team proactivity as a linking mechanism between team creative efficacy, transformational leadership,...

Y U H Y U N G S H I NC H A N Y O U N G E O M

Team Proactivity as a Linking Mechanismbetween Team Creative Efficacy,Transformational Leadership, and Risk-TakingNorms and Team Creative Performance

ABSTRACTDespite the growing body of research on creativity in team contexts, very few

attempts have been made to explore the team-level antecedents and the mediatingprocesses of team creative performance on the basis of a theoretical framework. Toaddress this gap, drawing on Paulus and Dzindolet’s (2008) group creativity model,this study proposed team creative efficacy, transformational leadership, and risk-taking norms as antecedents of team creative performance and team proactivity asan intervening mechanism between these relationships. The results of team-levelregression analyses conducted on the leaders and members of 103 Korean workteams showed that team creative efficacy and risk-taking norms were positively asso-ciated with team creative performance. Furthermore, the relationships between teamcreative efficacy and team creative performance and between risk-taking norms andteam creative performance were mediated by team proactivity. These findings offernew insights regarding the antecedents and the mediator of creative performance inteam contexts and important implications for theory and practice.

Keywords: team creative performance, team creative efficacy, transformationalleadership, risk-taking norms, team proactivity.

Workplace creativity is a topic that has been widely and intensively researched byorganizational scholars over the last few decades. As a way to deal with increasingchanges and competition in the business environment, many organizations pursuecreativity as their competitive advantage for innovation and sustainability (Amabile,1997). In line with this trend, a growing number of studies have explored the ante-cedents of the creative performance of work teams. Creativity, or creative perfor-mance, refers to the creation of valuable and useful new products, services, ideas,procedures, or processes (Woodman, Sawyer, & Griffin, 1993).

Research on team creativity has generally examined team composition and socialprocesses such as collaboration, cohesion, group climate, leadership, and team efficacy

89 The Journal of Creative Behavior, Vol. 48, Iss. 2, pp. 89–114 © 2014 by the Creative Education Foundation, Inc. � DOI: 10.1002/jocb.42

as key antecedents of team creative performance (Reiter-Palmon, Wigert, & deVreede, 2012). While these studies provide meaningful insights into factors contribut-ing to team creativity, only a few of them have investigated team member characteris-tics and contextual factors at the same time (e.g., Shin, Kim, Lee, & Bian, 2012; Shin& Zhou, 2007). Moreover, previous research into the role of team member character-istics in predicting team creativity has mainly focused on team composition such ascognitive, functional, and educational diversity (e.g., Shin & Zhou, 2007; Shin et al.,2012; Somech & Drach-Zahavy, 2013). However, in addition to team composition,team members’ shared beliefs with respect to creative performance are increasinglybeing considered as a critical team member characteristic that serves to enhance crea-tivity (Gong, Huang, & Farh, 2009). Drawing on this stream of research, we proposeteam creative efficacy as a crucial precursor of team creativity. Furthermore, giventhat both personal and situational factors jointly influence creativity at both individ-ual and team levels (Paulus & Dzindolet, 2008), we identify several key contextual fac-tors that can promote creativity in a team. Building on Paulus and Dzindolet’s (2008)group creativity model, we propose transformational leadership and risk-takingnorms as contextual factors that facilitate team creative performance. Thus, the firstobjective of this study is to investigate the joint effects of team creative efficacy, trans-formational leadership, and risk-taking norms on team creative performance.

Another objective of this study is to test a potential mediating mechanismbetween the three antecedents and team creative performance. In spite of the vastamount of research on team creativity, not much knowledge has been accumulatedregarding the intermediate processes between team-level antecedents and team crea-tivity (Shin & Zhou, 2007). Although very few, team creativity research has generallyfocused on a wide array of team processes (e.g., team cohesion, conflict, reflexivity,collective efficacy) as mediators between team inputs and team creativity (Paulus &Dzindolet, 2008; Reiter-Palmon et al., 2012). Yet, scant attention has been paid tothe role of team proactivity as an intervening mechanism between critical teaminputs and team creative performance. Team Proactivity refers to team members’anticipatory actions to affect or change oneself or the work environment (Belschak& Den Hartog, 2010; Crant, 2000; Parker, Williams, & Turner, 2006). While recentstudies on team proactivity have shown that team proactivity is associated with teamempowerment (e.g., Kirkman & Rosen, 1999), work design, leadership, and teamcomposition (Williams, Parker, & Turner, 2010), empirical investigations of the rela-tionship between team proactivity and team creative performance are lacking, letalone the mediating effect of team proactivity on team creative performance. This isa critical omission in that due to the proliferation of self-managed or autonomouswork teams, team members’ collective engagement in proactive behavior or volun-tary efforts becomes increasingly important to team functioning and effectiveness(Shin & Choi, 2010). Furthermore, given that team creativity is strongly affected bythe proactive motivation of team members (Paulus & Dzindolet, 2008), team mem-bers’ proactivity should be examined as a critical team process that translates theeffects of team creative efficacy, transformational leadership, and risk-taking normson team creative performance. Thus, drawing on Paulus and Dzindolet’s (2008)

90

Team Creative Performance

group creativity model, we propose the mediating effect of team proactivity on therelationships between the three antecedents and team creative performance. To testthese mediating relationships, we collected survey-based data from the members andleaders of 103 work teams in diverse South Korean firms.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKThe basic premise of Paulus and Dzindolet’s (2008) group creativity model is that

group, task, and situational variables affect group creativity and innovation by facili-tating cognitive, motivational, and social processes within a group. As antecedents ofgroup creativity, group inputs consist of group member variables, group structure,and group climate. Group member variables refer to the personality, knowledge,skills, abilities, attitudes, mood, and creative efficacy of group members. Groupstructure encompasses variables such as group size, longevity, and leadership style.Examples of group climate are psychological safety, task commitment, conflict, trust,shared goals, and risk-taking norms. Among these various types of group member,structure, and climate variables, team creativity efficacy, transformational leadership,and risk-taking norms are isolated as critical antecedents of team creative perfor-mance. Team creative efficacy refers to team members’ shared beliefs in their team’scapabilities to generate creative ideas (Shin & Zhou, 2007). Transformational leader-ship is defined as a team leader’s ability to motivate team members to transcendtheir self-interest in pursuit of collective goals (Bass, 1985). Risk-taking norms aregroup norms that require members to tolerate ambiguity and make decisions withsome uncertainty (Isaksen & Lauer, 2002; Isaksen, Lauer, & Ekvall, 1999).

The reason why these three variables are pivotal to team creative performance isgrounded on the literature on team creativity. First, a growing body of research hasindicated that team creative efficacy is a proximal antecedent of team creative per-formance (e.g., Gong et al., 2009; Hon & Chan, 2012; Shin & Zhou, 2007). Second,creativity research has generally shown a positive linkage between transformationalleadership and team creativity (e.g., Shin & Zhou, 2007; Shin et al., 2012). The sig-nificant association between transformational leadership and team creativity is fur-ther supported by social learning theory (Bandura, 1977), which posits thatindividuals have a tendency to model their leader’s attitudes and behaviors. Accord-ing to this theory, when a team leader exhibits transformational leadership, the lea-der is likely to challenge the status quo and try to see things in a different way(Bass, 1985). Such positive attitudes toward creativity and innovation of transforma-tional leaders are likely to affect their followers’ attitudes and behavior throughsocial learning, thereby leading to enhanced creative performance. Finally, the orga-nizational creativity literature has highlighted the role of climate in fostering creativ-ity (Hunter, Bedell, & Mumford, 2007; Isaksen & Lauer, 2002; Isaksen et al., 1999;Somech & Drach-Zahavy, 2013; West, 2002; West & Sacramento, 2012). This streamof research has demonstrated that risk-taking norms and climate are critical contex-tual factors that promote creative performance in teams and organizations (Hunteret al., 2007; Isaksen & Lauer, 2002; Isaksen et al., 1999). In a similar vein, the litera-ture on psychological safety has suggested that employee creativity is more

91

Journal of Creative Behavior

pronounced when individuals perceive that taking risks in their work environmentis safe (e.g., Carmeli, Reiter-Palmon, & Ziv, 2010). Taken together, team creativeefficacy, transformational leadership, and risk-taking norms are posited to be signifi-cantly related to team creative performance by motivating team members to behavein a proactive way. The proposed research model is presented in Figure 1. Each ofthe relationships proposed in the model is explained in detail in the next sections.

