden, D., Avolio, B. J., & Shamir, B. 2002. Impact of transformational leadership on follower development and performance: A field experiment. Academy of Management Journal, 45: 735-744. Edwards, J. R., & Bagozzi, R. P. 2000. On the nature and direction of relationships between constructs and measures. Psychological Methods, 5: 155-174. Eisenberger, R., & Armeli, S. 1997. Can salient reward increase creative performance without reducing intrinsic creative interest? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72: 652-663. Faraj, S., & Yan, A. 2009. Boundary work in knowledge teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94: 604-617. Fleming, L., Mingo, S., & Chen, D. 2007. Collaborative brokerage, generative creativity, and creative success. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52: 443475. Floyd, S. W., & Wooldridge, B. 1997. Middle management's strategic influence and organizational performance. Journal of Management Studies, 34: 465-485. Ford, C. M., & Gioa, D. A. 1995. Guidelines for creative action taking in organizations. In C. M. Ford & D. A. Gioia (Eds.), Creative Action in Organizations: Ivory Tower Visions and Real World Voices: 355-356. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Fornell, C. R., & Bookstein, F. L. 1982. Two structural equation models: LISREL and PLS applied to consumer exit-voice theory. Journal of Marketing Research, 19: 440-452.
155
Fornell, C. R., & Larcker, D. F. 1981. Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18: 382-388. Fredrickson, B. L. 1998. What good are positive emotions? Review of General Psychology, 2: 300-319. Fredrickson, B. L. 2001. The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist, 56: 218- 226. Fredrickson, B. L., & Joiner, T. 2002. Positive emotions trigger upward spirals toward emotional well-being. Psychological Science, 13: 172-175. Frijda, N. H. 1986. The Emotions. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Gelade, G. A., & Ivery, M. 2003. The impact of human resource management and work climate on organizational performance. Personnel Psychology, 56: 383404. George, J. M. 1991. State or trait: Effects of positive mood on prosocial behaviors at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76: 299-307. George, J. M. 1995. Leader positive mood and group performance: The case of customer service. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25: 778-794. George, J. M. 1996. Group affective tone. In M. A. West (Ed.), Handbook of Work Group Psychology: 77-93. Chichester, UK: Wiley. George, J. M. 2008. Creativity in organizations. Academy of Management Annals, 1: 439-477.
156
George, J. M., & Zhou, J. 2002. Understanding when bad moods foster creativity and good ones don't: The role of context and clarity of feelings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 687-697. George, J. M., & Zhou, J. 2007. Dual tuning in a supportive context: Joint contributions of positive mood, negative mood, and supervisory behaviors to employee creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 50: 605-622. Giambatista, R. C., & Bhappu, A. D. 2010. Diversity's harvest: Interactions of diversity sources and communication technology on creative group performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 111: 116-126. Gibson, C. B., & Kirkman, B. L. 1999. Our past, present, and future in teams: The role of human resources professionals in managing team performance. In A. L. Kraut & A. K. Korman (Eds.), Evolving Practics in Human Resource Management: Responses to a Changing World of Work: 90-117. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Gilson, L. L., & Shalley, C. E. 2004. A little creativity goes a long way: An examination of teams' engagement in creative processes. Journal of Management, 30: 453-470. Gilson, L. L., Mathieu, J. E., Shalley, C. E., & Ruddy, T. M. 2005. Creativity and standardization: Complementary or conflicting drivers of team effectiveness? Academy of Management Journal, 48: 521-531. Gino, F., Argote, L., Miron-Spektor, E., & Todorova, G. 2010. First, get your feet wet: The effects of learning from direct and indirect experience on team
157
creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 111: 102-115. Gist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. R. 1992. Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its determinants and malleability. Academy of Management Review, 17: 183211. Gladstein, D. L. 1984. Groups in context: A model of task group effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29: 499-517. Goldberg, L. R. 1999. A broad-bandwidth, public domain, personality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor models. In I. Mervielde, I. Deary, F. De Fruyt, & F. Ostendorf (Eds.), Personality Psychology in Europe (vol. 7): 7-28. Tilburg, The Netherlands: Tilburg University Press. Gong, Y., Huang, J. C., & Farh, J. L. 2009. Employee learning orientation, transformational leadership, and employee creativity: The mediating role of employee creative self-efficacy. Academy of Management Journal, 52: 765778. Grawitch, M. J., Munz, D. C., & Kramer, T. J. 2003. Effects of member mood states on creative performance in temporary work groups. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 7: 41-54. Grawitch, M. J., Munz, D. C., Elliott, E. K., & Mathis, A. 2003. Promoting creativity in temporary problem-solving groups: The effects of positive mood and autonomy in problem definition on idea-generating performance. Group Dynamics, 7: 200-213.
