In team creativity literature, the study of the combined effect of team learning culture and team characteristics is rare (Joo, Song, Lim, & Yoon, 2012). Some of the limitations of the study include failure to examine the actual deep diversity effects of identity and belief characteristics on creativity climate and team creativity. This in turn fostered a negative perception of how work is done in the team.
Therefore, analyzing the effects of both identity and belief diversity on team creativity and team creativity output through team climate perception is a unique contribution to the diversity and creativity literature. The present study considers creative role identity as one of the underlying task-oriented deep-seated dimensions. The present study considers inclusion beliefs of an individual as one of the underlying relationship-oriented deep dimensions.
In the team creativity literature, examining the joint effect of team learning climate and team characteristics is rare (Joo, Song, Lim, & Yoon, 2012). Therefore, the researcher intended to investigate the role of learning climate in the context of diversity and team creativity. Furthermore, the literature examines the effects of team-level or organizational-level mediators or moderators that influence team climate and creativity (Anderson et al., 2004).
However, the magnitude of the negative effects of diversity on team climate via team learning may depend on the level of task dependence.
Factor 2 has 3 items which indicates the importance a member attached to group membership and the attraction the member felt for the group. The factor was
See Table 3.14 for intercorrelation measures of the construct with the other measures in the study. Creative role identity: A 3-item scale developed by Farmer, Tierney and Kung-McIntyre's (2003) on creative role identity was adopted. The identity is derived from creativity expectations for others from him or her and self-evaluation of own creative actions.
In the present study, respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which they agree or disagree with the statements on a 7-point scale (1 = Completely disagree; 7 = Completely agree). Factor analysis of the items was performed using the principal component with varimax rotation method. Refer to Table 3.14 for inter-correlation measure of the construct with the other measures in the study.
It reflects the degree to which the individual considers himself to be part of critical organizational processes such as access to information, involvement and participation in decision-making processes (Mor Barak, 2005).
Team climate of creativity: The short 14-item version of the original Team Climate Inventory (Anderson & West, 1994) was used to measure team climate of creativity. This version was developed by Kivimaki and Elovainio (1999) and has shown acceptable psychometric quality with alpha coefficients ranging between .79 and .86 (Kivimaki & Elovainio, 1999). The 4 dimensions in the scale were a) Vision (team members are committed to clear and realistic group goals or objectives); b) Participative safety (team members experience a participatory and non-threatening team environment); c) Task orientation (commitment to high performance and preparedness for questions and assessment of weaknesses); and d) Supporting creativity.
According to Hanke (2006), the scale performed remarkably well and validated the fact that creativity output is a two-factor construct.
Significant indirect effects of creative self-efficacy diversity on team creativity through all team climate dimensions were observed. Significant indirect effects of creative self-efficacy diversity on team creativity output through all team climate dimensions were observed. The significance of the indirect effect was validated by Sobels test (z) = - .41, p < .05. The path coefficients for the mediation are shown in Table 3.23.
The differences in group affect between team members can promote negative emotions among members ( Janssens & Steyaert, 2001 ), which can create a negative mental model against the paternalistic attitude (about control/monitoring/weakness assessments) of the team. In other words, perceived team climate mediated the negative effects of identity diversity on team creativity (Hypothesis 2A). The negative relationship between creative self-efficacy diversity and task orientation indicated that team members feared the team's ability to complete the task.
These negative effects of high diversity on team learning climate evolved into shared perceptions of a negative team creative climate (Hypothesis 3A). Task interdependence (TD) as a moderator in the relationship between diversity of creative self-efficacy and team learning climate. It is interesting to note that differences in identity had a negative impact on team members' perceptions of the uniqueness (aspect of novelty) of the team's creative output.
These negative effects of deep diversity on team learning climate evolved to form a common perception of negative team creativity climate. H2A: Team climate of creativity mediates the effects of diversity of team members' identities on team creativity. If deep diversity is not managed, the social and cognitive integration of a team is hindered, which is reflected in the quality of the team's output.
Mixed evidence (positive and negative) was found for the relationship between surface and deep diversity. The aim of the present research was to investigate team diversity from a social identity perspective, focusing on the effects of high team member diversity on team creativity. In Chapter 3, Study 2 focused on the effects of actual differences in deep-level variables (deep-level heterogeneity) on team creativity and creative effect.
Therefore, analyzing the effects of identity and belief diversity on team creativity and team creativity outcomes through team climate represents a unique contribution to the creativity literature. As this research shows, the nature of the task plays a key role in moderating the effects of diversity on team learning.