TEAM CREATIVE EFFICACY AND TEAM CREATIVEPERFORMANCE

Team creative efficacy differs from individuals’ creative self-efficacy in that theformer reflects shared beliefs in the team’s capabilities to produce new and usefulideas, whereas the latter pertains to individual team member’s self-efficacy regardinghis or her own capabilities to be creative (Bandura, 1986). Team creative efficacy isan emergent team-level attribute formed through within-team dynamics. That is, viaattraction-selection-attrition (ASA) processes, social interactions, and socialization atthe team level, team members develop shared interpretations of events occurringwithin the team (Ford, 1996; Ostroff, Kinicki, & Tamkins, 2003). According to thesocial comparison theory (Festinger, 1954), individuals tend to compare their ownopinions with those of their social comparison referent. Based on this theory, teammembers compare their own beliefs regarding the creative capabilities of the teamwith those of other team members (Paulus & Dzindolet, 2008). Through this socialcomparison process, team members come to possess similar perceptions of theteam’s creative capabilities, leading to the emergence of team creative efficacy.

The team creativity literature suggests that team creative efficacy is crucial toteam creativity (Ford, 1996). Similarly, Paulus and Dzindolet (2008) proposed thatgroup members’ creative self-efficacy is a core group member variable that influ-ences group creativity. Although not much empirical research has investigated thelinkage between team creative efficacy and team creativity, findings have shown apositive association between team creative efficacy and team creative performance.For instance, Shin and Zhou (2007) found that team creative efficacy significantly


Team Member VariableTeam Creative

Efficacy

Team Structure

Team Climate

Transformational Leadership

Risk-Taking Norms

Team Social ProcessTeam Proactivity

FIGURE 1. The proposed research model.

92


predicted team creativity. Consistent with this finding, individuals’ creative efficacywas found to be positively associated with their creative performance (e.g., Gonget al., 2009; Hon & Chan, 2012; Tierney & Farmer, 2002, 2011). Drawing on thesefindings, team creative efficacy is posited to be a crucial team member characteristicthat affects team creative performance. As Paulus and Dzindolet (2008) theorized,team creativity efficacy is likely to contribute to team creative performance by facili-tating team members’ motivational processes. When team members hold sharedbeliefs that the team can attain a high level of creative performance, they tend toput forth their effort to produce new and useful ideas (Amabile, 1988; Zhou &George, 2001). Because they believe that their endeavors toward creative perfor-mance will not be wasted, they are likely to allocate more resources in the produc-tion of creative outputs. Moreover, the members of teams with higher creativeefficacy have a tendency to actively share their ideas with one another and incorpo-rate or transform their ideas into creative outputs (Shin & Zhou, 2007). Therefore,the following relationship is postulated:

Hypothesis 1: Team creative efficacy will be positively related to team creativeperformance.

TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND TEAM CREATIVEPERFORMANCE

The creativity literature suggests that leadership is a key contextual factor thatpromotes team creativity (Mumford, Scott, Gaddis, & Strange, 2002). Research onsocial facilitation has also highlighted the role of a facilitator or group leader inenhancing the performance or creativity of brainstorming groups (e.g., Isaksen &Gaulin, 2005; Kramer, Fleming, & Mannis, 2001; Oxley, Dzindolet, & Paulus, 1996).These studies showed that brainstorming groups with a facilitator performed betterthan those without one. According to the social facilitation literature, leaders con-tribute to the performance of their groups by establishing guidelines and a highstandard of performance and encouraging the equal participation of all group mem-bers (Isaksen & Gaulin, 2005; Oxley et al., 1996). Furthermore, group leadersprompt their members to generate creative ideas by reducing fears of being nega-tively evaluated (Oxley et al., 1996).

Among various forms of leadership, transformational leadership has been identi-fied as one of the most important leadership styles for fostering team creativity (Shin& Zhou, 2007; Shin et al., 2012). Transformational leadership is known as a leader’sabilities and behaviors to motivate followers to perform beyond expectations throughinspirational motivation, idealized influence, intellectual stimulation, and individual-ized consideration (Bass, 1985). Transformational leaders contribute to team creativeperformance in the following ways. First, they encourage team members to take risksto challenge the status quo and to try new ways of working. Such intellectual stimu-lation motivates team members to perceive things in new ways and to explore andexperiment novel ideas. These divergent thinking processes are pivotal elements of

93


creative performance (Acar & Runco, 2012). Second, when leaders express individu-alized consideration for team members, the members are likely to feel assured thattheir ideas and opinions are valued and that they can pursue creative ideas withoutthe fear of deviating from norms or routine (Shin & Zhou, 2007).

The social learning theory (Bandura, 1977) maintains that team members tend toemulate their leader’s behaviors. Thus, by modeling the attitudes and behavior oftransformational leaders, team members tend to possess favorable attitudes towardthe generation of creative ideas, which increases their intentions and motivation toproduce creative ideas (Agars, Kaufman, Deane, & Smith, 2012). For this reason, thecreative performance of teams with transformational leaders should be higher thanthat of teams with less transformational leaders. Such a positive relationship betweentransformational leadership and creativity has been well established across differentsamples and contexts (e.g., Boerner, Eisenbeiss, & Griesser, 2007; Gong et al., 2009;Moss & Ritossa, 2007; Rank, Nelson, Allen, & Xu, 2009; Redmond, Mumford, &Teach, 1993; Reuvers, van Engen, Vinkenburg, & Wilson-Evered, 2008; Shin &Zhou, 2003). Drawing on these findings, the following relationship is proposed:

Hypothesis 2: Team leaders’ transformational leadership will be positivelyrelated to team creative performance.

RISK-TAKING NORMS AND TEAM CREATIVE PERFORMANCEPaulus and Dzindolet (2008), in their model of group creativity, identified risk-

taking norms as a group climate variable that promotes group creativity. Risk-takingnorms are a type of group norms that require team members to tolerate ambiguityand make decisions with some uncertainty (Isaksen & Lauer, 2002; Isaksen et al.,1999). Cameron and Quinn (2006) theorized that risk-taking norms are a criticalfacet of adhocracy organizational culture in that risk-taking norms require organiza-tional members to be risk-takers and to commit themselves to experimentation andinnovation. Therefore, producing new and unique products or services is highly val-ued in risk-taking or adhocracy cultures (Cameron & Quinn, 2006). In line with thisreasoning, the organizational creativity literature suggests that psychological safetycan promote creativity by reducing fear of negative consequences of risk-taking(Carmeli et al., 2010). Similarly, scholars have consistently argued that risk-taking isa crucial facet of organizational climate that can foster creativity (Hunter et al.,2007; Isaksen & Lauer, 2002; Isaksen et al., 1999). Building on these arguments, wepostulate risk-taking norms as a critical antecedent of team creative performance.

Risk-taking norms can contribute to team creative performance in several ways.First, when a team possesses risk-taking norms, its members are expected to generatenew ideas. Such behavioral expectations regarding creativity increase the number ofcreations (Woodman et al., 1993). Second, risk-taking norms clarify the means ofachieving creativity (Adarves-Yorno, Postmes, & Haslam, 2007). In other words,team members under risk-taking norms have a clear sense of the meaning of creativ-ity and how to express and implement creativity. Third, risk-taking norms reduce

94


the perceived risks of generating new ideas (Carmeli et al., 2010). Risk-taking normsassure team members that experimenting new ideas is not sanctioned. As such, themembers are likely to experience decreased fear of failure, thereby producing morecreative ideas.

Even though the linkage between risk-taking norms and team creative perfor-mance has never been tested empirically, the creativity literature has indicated apositive linkage between norms regarding creativity and creative performance. Forinstance, Carmeli and Schaubroeck (2007) found that the normative expectations forcreativity imposed by leaders and other referents were positively related to employ-ees’ creative involvement at work. Consistent with this finding, Dewett (2006)reported that employees’ willingness to take risks was positively associated with theircreativity (e.g., Dewett, 2006). Although not in the domain of creativity, the organi-zational culture literature provides insight into the role of risk-taking norms in orga-nizational creativity and innovation. Cameron and Quinn (1996) maintained that inorganizations with risk-taking norms, employees tend to make work-related sugges-tions and to innovate their work processes. We therefore predict the followingrelationship:

Hypothesis 3: Risk-taking norms will be positively related to team creativeperformance.