158
Guzzo, R. A., Yost, P. R., Campbell, R. J., & Shea, G. P. 1993. Potency in groups: Articulating a construct. British Journal of Social Psychology, 32: 87-106. Hackman, J. R. 1987. The design of work teams. In J. W. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of Organizational Behavior: 315-342. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Hansen, M. T. 1999. The Search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44: 82-111. Hargadon, A. B., & Bechky, B. A. 2006. When collections of creatives become creative collectives: A filed study of problem solving at work. Organization Science, 17: 484-500. Hatfield, E., Cacioppo, J., & Rapson, R. L. 1994. Emotional Contagion. New York: Cambridge University Press. Hirschman, A. O. 1970. Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Hirst, G. H., & Mann, L. 2004. A model of R&D leadership and team communication: the relationship with project performance. R&D Management, 34: 147-160. Hirst, G., Knippenberg, D. V., & Zhou, J. 2009. A cross-level perspective on employee creativity: Goal orientation, team learning behavior, and individual creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 52: 280-293. Hofstede, G. 1980. Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Workrelated Values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
159
Howell, J. M., & Avolio, B. J. 1993. Transformational leadership, transactional leadership, locus of control, and support for innovation: Key predictors of consolidated-Business-Unit Performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78: 891-902. Howell, J. M., & Hall-Merenda, K. E. 1999. The ties that bind: The impact of leadermember exchange, transformational and transactional leadership, and distance on predicting follower performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84: 680694. Hulland, J. H. 1999. Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: A review of four recent studies. Strategic Management Journal, 20: 195-204. Hülsheger, U. R., Anderson, N., & Salgado, J. F. 2009. Team-level predictors of innovation at work: A comprehensive meta-analysis spanning three decades of research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94: 1128-1145. Ilgen, D. R., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M., & Jundt, D. 2005. Teams in organizations: From input-process-output models to IMOI models. Annual Review of Psychology, 56: 517-543. Ilgen, D.R. 1999. Teams embedded in organizations. American Psychologist. 54:129-139. Jackson, C. L., Colquitt, J. A., Wesson, M. J., & Zapata-Phelan, C. P. 2006. Psychological collectivism: A measurement validation and linkage to group member performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91: 884-899.
160
Jackson, C. N., & King, D. C. 1983. The Effects of representatives' power within their own organizations on the outcome of a negotiation. Academy of Management Journal, 26: 178-185. James, L. R. 1982. Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67: 219-229. James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. 1984. Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69: 85-98. James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. 1993. rwg: An Assessment of Within-Group Interrater Agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78: 306-309. James, L. R., Mulaik, S. A., & Brett, J. M. (1982). Causal Analysis: Assumptions, Models, and Data. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Jaussi, K. S., & Dionne, S. D. 2003. Leading for creativity : The role of unconventional leader behavior. The Leadership Quarterly, 14: 475-498. Jex, S. M., & Thomas, J. L. 2003. Relations between stressors and group perceptions: Main and mediating effects. Work and Stress, 17: 158-169. Joshi, A. J., Pandey, J. N., & Han, G. 2009. Bracketing team boundary spanning: An examination of task-based, team-level, and contextual antecedents. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30: 731-759. Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. 2000. Five-factor model of personality and transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85: 751-765. Kark, R., Shamir, B., & Chen, G. 2003. The two faces of transformational leadership: Empowerment and dependency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: 246-255.
161
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. 1978. The Social Psychology of Organizations. New York: Wiley. Katz, R., & Tushman, M. L. 1983. A longitudinal study of the effects of boundary spanning supervision on turnover and promotion in research and development. Academy of Management Journal, 26: 437-456. Kearney, E., Gebert, D., & Voelpel, S. C. 2009. When and how diversity benefits teams: the importance of team members' need for cognition. Academy of Management Journal, 52: 581-598. Keller, R. T. 1992. Transformational leadership and the performance of research and development project groups, Journal of Management, 18: 489-501. Keller, R. T. 2006. Transformational leadership, initiating structure, and substitute for leadership: A longitudinal study of research and development project team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91: 202-210. Kelly, J. R., & Barsade, S. G. 2001. Mood and emotions in small groups and work teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86: 99130. Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Bolger, N. (1998). Data analysis in social psychology. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The Handbook of Social Psychology (vol. 1): 233-265. New York: McGraw-Hill. Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Cook, W. L. 2006. Dyadic Data Analysis. New York: Guilford Press.