THE MEDIATING ROLE OF TEAM PROACTIVITYProactivity is defined as self-directed and future-focused actions to anticipate or

initiate change in the work system or work roles (Crant, 2000; Grant & Ashford,2008; Parker et al., 2006). Examples of proactive behavior are suggesting ideas forfuture improvements, self-started problem-solving, initiatives to make changes, feed-back seeking, and issue selling (Grant & Ashford, 2008; Parker et al., 2006).Although proactivity has been conceptualized in various ways, the common charac-teristic is voluntarily going beyond assigned tasks and taking a long-term perspectiveto prevent problems.

Drawing on Williams et al. (2010) conceptualization of team proactive perfor-mance, team proactivity is defined as team members’ shared perceptions of theextent to which the team as a whole collectively engages in self-started, future-focused action purported to change the environment or the team itself (Williamset al., 2010). Team proactivity differs from team motivation in that the former refersto team members’ collective tendency to engage in proactive behaviors, whereas thelatter pertains to team members’ inclination to exert efforts in their tasks due tointerest in the tasks (Paulus & Dzindolet, 2008). While team members’ motivationcan elevate their overall task performance, creative performance requires morefuture-oriented, proactive behaviors (Kim, Hon, & Crant, 2009; Kim, Hon, & Lee,2010). For this reason, we focus on team proactivity as a crucial team process vari-able that intervenes in the relationships between team-level antecedents and creativeperformance.

95


Although team proactivity is isomorphic to proactivity at the individual level,team proactivity differs from the sum or average of individual-level proactivity inthat it reflects interactions among team members (Williams et al., 2010). Althoughindividual proactivity reflects individuals’ own propensity to behave in proactiveways, team proactivity is a collective social process that emerges within a team (Grant& Ashford, 2008). Williams et al. (2010) argued that, through interactions and com-munication within the team, team members develop common behavioral patterns ofdealing with challenges in the environment. When the team members carry out acommon task, they frequently interact with each other to allocate roles andresources, coordinate interdependent activities, and plan and monitor the process oftask execution (Marks, Mathieu, & Zaccaro, 2001). During this process, the teammembers develop common ways of anticipating changes in the environment andplanning ahead to prevent future problems (Williams et al., 2010), which constitutesthe emergent state of team proactivity.

In order for a higher level construct (e.g., team proactivity) to be conceptualized,how the construct emerges from its lower level elements (e.g., individual team mem-bers’ perceptions of the proactivity level of the team) should be specified (Kozlowski& Klein, 2000). That is, the average of individual members’ own proactivity levelsmay not capture the phenomena of the team as a whole because it only indicatesthe average degree of how often each team member engages in proactive behavior.Given that team proactivity is a property of the work team, not of the individual,this difference should be reflected in the shift in referent from the individual to theteam (Chan, 1998). Therefore, we operationalize team proactivity as team members’average ratings of the extent to which the team as a whole collectively engages inproactive behaviors.

In this study, team proactivity is posited to serve as a mediator linking the afore-mentioned three antecedents and team creative performance. This is grounded onPaulus and Dzindolet’s (2008) proposition that group member variables (e.g., teamcreative efficacy), group structure (e.g., transformational leadership), and group cli-mate (e.g., risk-taking norms) jointly affect group creativity through the motiva-tional, cognitive, and social processes of a group. When team members exhibit ahigh level of creative efficacy and are guided by transformational leaders and risk-taking norms, the team as a whole is likely to demonstrate more proactive behaviors.More specifically, the members of proactive teams initiate changes, identify andmanipulate opportunities in the environment, and seek out new information andmethods of doing work to improve their performance (Bateman & Crant, 1993).These proactive behaviors are likely to generate novel and useful ideas, products,and services within the team. Furthermore, team proactivity contributes to the inno-vation and creative performance of the team by enabling the team members to con-stantly update their knowledge and skills (Kim et al., 2009, 2010).

Even though no research to date has tested the mediating effect of team proactivi-ty on the relationships between the three antecedents and team creative perfor-mance, there is empirical evidence for the linkages between efficacy andtransformational leadership and team proactivity and between team proactivity and

96


team creative performance. First, the association between self- or collective efficacyand proactivity has been well established at both individual (e.g., Parker et al., 2006;Strauss, Griffin, & Rafferty, 2009) and team levels (Williams et al., 2010). Second,transformational leadership was also found to be significantly related to team proac-tivity (e.g., Williams et al., 2010). Third, although not at the team level, prior workinto proactivity and creativity has reported a positive relationship between individu-als’ proactive personality or behavior and creativity (e.g., Kim et al., 2009, 2010;Rank, Pace & Frese, 2004; Seibert, Kraimer, & Crant, 2001). These findings alto-gether suggest the potential mediating effect of team proactivity on the relationshipsbetween team creativity, transformational leadership, and risk-taking norms andteam creative performance. Hence, the following mediating relationships areproposed:

Hypothesis 4: Team proactivity will mediate the relationships between (a)team creative efficacy, (b) transformational leadership, and (c) risk-takingnorms and team creative performance, respectively.

METHODSAMPLE AND DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURE

The sample for this study was drawn from 11 South Korean companies, diversein size and industry. Approximately 200 private companies located in the Northeast-ern region of Seoul were targeted as the population of the study. Of them, 20 com-panies were chosen through stratified sampling. That is, 20 companies thatrepresented the proportions of different firm sizes and industries of the populationwere randomly selected and contacted by the researcher. The human resource (HR)personnel of each company were asked to participate in the study. Among the 20companies contacted, 11 companies agreed to participate in the study. The 11 com-panies represented various industries: banking and finance (46%), service (27%),manufacturing (18%), and other (9%). The participating and non-participatingcompanies were not significantly different in terms of firm size and industry charac-teristics. We conducted a focus group interview with the HR personnel of the partic-ipating companies to collect information about organizational structure, humanresource management systems, decision-making processes, leadership, and nature oftasks, interdependence, and interactions within teams.

In terms of organizational structure, the participating companies consisted of keyfunctional divisions, and each division was composed of several work teams, whichwere the unit of measurement and analysis in this study. Teams were the basic workunit of the participating companies, and all these companies used team-based per-formance evaluation and reward systems. Each team consisted of one formal leaderand more than one member. The leader, who held a higher organizational positionthan the members, was in charge of decision-making related to task and resourceassignment, goal setting, and human resource management. Both the leader and themembers were located in the same office space, which was physically separated from

97


other teams by partitions. Team members frequently interacted and communicatedwith each other to perform interdependent tasks, and shared resources and work-related information as well as responsibility for the results of their tasks.

The HR personnel of the participating companies were asked to administer ques-tionnaires to 10 teams randomly selected from their company. Each HR personneldistributed the team-leader survey to the leaders and the team-member survey tothe members of the participating teams. The team-leader survey consisted of itemsmeasuring the proactivity and creative performance of the team as well as the lea-der’s demographic information. The team-member survey contained items assessingteam creative efficacy, transformational leadership, and risk-taking norms as well asthe team members’ demographic background and other control variables (i.e., open-ness to experience, team motivation, and task interdependence). Both the leadersand the members were instructed to return the surveys to the HR personnel in asealed envelope and were assured of voluntary participation, confidentiality, andanonymity.

Of the 110 teams contacted by the HR personnel, 105 leaders agreed to partici-pate in the study, yielding a sample of 105 leaders and 614 members (responserate = 95%). To reduce potential aggregation biases due to the use of a small sample(Bliese & Halverson, 1998), teams with fewer than three respondents were eliminatedfrom the sample, resulting in a final sample of 103 leaders and 604 members. Thesize of the 103 teams ranged from 3 to 11 members, and the average team size was5.7 members (SD = 2.4), which constituted 70% of formal team members accordingto the company registry. The average age of the team leaders was 46 years(SD = 5.4), and 15% of the leaders were female. The leaders’ average organizationaltenure and average tenure in the current team were 17.1 years (SD = 8.3) and3.9 years (SD = 5.1), respectively.

The average age of the team members was 36.4 years (SD = 7.3), and 33% of themembers were female employees. Their average organizational tenure and averagetenure in the current team were 9 years (SD = 8.2) and 2.8 years (SD = 3.3), respec-tively. The team members held diverse organizational positions, including rank-and-file employees (27%), first-level supervisors (18%), managers (22%), and seniormanagers (22%). Their functional areas included: planning/strategy/operation(34%), sales (13%), human resource management (12%), research and development(R&D) (11%), finance/accounting (5%), and marketing (4%).

MEASURES

All the study variables in this study were measured using a 5-point Likert scale(1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree), which consisted of team-referent items toeffectively capture team-level phenomena (Chan, 1998; Chen & Bliese, 2002). Teamleaders provided ratings of team proactivity and team creative performance, whereasall the other study variables (i.e., team creative efficacy, transformational leadership,and risk-taking norms) and control variables (i.e., openness to experience, teammotivation, and task interdependence) were measured by individual team membersand aggregated to the team level. As reported below, all scales exhibited acceptable

98


levels of within-team agreement (i.e., rwg(j)), group-level reliability, and between-team variability (i.e., ICC[1] and ICC[2]), providing justification for the aggregationof individuals’ responses to the team level (Chen, Mathieu, & Bliese, 2004).

Team creative efficacy

To measure team creative efficacy, six items (a = .93, rwg(j) = .93, ICC[1] = .21,ICC[2] = .60, F = 2.53, p < .001) were adapted from Carmeli and Schaubroeck’s(2007) and Tierney and Farmer’s (2002) creative self-efficacy scales. The items ofcreative self-efficacy were modified, so that the referent point was the team (Shin &Zhou, 2007). Sample items included “Members of my team have confidence in theirabilities to solve problems creatively,” “Members of my team believe that they willbe able to achieve most of the team goals in a creative way,” and “When facing diffi-cult tasks, members of my team are certain that they will accomplish themcreatively.”

Transformational leadership

Team leaders’ transformational leadership was measured using 10 items (a = .96,rwg(j) = .93, ICC[1] = .29, ICC[2] = .70, F = 3.32, p = .001) derived from the multi-factor leadership questionnaire (Bass, 1985). Examples of the items were “My teamleader is a model for me to follow,” “My team leader encourages me to express myideas and opinions,” and “My team leader has provided me with new ways of look-ing at things which used to be a puzzle for me.”

Risk-taking norms

To construct a scale of risk-taking norms, four items (a = .92, rwg(j) = .86, ICC[1] = .24, ICC[2] = .64, F = 2.77, p = .001) of the organizational culture assessmentinstrument (Cameron & Quinn, 2006) were modified as team-referent items, so thatthey could reflect risk-taking norms at the team level. The four items were “Mem-bers of my team are expected to stick their necks out and task risks,” “Trying newthings and prospecting for opportunities are valued in my team,” “My team empha-sizes individual risk taking, innovation, freedom, and uniqueness,” and “Members ofmy team are expected to acquire new resources and create new challenges.”

Team proactivity

To assess team proactivity, team leaders were asked to report on the level of proac-tivity within their team. Six items (a = .91) were drawn from Bateman and Crant’s(1993) individual proactivity scale and adapted as team-referent items (Kirkman &Rosen, 1999). Sample items were “Members of my team take the initiative to startnew projects,” “If members of my team see something they don’t like, they fix it,”and “Whenever members of my team have a problem, they tackle it head-on.”

Team creative performance

Similar to team proactivity, team creative performance was measured based onleader ratings. To construct a scale of team creative performance, eight items

99


(a = .84) were derived from Zhou and George’s (2001) creativity scale. Examples ofthe items were “My team members come up with new and practical ideas toimprove performance,” “My team members search out new technologies, processes,techniques, and/or product ideas,” “My team members exhibit creativity on the jobwhen given the opportunity to do,” and “My team members come up with creativesolutions to problems.”

Control variables

In this study, a number of variables that can have a confounding effect on thestudy variables were measured and included as control variables. First, drawing onthe literatures on team performance and creativity, we controlled for team size andaverage team tenure to partial out their potential influences on the relationshipsamong the study variables (e.g., Harrison, Price, Gavin, & Florey, 2002; Jackson,Joshi, & Erhardt, 2003; Shin et al., 2012).

Second, to assess the effect of team creative efficacy on creative performance overand above the variance accounted for by other critical team member characteristics(e.g., team composition and team member personality), we controlled for agediversity, job-level diversity, and team members’ openness to experience. Agediversity was operationalized as the standard deviation of team members’ age (Bedeian& Mossholder, 2000), and job-level diversity was computed using Blau’s (1977) indexof heterogeneity, 1�Σ pi

2. In this formula, p is the portion of a team in the respectivediversity category and i is the number of different categories represented on the team.The index varies from 0, indicating no diversity, to a theoretical maximum of 1.

Team members’ openness to experience (i.e., being imaginative, original, andcurious) was measured with five items (a = .77) of the Revised NEO PersonalityInventory (NEO Pi-R) (Costa & McCrae, 1991) and aggregated to the team level toyield a score of team-level openness to experience.

Third, to examine the relationship between team proactivity and creative perfor-mance controlling for the effect of team motivation on team creative performance,we measured team motivation using three items from Chen, Thomas, and Wallace’s(2005) team motivation scale (e.g., “My team members focus on coordinating wellwith one another” and “My team members focus on how well they progress towardaccomplishing their goals”).

Finally, because the creativity literature indicates a strong association betweentask characteristics and creativity (Shin & Zhou, 2007), task type was measuredusing two dummy variables indicating sales and R&D, respectively. In addition, dueto its potential influence on team processes and outcomes, task interdependencewas also included as a control variable (Harrison et al., 2002; Jackson et al., 2003;Shin & Zhou, 2007; Van der Vegt & Janssen, 2003). Team members reported thedegree of task interdependence within their team based on seven items (a = .90)from Pearce and Gregersen’s (1991) task interdependence scale. Furthermore, giventhat team creative performance can be affected by company characteristics (West &Anderson, 1996), a dummy variable (1 = banking and finance company, 0 = other)representing banking and finance was created and included in all subsequent

100


analyses. In sum, team size, average team tenure, age diversity, job-level diversity,openness to experience, team motivation, task-type dummy variables, task interde-pendence, a company dummy variable were controlled for in all subsequent dataanalyses.

RESULTSTo assess the discriminant validity of the study measures, a confirmatory factor

analysis (CFA) was performed for team members’ ratings of team creative efficacy,transformational leadership, risk-taking norms, team proactivity, and team creativeperformance. The hypothesized five-factor model demonstrated a good fit to thedata (v2 [df = 424] = 1692.67, p < .001, CFI = .91, RMSEA = .07). This measure-ment model was further compared with a four-factor model, in which team proac-tivity and creative performance were combined into a single factor. In addition, thehypothesized measurement model was compared with a three-factor model, whichmerged team creative efficacy, team proactivity, and team creative performance intoa single factor, and a two-factor model, in which all variables except for transforma-tional leadership were combined into a single factor. As depicted in Table 1, thehypothesized five-factor model yielded a significantly better fit than any of the alter-native measurement models (Δv2 [df = 4] = 705.53, p < .001 for the four-factor

TABLE 1. Results of Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Chi-Square DifferenceTests

CFA Models v2 df CFI RMSEA Dv2p-valueof D v2

Model 1: Hypothesized five-factor model

1692.67 424 .91 .07 - -

Model 2: Four-factor model(combining team proactivityand team creative performanceinto a single factor)

2396.80 428 .86 .91 704.53 <.001

Model 3: Three-factor model(combining team creativeefficacy, team proactivity, andteam creative performance intoa single factor)

4222.25 431 .74 .12 2529.58 <.001

Model 4: Two-factor model(combining team creativeefficacy, risk-taking norms,team proactivity, and creativeperformance into a singlefactor)

5045.54 433 .68 .14 3352.87 <.001

101


model; Δv2 (df = 7) = 2529.58, p < .001 for the three-factor model; Δv2

(df = 9) = 3352.87, p < .001 for the two-factor model).Furthermore, a separate CFA was conducted for team leaders’ ratings of team

proactivity and team creative performance as the two variables were measured basedon team leaders’ responses. A two-factor model was compared with a single-factormodel, which merged team proactivity and creative performance into a single factor.Results showed that the two-factor model (v2 [df = 43] = 72.48, CFI = .95,RMSEA = .08); Δv2 [df = 1] = 104.69, p < .001) demonstrated a significantly betterfit than the single-factor model (v2 [df = 44] = 177.17, CFI = .77, RMSEA = .17).Taken together, the factor-analytic results indicated that the measures of team crea-tive efficacy, transformational leadership, risk-taking norms, team proactivity, andteam creative performance possessed sufficient discriminant validity.