162
Kerr, S., & Jermier, J. M. 1978. Substitutes for leadership: Their meaning and measurement. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 22: 375403. Kim, W. C., & Mauborgne, R. 2005. Blue Ocean Strategy: How to Create Uncontested Market Space and Make Competition Irrelevant. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation. Kirkman, B. L., & Rosen, B. 1999. Beyond self-management: Antecedents and consequences of team empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 42: 58-74. Kirkman, B. L., & Shapiro, D. L. 1997. The impact of cultural values on employee resistance to teams: Toward a model of globalized self-managing work team effectiveness. Academy of Management Review, 22: 730-757. Kirkman, B. L., & Shapiro, D. L. 2001. The impact of cultural values on job satisfaction and organizational commitment in self-managing work teams: The mediating role of employee resistance. Academy of Management Journal, 44: 557-569. Kirkman, B. L., Rosen, B., Tesluk, P. E., & Gibson, C. B. 2004. The impact of team empowerment on virtual team performance: The moderating role of face-toface interaction. Academy of Management Journal, 47: 175-192. Kirkman, B.L., & Rosen, B. 1997. A model of work team empowerment. In R. W. Woodman & W. A. Pasmore (Eds.), Research in Organizational Change and Development (vol. 10): 131-167. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
163
Klein, K., & Kozlowski, S. 2000. Multilevel Theory, Research, and Methods in Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Bell, B. S. 2003. Work groups and teams in organizations. In W.C. Borman, D.R. Ilgen, & R.J. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of Psychology (vol.12): Industrial and Organizational Psychology: 333-375. London: Wiley. Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Ilgen, D. R. 2006. Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7: 77-124. Kozlowski, S. W. J., Gully, S. M., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. 1996. Team leadership and development: Theory, principles, and guidelines for training leaders and teams. In M. Beyerlein, D. Johnson, & S. Beyerlein (Eds.), Advances in Interdisciplinary Studies of Work Teams: Team Leadership (vol.3): 251-289. Greenwich, CT: JAI. Latham, G. P. 1988. Human resource training and development. Annual Review of Psychology, 39: 545-582. Lazarus, R. S. 1991. Emotion and Adaptation. New York: Oxford University Press. Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. 1984. Stress, Appraisal, and Coping. New York: Springer. Li, N., Liang, J., & Crant, J. M. 2010. The role of proactive personality in job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior : A relational perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95: 395-404.
164
Liang, D. W., Moreland, R., & Argote, L. 1995. Group versus individual training and group performance: The mediating role of transactive memory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21: 384-393. Liao, H., & Chuang, A. 2007. Transforming service employees and climate: A multilevel, multisource examination of transformational leadership in building long-term service relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92: 10061019. Lingo, E., & O'Mahony, S. 2010. Nexus work: Brokerage on creative projects. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55: 47-81. Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. 1990. Work motivation and satisfaction: Light at the end of the tunnel. Psychological Science, 1: 240-246. Lovelace, K., Shapiro, D. L., & Weingart, L. R. 2001. Maximizing cross-functional new product teams' innovativeness and constraint adherence: A conflict communications perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 44: 779793. Mackinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. 2002. A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psychological Methods, 7: 83-104. Maddux, W., & Galinsky, A. 2009. Cultural borders and mental barriers: The relationship between living abroad and creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96: 1047-1061.
165
Madjar, N., Oldham, G. R., & Pratt, M. G. 2002. There's no place like home? The contributions of work and nonwork creativity support to employees' creativity performance. Academy of Management Journal, 45: 757-767. Major, B., Richards, C., Cooper, M. L., Cozzarelli, C., & Zubek, J. 1998. Personal resilience, cognitive appraisals, and coping: An integrative model of adjustment to abortion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74: 735-752. Manz, C. C., & Sims, H. P., Jr. 1987. Leading workers to lead themselves: The external leadership of self- managing work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32: 106-129. Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. 2001. A temporary based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26: 356376. Marrone, J. A., Tesluk, P. E., & Carson, J. B. 2007. A multilevel investigation of antecedents and consequences of team member boundary-spanning behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 50: 1423-1439. Martin, J. 1992. Cultures in Organizations: Three Perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press. Mathieu, J. E., Heffner, T. S., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. 2000. The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85: 273-283.