The descriptive statistics and correlations among the study variables are reportedin Table 2. As shown in Table 2, the control variables were positively correlated witha number of study variables. For instance, job-level diversity was positively associ-ated with team creative efficacy. Banking and finance was positively related to risk-taking norms. Sales was negatively associated with openness to experience and taskinterdependence, whereas R&D was positively related to team creative performance.As expected, openness to experience, team motivation, and task interdependencehad positive relationships with a number of study variables. These findings providesupport for the necessity of controlling for openness to experience, team motivation,and task interdependence in this study.

RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN TEAM CREATIVE EFFICACY,TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP, AND RISK-TAKING NORMS AND

TEAM CREATIVE PERFORMANCE

Hypotheses 1, 2, and 3 predicted a positive link between team creative efficacy,transformational leadership, and risk-taking norms and team creative performance,respectively. These hypotheses were tested using hierarchical regression analyses. Dueto multicollinearity among the three antecedents, they were simultaneously enteredin the regression equation. The results of these regression analyses are presented inModel 2 of Table 3. While team creative efficacy (b = .34, p = .05) and risk-takingnorms (b = .35, p = .01) were significantly associated with team creative perfor-mance, no relationship was detected between transformational leadership and teamcreative performance (b = �.17, p = n.s.), lending support to Hypotheses 1 and 3.

MEDIATING ROLE OF TEAM PROACTIVITY

Hypotheses 4a, 4b, and 4c postulated the mediating effect of team proactivity onthe relationships between team creative efficacy, transformational leadership, andrisk-taking norms and team creative performance, respectively. To assess thesemediating effects, Baron and Kenny’s (1986) procedure was adopted. Baron andKenny (1986) specified three pre-conditions for mediation. First, the independentvariable must be significantly related to the mediator. Second, the independent vari-able should have a significant relationship with the dependent variable. Third, the

102


TABLE2.

Descriptive

Statistics

andIntercorrelations

Team-level

variables

MSD

12

34

56

78

910

1112

1314

1.Team

Size

5.67

2.37

2.Average

team

tenu

re

2.62

1.59

.02

3.Age

diversity

5.39

2.26

�.05

.20*

4.Job-leveldiversity

.53

.21

.00

.18+

.34*

*

5.Openn

essto

experience

3.42

.31

�.13

.09

.27*

*.45*

**

6.Team

motivation

4.09

.60

�.18

+�.

02.07

.14

.20*

7.Task-type

dummy

1—Sales

.16

.36

.02

�.01

.15

�.30

**�.

28*

�.05

8.Task-type

dummy

2—R&D

.07

.25

.03

�.12

�.10

.12

.15

.01

�.12

9.Task interdependence

3.65

.47

�.00

.01

.11

.22*

.42*

**.32*

*�.

20*

.04

10.Com

pany—

Banking

&

finance

.11

.31

.01

.11

.14

�.33

**�.

29**

�.12

.72*

**�.

10�.

18+

11.Team

creativ

e

efficacy

3.77

.43

�.08

.11

.16

.25*

.47*

**.30*

*�.

17+

.05

.73*

**�.

08

12.Transform

ational

leadership

3.64

.54

�.09

.18+

.12

.06

.16

.31*

*�.

07.10

.45*

**�.

02.58*

**

13.Risk-taking

norm

s

3.23

.53

�.08

.07

.17+

.02

.22*

.24*

.18+

.00

.49*

**.30*

*.65*

**.58*

**

14.Team

proactivity

3.66

.61

�.04

.07

.06

.02

.13

.35*

**.07

.02

.35*

**.06

.47*

**.32*

*.48*

**

15.Team

creativ

e

performance

3.39

.61

�.19

+.05

.08

.08

.24*

.50*

**.04

.20*

.28*

*.08

.46*

**.31*

*.49*

**.61*

**

N=103.

+p<.10,

*p<.05,

**p<.01,

***p

<.001.

103


TABLE3.

ResultsofRegressionAnalyses

forTeam

Proactivity

andTeam

CreativePerform

ance

Variables

Model

1Model

2Model

3

DV:team

proactivity

DV:team

creative

perform

ance

DV:team

creative

perform

ance

b(S.E.)

R2

ΔR2

b(S.E.)

R2

ΔR2

b(S.E.)

R2

ΔR2

Step

1.Controlvariables

Team

size

.06(.01)

�.08(.01)

-.10(.01)

Average

team

tenure

.05(.03)

.07(.03)

.05(.03)

Age

diversity

.25(.03)**

�.02(.02)

�.12(.02)

Job-level

diversity

�.05(.29)

�.03(.29)

�.01(.27)

Opennessto

experience

�.22(.21)*

�.01(.20)

.08(.19)

Team

motivation

.39(.09)***

.42(.09)***

.27(.09)**

Task-typedummy1—

Sales

.05(.20)

.01(.19)

�.01(.18)

Task-typedummy2—

R&D

.03(.21)

.18(.21)*

.18(.19)*

Taskinterdependence

�.05(.16)

�.19(.15)

�.17(.14)

Company—

Bankingand

finance

�.14(.25)

.34***

.34***

.01(.25)

.34***

.34***

.07(.23)

.34***

.34***

Step

2.IndependentVariables

Team

creative

efficacy

.33(.21)*

.34(.21)*

.21(.20)

Transform

ational

leadership

�.17(.13)

�.17(.12)

�.10(.11)

Risk-takingnorm

s.34(.15)*

.46***

.12***

.35(.14)**

.47***

.13***

.22(.14)

+.47***

.13***

Step

3.Mediator

Team

proactivity

.39(.10)***

.56***

.09***

Note.N

=103.

DV

=DependentVariable;b=Standardized

RegressionCoefficients;S.E.=StandardErrorofEstim

ate.

+p<.10,

*p<.05,

**p<.01,

***p

<.001.

104


mediator should be significantly associated with the dependent variable. Moreover,the relationship between the independent variable and the dependent variableshould be non-significant (full mediation) or weaken (partial mediation) when themediator is included in the regression equation. Because the main effect of transfor-mational leadership on team creative performance was not significant, tests of medi-ation were carried out for team creative efficacy and risk-taking norms.

First, team proactivity was regressed on team creative efficacy and risk-takingnorms. Results indicated that both team creative efficacy (b = .33, p < .05) and risk-taking norms (b = .34, p < .05) had a significant relationship with team proactivity(see Model 1 of Table 3), which fulfilled the first condition of Baron and Kenny(1986). The second condition was already met, as shown in Model 2 of Table 3.Finally, the relationships between team creative efficacy and team creative perfor-mance (b = .21, p = n.s.) became insignificant when team proactivity (b = .39,p < .001) was included in the regression equation, indicating full mediation (seeModel 3 of Table 3). Similarly, the relationship between risk-taking norms and teamcreative performance (b = .22, p < .10) became weaker in the presence of team pro-activity (b = .39, p < .001), which suggests partial mediation.

The mediating effect of team proactivity on team creative efficacy and risk-takingnorms was further assessed through the Sobel (1982) test. The results of the Sobeltest demonstrated significant indirect effects of team proactivity on the relationshipsbetween team creative efficacy and team creative performance (Z = 1.99, p < .05)and between risk-taking norms and team creative performance (Z = 2.19, p < .05).These findings, coupled with the results of regression analyses, provided support forHypotheses 4a and 4c. The regression coefficients of the variables are presented inFigure 2.

Note. N = 103. Standardized regression coefficients are presented.* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001

.35**

.34*

.39***-.17

.33*

.34*

Team Proactivity

Team Creative Efficacy

Transformational Leadership

Risk-Taking Norms


FIGURE 2. The results of hierarchical regression analysis for team creativeperformance. Note. N = 103. Standardized regression coefficients arepresented. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

105


DISCUSSIONThe objective of this study was to explore critical team-level antecedents and

mediator that affect the creative performance of teams. Drawing on Paulus andDzindolet (2008) group creativity model, team creative efficacy, transformationalleadership, and risk-taking norms were identified as antecedents of team creativeperformance. Furthermore, these relationships were proposed to be mediated by acollective social process, team proactivity. Among the three antecedents, team crea-tive efficacy and risk-taking norms were found to be strongly linked to team creativeperformance. In addition, the results of the mediation analyses revealed that teamproactivity mediated the relationships between team creative efficacy and teamcreative performance and between risk-taking norms and team creative performance.These findings offer several important implications for team creativity research.

Although a number of studies have investigated the antecedents of team creativ-ity, very little research has elucidated the roles of both team member and team-levelcontextual factors on the basis of a solid theoretical framework as well as the inter-vening mechanism between the antecedents and team creativity. By adopting Paulusand Dzindolet’s (2008) model as an overarching framework, this study delineateswhat factors are critical to team creative performance and how they contribute tothe creative performance of teams. The present findings showed that even control-ling for important team-level factors (e.g., team composition, team member person-ality, task type, task interdependence, and team motivation), team creative efficacyand risk-taking norms significantly predicted team creative performance. These find-ings imply that both team member characteristics and contextual factors are criticalto generating creative performance in work teams, which endorses the basic premiseof Paulus and Dzindolet’s (2008) group creativity model.

Our findings clearly demonstrated that team creative efficacy exerted a significantaugmenting effect on team creative performance over team composition and teammember personality, which are known as important team member characteristicsthat affect team creativity (Reiter-Palmon et al., 2012). That is, even controlling forthe variance accounted for by age diversity, job-level diversity, and team members’openness to experience, team creative efficacy explained a significant amount of vari-ance in team creative performance. These findings suggest that in addition to teammembers’ demographic composition and personality, their collective belief regardingthe creative capabilities of the team is crucial to team creative performance. Ourfindings are consistent with prior findings indicating a positive association betweenteam creative efficacy and team creativity (e.g., Shin & Zhou, 2007). Furthermore, bydemonstrating that team-level creativity, efficacy is an important antecedent of crea-tivity at the team level, this study validates the multilevel homology of the creativeefficacy–creativity relationship, which has often been established at the individuallevel (e.g., Gong et al., 2009; Tierney & Farmer, 2002, 2011). However, the processin which individuals’ creative self-efficacy leads to enhanced individual creativitymight differ from the process involving team-level creative efficacy. Unlike individu-als’ creative self-efficacy, team creative efficacy is likely to affect team creativity by

106


facilitating collective processes and dynamics among team members. In other words,collective belief in the team’s creative capabilities leads to collective mobilizationtoward creative performance through information sharing and resource allocationfor the production of creative outputs (Shin & Zhou, 2007). Thus, the currentresearch contributes to the literature on efficacy and creativity by unraveling thedynamics involving creative efficacy at the team level.

This study expands the horizon of team creativity research by revealing theimportance of risk-taking norms in team creative performance, which has beenunderstudied in the organizational creativity literature. So far, there has been noagreed-upon conclusion regarding the relationship between norms and creativity.Some studies have reported the positive effect of norms or behavioral expectationson creativity (e.g., Adarves-Yorno et al., 2007; Carmeli & Schaubroeck, 2007). Thisstream of research maintains that norms can contribute to creativity by clarifyingbehavioral expectations concerning creative performance (Adarves-Yorno et al.,2007). On the other hand, there is also evidence that creativity can be attained bydeviating from norms (Amabile, 1996; Eisenmann, 1990). Such mixed findings con-cerning norms and creativity suggest that there might be specific types of norms thatare more or less beneficial to creativity. For instance, individualistic norms werefound to be a significant precursor of creativity (Concalo & Staw, 2006; Kanter,1988) in that individualistic norms foster divergent thinking and creative idea gener-ation (Walton & Kemmelmeier, 2012). In addition to individualistic norms, risk-taking norms appeared to be another type of norms that can promote creativity inthis study. Therefore, by attending to a new form of norms conducive to team crea-tivity, this study reconciles the controversy regarding the relationship between normsand creativity.

Contrary to predictions, team leaders’ transformational leadership was not relatedto team creative performance. This finding is quite surprising, given the vast amountof research indicating the positive association between transformational leadershipand creativity (e.g., Boerner et al., 2007; Gong et al., 2009; Moss & Ritossa, 2007;Rank et al., 2009; Redmond et al., 1993; Reuvers et al., 2008; Shin & Zhou, 2003).One plausible explanation of this finding is that the role of transformational leadersmight not be critical in teams that have high levels of creative efficacy and risk-taking norms. Because team members hold strong beliefs and norms necessary forcreative performance, they can produce creative performance without a leader’sguidance. In contrast, transformational leaders may play a more influential role inthe creative performance of teams with low levels of creative efficacy and risk-takingnorms. Although our correlational analyses showed positive associations betweentransformational leadership and the other two variables, the potential complemen-tary relationships between transformational leadership and creative efficacy andbetween transformational leadership and risk-taking norms warrant further empiricalinvestigations.

The lack of relationships between transformational leadership and team creativeperformance might also be due to the multicollenearity among team creative efficacy,transformational leadership, and risk-taking norms. As reported in Table 2, strong

107


correlations were found between transformational leadership and team creative effi-cacy (r = .58, p < .001) and between transformational leadership and risk-takingnorms (r = .58, p < .001). Although these correlations are similar to the correlationsobserved in prior research (e.g., r = .52, p < .01 between transformational leadershipand team creative efficacy; Shin & Zhou, 2007), the relationship between transforma-tional leadership and team creative performance might have been suppressed by thestrong associations between team creative efficacy and team creative performanceand between risk-taking norms and team creative performance, which suggests thepossibility that team creative efficacy and risk-taking norms mediate the relationshipbetween transformational leadership and team creative performance. Indeed, creativ-ity research has evidenced the mediating effect of employee creative self-efficacy onthe relationship between transformational leadership and employee creativity (e.g.,Gong et al., 2009). Although team creative efficacy, transformational leadership, andrisk-taking norms were identified as independent variables in this study based onPaulus and Dzindolet’s (2008) theory, the potential mediating roles of team creativeefficacy and risk-taking norms in the relationship between transformational leader-ship and team creativity may need to be further explored in future research.

Another important theoretical contribution of this study is the intermediary roleof team proactivity in team creative performance. Despite the vast amount ofresearch on team creativity, no research to date has examined the role of team pro-activity as a linking mechanism between team-level antecedents of creativity andteam creative performance. This study clearly demonstrated that even controlling forthe general motivation of the team as a whole, team proactivity served as a signifi-cant mediator between creative efficacy and team creative performance and betweenrisk-taking norms and team creative performance. This finding implies that teammembers’ intrinsic motivation toward their tasks might not be sufficient to achieve ahigh level of creative performance. Instead, team members’ proactive behaviors tochange the current situation might be a more critical factor that can enhance teamcreative performance. Although individual-level creativity research has generallyidentified individuals’ cognitions (e.g., self-efficacy) and motivation as core mediat-ing mechanisms leading to creativity (Amabile, 1996), different intermediate pro-cesses might come into play at the team level. As revealed in this study, teamcreative efficacy and risk-taking norms tend to affect team creative performancethrough the mobilization of team members’ collective efforts to improve the currentsituation. These findings suggest that team creative efficacy and risk-taking normsmay not be linked to team creative performance without triggering team members’proactive behaviors. Thus, by shedding light on the role of team proactivity as a cri-tical collective social process that can contribute to team creativity for the first time,the current research advances the literatures on team proactivity and team creativity.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

This study has several practical implications for team leaders or managers. First, thepresent findings show that strengthening team creative efficacy and setting risk-takingnorms can help work teams enhance their creative performance. One way to increase

108


team creative efficacy would be to compose teams of individuals who have successfullyproduced creative ideas or outputs in the past (Baer, Oldham, Jacobson, & Hollings-head, 2008; Lester, Meglino, & Korsgaard, 2002; Pearce, Gallagher, & Ensley, 2002;Prussia & Kinicki, 1996). This is grounded in the proposition that past success experi-ence can strengthen individuals’ efficacy beliefs (Bandura, 1977). Thus, organizationalteams that require a high level of creativity (e.g., R&D or product design team) maybenefit from composing teams of members with prior success experience in thedomain of creativity. In addition, setting clear, challenging goals for creative perfor-mance and providing adequate resources and rewards for such performance can beanother avenue to heighten the creative efficacy of teams (Guzzo & Shea, 1992).