166
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, D. R. 2002. Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT), Version 2.0. Toronto, Canada: Multi-Health Systems. McAuley, E., & Courneya, K. S. 1992. Self-efficacy relationships with affective and exertion responses to exercise. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22: 312-326. McGrath, J. E., Arrow, H., & Berdahl, J. L. 2000. The study of groups: Past, present, and future. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4: 95-105. Middleton, K. 2005. The service-learning project as a supportive context for charismatic leadership emergence in nascent leaders. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 4: 295-308 Moreno, A. M., & Casilas, J. C. 2008. Entrepreneurial orientation and growth of SMEs: A causal model. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32: 507-528. Mullen, J. E., & Kelloway, E. K. 2009. Safety leadership: A longitudinal study of the effects of transformational leadership on safety outcomes. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 82: 253-272. Naumann, S. E., & Bennett, N. 2000. A case of procedural justice climate: Development and test of a multilevel model. Academy of Management Journal, 43: 881-889. Neubert, M. J., Kacmar, K. M., Carlson, D. S., Chonko, L. B., & Roberts, J. A. 2008. Regulatory focus as a mediator of the influence of initiating structure and servant leadership on employee behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93: 1220-1233.
167
Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. 1996. Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at work. Academy of Management Journal, 39: 607-634. Paulus, P. B., & Van der Zee, K. 2004. Should there be a romance between teams and groups. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77: 475480. Pavlou, P. A., & Fygenson, M. 2006. Understanding and predicting electronic commerce adoption: An extension of the theory of planned behavior, MIS Quarterly, 30: 115-143 Perry-Smith, J. E., & Shalley, C. E. 2003. The social side of creativity: A static and dynamic social network perspective. Academy of Management Review, 28: 89-106. Pirola-Merlo, A., & Mann, L. 2004. The relationship between individual creativity and team creativity: Aggregating across people and time. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25: 235-257 Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. 2003. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: 879-903. Porath, C. L., & Erez, A. 2007. Does rudeness really matter? The effects of rudeness on task performance and helpfulness. Academy of Management Journal, 50: 1181-1197. Preston, D., Leidner, D., & Chen, D. 2008. CIO leadership profiles: Implications of matching CIO authority and leadership capability on IT impact. MIS Quarterly Executive, 7: 57-69
168
Reagans, R., & McEvily, B. 2003. Network structure and knowledge transfer: The effects of cohesion and range. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48: 240267. Rhee, S. Y. 2006. Shared emotions and group effectiveness: The role of broadeningand-building interactions. In K. M. Weaver (Ed.), Proceedings of the 65th Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management. Atlanta, Georgia, U.S.A. Ringle, C.M., Wende, S., & Will, A. 2005. SmartPLS 2.0 (beta), www.smartpls.de, University of Hambrug City, Hamburg, Germany. Rubin, R. S., Munz, D. C., & Bommer, W. H. 2005. Leading from within: The effects of emotion recognition and personality on transformational leadership behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 48: 845-858. Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. 1994. Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37: 580-607. Seddon, F. A., & Biasutti, M. 2009. Modes of communication between members of a string quartet. Small Group Research, 40: 115-137. Seers, A. 1989. Team-member exchange quality: A new construct for role-making research. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 43: 118135. Shalley, C. E., & Perry-Smith, J. E. 2008. The emergence of team creative cognition: The role of diverse outside ties, sociocognitive network centrality, and team evolution. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 2: 23-41.
169
Shalley, C. E., Gilson, L., & Blum, T. C. 2009. Interactive effects of growth need strength, work context, and job complexity on self-reported creative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 52: 489-505. Shalley, C. E., Zhou, J., & Oldham, G. R. 2004. The effects of personal and contextual characteristics on creativity: Where should we go from here? Journal of Management, 30: 933-958. Shamir, B., Zakay, E., Breinin, E., & Popper, M. 1998. Correlates of charismatic leader behavior in military units: Subordinates' attitudes, unit characteristics, and superiors' appraisals of leader performance. Academy of Management Journal, 41: 387-409. Shin, S. J., & Zhou, J. 2007. When is educational specialization heterogeneity related to creativity in research and development teams? Transformational leadership as a moderator. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92: 1709-1721. Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7, 422-445. Sivanathan, N., Molden, D. C., Galinsky, A. D., & Ku, G. 2008. The promise and peril of self-affirmation in de-escalation of commitment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 107: 1-14. Smith, V. L., & Ellsworth, P. C. 1987. The social psychology of eyewitness accuracy: Misleading questions and communicator expertise. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72: 294-300.