This study also highlights the role of risk-taking norms as a contextual factorcontributing to team creative performance. Teams that intend to boost creative per-formance may need to formulate risk-taking norms. These norms not only provideteam members with a clear sense of what creative performance is and how toachieve it but also reduce the fear and anxiety resulting from generating and experi-menting unique ideas. When risk-taking norms strongly operate in a team, teammembers are likely to experience psychological safety, which in turn leads to voicebehavior, initiative, and proactive behavior that are beneficial to creative perfor-mance (Edmondson, 2004). In addition, risk-taking norms can manifest ways ofrewarding proactive or creative behaviors. By communicating the rules and policiesfor rewarding creative performance, risk-taking norms can motivate team membersto produce creative ideas.

LIMITATIONS AND DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

Despite its theoretical and practical implications, this study is subject to severallimitations that suggest directions for future research. First, contrary to predictions,no significant relationship was found between transformational leadership andteam creative performance. As noted earlier, the lack of association between thesetwo variables might be due to the multicollinearity among the three independentvariables and the potential mediating effects of team creative efficacy and risk-taking norms. For this reason, more research should be directed at disentanglingthe complicated dynamics among transformational leadership, team creative effi-cacy, risk-taking norms, and team creative performance. Furthermore, while themediating effect of team proactivity was supported for team creative efficacy andrisk-taking norms, one cannot ascertain the causality among these two independentvariables, team proactivity, and team creative performance due to the cross-sectional nature of the present research design. Therefore, longitudinal orexperimental research designs are called for to make a stronger causal conclusionregarding the variables.

Another limitation of this study is the measurement of team proactivity and teamcreative performance from the same source. In this study, to reduce biases arisingfrom common method variance (CMV), responses from two different sources wereused (Conway & Lance, 2010; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003).That is, team members provided ratings of the three independent variables, whereas

109


team leaders reported on the levels of proactivity and creative performance of theirteams. While this measurement procedure reduces the inflation of relationshipbetween the three independent variables and team proactivity and creative perfor-mance, the high correlation between team proactivity and creative performancemight have resulted from CMV. In addition, even though we used team-referentmeasurement items to capture their corresponding construct appropriately, raterbiases (e.g., evaluation apprehension, social desirability) resulting from the use ofself-report might have affected the responses of team members and leaders in thisstudy. Therefore, future work should employee more rigorous research designs andmeasurement techniques to resolve this issue.

Finally, the generalization of the present findings to other contexts should bemade with caution. Because the sample of this study consisted of only Koreanemployees, the cultural characteristics of a Korean sample might have influenced thestudy findings. Given that Korea is a collectivistic culture (Hofstede, 1980), the effectof team creative efficacy or team proactivity might have turned out to be strong inthe current sample. For this reason, future research may need to validate the find-ings of this study using samples from different countries or cultures.

REFERENCESAcar, S., & Runco, M.A. (2012). Creative abilities: Divergent thinking. In M. Mumford (Ed.), Handbook of

organizational creativity (pp. 115–139). London, UK: Academic Press.

Adarves-Yorno, I., Postmes, T., & Haslam, S.A. (2007). Creative innovation or crazy irrelevance? The contri-bution of group norms and social identity to creative behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,43, 410–416.

Agars, M.D., Kaufman, J.C., Deane, A., & Smith, B. (2012). Fostering individual creativity throughorganizational context: A review of recent research and recommendations for organizational leaders. InM. Mumford (Ed.), Handbook of organizational creativity (pp. 271–291). London, UK: Academic Press.

Amabile, T.M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. In B.M. Staw, &L.L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (vol. 10, pp. 123–167). Greenwich, CT: JAIPress.

Amabile, T.M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity. Boulder, CO: West-view Press.

Amabile, T.M. (1997). Motivating creativity in organizations: On doing what you love and loving what youdo. California Management Review, 40, 39–58.

Baer, M., Oldham, G., Jacobson, G., & Hollingshead, A. (2008). The personality composition of teams andcreativity: The moderating role of team creative confidence. Journal of Creative Behavior, 42, 255–282.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Upper Saddle River, NJ:Prentice Hall.

Baron, R.M., & Kenny, D.A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychologicalresearch: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.

Bass, B.M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectation. New York: Free Press.

Bateman, T.S., & Crant, J.M. (1993). The proactive component of organizational behavior: A measure andcorrelates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 103–118.

Bedeian, A.G., & Mossholder, K.W. (2000). On the use of the coefficient of variations as a measure of diver-sity. Organizational Research Methods, 3, 285–297.

110


Belschak, F.D., & Den Hartog, D.N. (2010). Pro-self, prosocial, and pro-organizational foci of proactivebehavior: Differential antecedents and consequences. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychol-ogy, 83, 475–498.

Blau, P.M. (1977). Inequality and heterogeneity. New York: Free Press.

Bliese, P.D., & Halverson, R.R. (1998). Group consensus and psychological well-being: A large field study.Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 563–580.

Boerner, S., Eisenbeiss, S.A., & Griesser, D. (2007). Follower behavior and organizational performance: Theimpact of transformational leaders. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 13, 15–24.

Cameron, K.S., & Quinn, R.E. (2006). Diagnosing and changing organizational culture: Based on the competingvalues framework. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Carmeli, A., Reiter-Palmon, R., & Ziv, E. (2010). Inclusive leadership and employee involvement in creativetasks in the workplace: The mediating role of psychological safety. Creativity Research Journal, 22,250–260.

Carmeli, A., & Schaubroeck, J. (2007). The influence of leaders’ and other referents’ normative expectationson individual involvement in creative work. Leadership Quarterly, 18, 35–48.

Chan, D. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels ofanalysis: 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 effi-cacy: Evidence for discontinuity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 549–556.

Chen, G., Mathieu, J.E., & Bliese, P.D. (2004). A framework for conducting multilevel construct validation.In F.J. Yammarino, & F. Dansereau (Eds.), Research in multilevel issues: Multilevel issues in organizationalbehavior and processes (pp. 273–303). Oxford, United Kingdom: Elsevier.

Chen, G., Thomas, B.A., & Wallace, J.C. (2005). A multilevel examination of the relationships among trainingoutcomes, mediating regulatory processes, and adaptive performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90,827–841.

Concalo, J.A., & Staw, B.M. (2006). Individualism-collectivism and group creativity. Organizational Behaviorand Human Decision Processes, 100, 96–109.

Conway, J.M., & Lance, C.E. (2010). What reviewers should expect from authors regarding common methodbias in organizational research. Journal of Business & Psychology, 25, 325–334.

Costa, P., & McCrae, R. (1991). The NEO personality inventory manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological AssessmentResources, Inc.

Crant, J.M. (2000). Proactive behavior in organizations. Journal of Management, 26, 435–462.

Dewett, T. (2006). Exploring the role of risk in employee creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 40, 27–45.

Edmondson, A.C. (2004). Psychological safety, trust, and learning in organizations: A group-level lens. InR.M. Kramer, & K.S. Cook (Eds.), Trust and distrust in organizations: Dilemmas and approaches(pp. 239–272). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Eisenmann, R. (1990). Creativity, preference for complexity, and physical and mental illness. CreativityResearch Journal, 3, 231–236.

Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117–140.

Ford, C. (1996). A theory of individual creative action in multiple social domains. Academy of ManagementReview, 21, 1112–1142.

Gong, Y., Huang, J., & Farh, J. (2009). Employee learning orientation, transformational leadership, andemployee creativity: The mediating role of employee creative self-efficacy. Academy of Management, 52,765–778.

Grant, A.M., & Ashford, S.J. (2008). The dynamics of proactivity at work. Research in Organizational Behav-ior, 28, 3–34.

Guzzo, R.A., & Shea, G.P. (1992). Group performance and intergroup relations in organizations. In M.A.Dunnette, & L.M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 269–313).Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist Press.

Harrison, D.A., Price, K.H., Gavin, J.H., & Florey, A.T. (2002). Time, teams, and task performance: Changingeffects of surface- and deep-level diversity on group functioning. Academy of Management Journal, 45,1029–1045.

Hofstede, G. (1980) Culture’s consequences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

111


Hon, A.H.Y., & Chan, W.W.H. (2012). Team creative performance: The roles of empoweringleadership, creative-related motivation, and task interdependence. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 54,199–210.

Hunter, S.T., Bedell, K.E., & Mumford, M.D. (2007). Climate for creativity: A quantitative review. CreativityResearch Journal, 19, 69–90.

Isaksen, S.G., & Gaulin, J.P. (2005). A reexamination of brainstorming research: Implications for researchand practice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49, 315–329.

Isaksen, S.G., & Lauer, K.J. (2002). The climate for creativity and change in teams. Creativity and InnovationManagement, 11, 74–86.

Isaksen, S.G., Lauer, K.J., & Ekvall, G. (1999). Situational outlook questionnaire: A measure of the climatefor creativity and change. Psychological Repots, 85, 665–674.

Jackson, S.E., Joshi, A., & Erhardt, N.L. (2003). Recent research on team and organizational diversity: SWOTanalysis and implications. Journal of Management, 29, 801–830.

Kanter, R.M. (1988). When a thousand flowers bloom: Structural, collective, and social conditions for inno-vation in organizations. In B. Staw, & R. Sutton, Research in Organizational Behavior, (vol. 10, pp. 167–205). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Kim, T., Hon, A.H.Y., & Crant, J.M. (2009). Proactive personality, employee creativity, and newcomer out-comes: A longitudinal study. Journal of Business & Psychology, 24, 93–103.

Kim, T., Hon, A.H.Y., & Lee, D. (2010). Proactive personality and employee creativity: The effects of job cre-ativity requirement and supervisor support for creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 22, 37–45.

Kirkman, B.L., & Rosen, B. (1999). Beyond self-management: Antecedents and consequences of team empow-erment. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 58–74.

Kozlowski, S.W.J., & Klein, K.J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Con-textual, temporal and emergent processes. In K.J. Klein, & S.W.J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory,research and methods in organizations (pp. 3–90). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kramer, T.J., Fleming, G.P., & Mannis, S.M. (2001). Improving face-to-face brainstorming through modelingand facilitation. Small Group Research, 32, 533–557.

Lester, S.W., Meglino, B.M., & Korsgaard, M.A. (2002). The antecedents and consequences of group potency: Alongitudinal investigation of newly formed work groups. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 352–368.

Marks, M.A., Mathieu, J.E., & Zaccaro, S.J. (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of teamprocesses. Academy of Management Review, 26, 345–376.

Moss, S.A., & Ritossa, D.A. (2007). The impact of goal orientation on the association between leadershipstyle, follower performance, creativity, and work attitudes. Leadership, 3, 433–456.

Mumford, M.D., Scott, G.M., Gaddis, B., & Strange, J.M. (2002). Leading creative people: Orchestratingexpertise and relationships. Leadership Quarterly, 13, 705–750.

Ostroff, C., Kinicki, A.J., & Tamkins, M.M. (2003). Organizational culture and climate. In W.C. Borman,D.R. Ilgen, & R.K. Klimoski (Eds.), Comprehensive handbook of psychology: vol. 12/I/O psychology (pp.565–594). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Oxley, N.L., Dzindolet, M.T., & Paulus, P.B. (1996). The effects of facilitators on the performance of brain-storming groups. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 11, 633–646.

Parker, S.K., Williams, H., & Turner, N. (2006). Modeling the antecedent of proactive behavior at work. Jour-nal of Applied Psychology, 91, 636–652.

Paulus, P.B., & Dzindolet, M. (2008). Social influence, creativity, and innovation. Social Influence, 3,228–247.

Pearce, C.L., Gallagher, C.A., & Ensley, M.D. (2002). Confidence at the group level of analysis: A longitudinalinvestigation of the relationship between potency and team effectiveness. Journal of Occupational andOrganizational Psychology, 75, 115–119.

Pearce, J.L., & Gregersen, H.B. (1991). Task interdependence and extrarole behavior: A test of the mediatingeffects of felt responsibility. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 838–844.

Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y., & Podsakoff, N.P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioralresearch: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88,879–903.

112


Prussia, G.E., & Kinicki, A.J. (1996). A motivational investigation of group effectiveness using social cognitivetheory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 187–198.

Rank, J., Nelson, N.E., Allen, T.D., & Xu, X. (2009). Leadership predictors of innovation and task perfor-mance: Subordinates’ self-esteem and self-presentation as moderators. Journal of Occupational andOrganizational Psychology, 82, 465–489.

Rank, J., Pace, V.L., & Frese, M. (2004). Three avenues for future research on creativity, innovation, and ini-tiative. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 53, 518–528.

Redmond, M.R., Mumford, M.D., & Teach, R. (1993). Putting creativity in work: Effects of leader behavioron subordinate creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 55, 120–151.

Reiter-Palmon, R., Wigert, B., & de Vreede, T. (2012). Team creativity and innovation: The effect of groupcomposition, social processes, and cognition. In M. Mumford (Ed.), Handbook of organizational creativity(pp. 295–326). London, UK: Academic Press.

Reuvers, M., van Engen, M., Vinkenburg, C., & Wilson-Evered, E. (2008). Transformational leadership andinnovative work behavior: Exploring the relevance of gender differences. Creativity and Innovation Man-agement, 17, 227–244.

Seibert, S.E., Kraimer, M.L., & Crant, J.M. (2001). What do proactive people do? A longitudinal model link-ing proactive personality and career success. Personnel Psychology, 54, 845–874.

Shin, Y., & Choi, J.N. (2010). What makes a group of good citizens? The role of perceived group-level fitand critical psychological states in organizational teams. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psy-chology, 83, 531–552.

Shin, S.J., Kim, T.Y., Lee, J.Y., & Bian, L. (2012). Cognitive team diversity and individual team member crea-tivity: A cross-level interaction. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 197–212.

Shin, S.J., & Zhou, J. (2003). Transformational leadership, conservation, and creativity: Evidence from Korea.Academy of Management Journal, 46, 703–714.

Shin, S.J., & Zhou, J. (2007). When is educational specialization heterogeneity related to creativity in researchand development teams? Transformational leadership as a moderator. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92,1709–1721.

Sobel, M.E. (1982). Asymptotic intervals for indirect effects in structural equations models. In S. Leinhart(Ed.), Sociological methodology (pp. 290–312). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Somech, A., & Drach-Zahavy, A. (2013). Translating team creativity to innovation implementation: The roleof team composition and climate for innovation. Journal of Management, 39, 684–708.

Strauss, K., Griffin, M.A., & Rafferty, A.E. (2009). Proactivity directed toward the team and organization: Therole of leadership, commitment, and role-breadth self-efficacy. British Journal of Management, 20,279–291.

Tierney, P., & Farmer, S.M. (2002). Creative self-efficacy: Potential antecedents and relationship to creativeperformance. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 1137–1147.

Tierney, P., & Farmer, S.M. (2011). Creative self-efficacy development and creative performance over time.Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 277–293.

Van der Vegt, G.S., & Janssen, O. (2003). Joint impact of interdependence and group diversity on innovation.Journal of Management, 29, 729–751.

Walton, A.P., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2012). Creativity in its social context: The interplay of organizationsnorms, situational threat, and gender. Creativity Research Journal, 24, 208–219.

West, M.A. (2002). Sparkling foundations or stagnant ponds: An integrative model of creativity and innova-tion implementation in work groups. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 51, 355–424.

West, M.A., & Anderson, N.R. (1996). Innovation in top management teams. Journal of Applied Psychology,81, 680–693.

West, M.A., & Sacramento, C.A. (2012). Creativity and innovation: The role of team and organizational cli-mate. In M. Mumford (Ed.), Handbook of organizational creativity (pp. 359–385). London, UK: AcademicPress.

113


Williams, H.M., Parker, S.K., & Turner, N. (2010). Proactively performing teams: The role of work design,transformational leadership, and team composition. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychol-ogy, 83, 301–324.

Woodman, R.W., Sawyer, J.E., & Griffin, R.W. (1993). Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Academyof Management Review, 18, 293–332.

Zhou, J., & George, J.M. (2001). When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity. Encouraging the expression ofvoice. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 682–696.

Yuhyung Shin, Chanyoung Eom, School of Business, Hanyang University

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Chanyoung Eom, Department of Finance,Hanyang University, Wangsimni-Ro 222, Seongdong-Gu, Seoul, 133-791, South Korea. E-mail: [email protected]

AUTHOR NOTE

This study was supported by the research fund of Hanyang University (HY-2011).

114


team proactivity as a linking mechanism between team creative efficacy, transformational leadership,...

Documents