170
Sobel, M. E. 1982. Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. Sociological Methodology, 13: 290-312. Sobel, M. E. 1988. Direct and indirect effects in linear structural equation models. In J. S. Long (Ed.), Common Problems/Proper Solutions: 46-64. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Sosik, J. J., Avolio, B. J., & Kahai, S. S. 1997. Effects of leadership style and anonymity on group potency and effectiveness in a group decision support system environment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82: 89-103. Sparrowe, R. T. & Liden, R. C. 1997. Process and structure in leader-member exchange. Academy of Management Review, 22: 522-552. Spreitzer, G. M. 1995. Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38: 14421465. 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: 1239-1251. Stasser, G., & Titus, W. 1987. Effects of information load and percentage of shared information on the dissemination of unshared information during group discussion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53: 81-93. Sy, T., Côté, S., & Saavedra, R. 2005. The contagious leader: Impact of the leader's mood on the mood of group members, group affective tone, and group processes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89: 295-305
171
Taggar, S. 2002. Individual creativity and group ability to utilize individual creative resources: A multilevel model. Academy of Management Journal, 45: 315330. Tetlock, P. E., Peterson, R. S., & Berry, J. M. 1993. Flattering and unflattering personality portraits of integratively simple and complex managers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64: 500-511. Thomas, K. W., & Velthouse, B. A. 1990. Cognitive elements of empowerment: An "interpretive" model of intrinsic task motivation. Academy of Management Review, 15: 666-681. Thrash, T., Maruskin, L., Cassidy, S., Fryer, J., & Ryan, R. 2010. Mediating between the muse and the masses: Inspiration and the actualization of creative ideas. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98: 469-487. Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. 2002. Creative self-efficacy: Its potential antecedents and relationship to creative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 45: 1137-1148. Torrance, E. P. 1988. The nature of creativity as manifest in its testing. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The Nature of Creativity: 43-75. New York: Cambridge University Press. Tushman, M. L., & Katz, R. 1980. External communication and project performance: An investigation into the role of gatekeepers. Management Science, 26: 10711085. Unsworth, K., & Clegg, C. 2010. Why do employees undertake creative action? Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 83: 77-99.
172
Vroom, V. H. 1964. Work and Motivation. New York: Wiley. Walter, F. W., & Bruch, H. 2008. The positive group affect spiral: A dynamic model of the emergence of positive affective similarity in work groups. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29: 239-261. Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. 1988. Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54: 1063-1070. West, M. A., & Anderson, N. R. 1996. Innovation in top management teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81: 680-693. Wetzels, M., Odekerken-Schröder, G., & Van-Oppen, C. 2009. Using PLS path modeling for assessing hierarchical construct models: Guidelines and empirical illustration. MIS Quarterly, 33: 177-195. Wilkinson, L., Blank, G., & Gruber, C. 1996. Desktop Data Analysis SYSTAT (1st ed.) Upper Salle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Wold, H. 1982. Soft modeling: The basic design and some extensions. In K. G. Joreskog & H. Wold (Eds.), Systems under Indirect Observation: Causality, Structure, Prediction. Part? : 1-54. Amsterdam: North-Holland. Wold, 1985. Wold, H. 1985. Partial least squares. In S. Kotz & N. L. Johnson (Eds.), Encyclopedia of statistical sciences (vol. 6): 581-591. New York: Wiley. Wold, H. 1988. Specification, predictor. In S. Kotz & N. L. Johnson (Eds.), Encyclopedia of statistical sciences (vol. 8): 587-599. New York: Wiley.
173
Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J., & Griffin, R. W. 1993. Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Academy of Management Review, 18: 293-321. Zaccaro, S.J., Rittman, A.L., & Marks, M.A. 2001. Team leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 12: 451-483. Zhang, X., & Bartol, K. M. 2010. Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity: The influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative process engagement. Academy of Management Journal, 53: 107-128. Zhou, J., & George, J. M. 2001. When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: Encouraging the expression of voice. Academy of Management Journal, 44: 682-696. Zhou, J., Shin, S., Brass, D., Choi, J., & Zhang, Z. 2009. Social networks, personal values, and creativity: Evidence for curvilinear and interaction effects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94: 1544-1552. Zohar, D., & Luria, G. 2005. A multilevel model of safety climate: Cross-level relationships between organization and group-level climates. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90: 616-628.
174
doc_282112666.docx