This research aimed to understand how SMT’s stimulate creativity through their team climate through a qualitative case study. It was set to discover the facets and respective variables that compose a team climate for creativity in contemporary (digital) advertisement and design teams and how seniority equalities influence these facets and variables. By contemporary
.
This study wished to extend and modify the four-factor theory of West (1990) and his ensuing correction (West & Sacramento, 2012). Primarily, this research substantiates the prevalence of the several already identified variables in a team climate for creativity: (1) “task orientation,” (2) “a shared vision,” (3) “participation safety,” and (4) “conflict management”
(West & Sacramento, 2012).
Furthermore, while West & Sacramento (2012) disavowed certain variables of other scholars in the field, being “openness,” “dynamism/liveliness,” and “workgroup support”
(Amabile et al., 1996; Ekvall, 1996), these were substantiated as vital elements for a team climate for creativity by this research. This disavowal could be explained by the fact that Amabile et al. (1996) and Ekvall (1996) focus on an organizational climate rather than a team climate (West & Sacramento, 2012). Yet, since this study focuses on teams rather than firms, the conventional reasoning of West & Sacramento (2012) is challenged by the substantiation of three variables of Amabile et al. (1996) and Ekvall (1996) as part of a team climate.
Also, certain variables that emerged from the current study were not demonstrated by either Amabile et al. (1996), Ekvall (1996), or West & Sacramento (2012), such as team cohesion. Team cohesion generally involves the closeness with, or attraction to the group (Fiore et al., 2015). A potential reason why team cohesion is not acknowledged as a team climate variable could be that it is regularly considered a group trait instead of an aspect of a team climate
(Amabile et al., 1996). However, this consideration is contradicted by Joo et al. (2012), who state that team cohesion comprises emotional involvement and oneness within a team.
Although traits could impact types of emotions (Matook et al., 2015), the two are distinct constructs: traits encompass defining characteristics of teams, whereas emotions comprise primitive, unconscious mechanisms controlling responses (Hansen, 2005; Pervin, 1994). An
alternative reason could be that team cohesion is a climate variable, however not necessarily predictive of creativity (Anderson & West, 1998). Nonetheless, the findings of Joo et al. (2012) also contradict this reason since they state that highly cohesive teams tend to predict higher degrees of creativity. The examined results of the current study’s, which emphasize the importance of getting to know each other on a personal, non-work related level and celebrating successes, indicate that interviewees seem to affirm this inference of Joo et al. (2012).
Another variable that has not been explicitly mentioned by West & Sacramento (2012), nor by Amabile et al. (1996) and Ekvall (1996), is (shared) confidence. Two viable possibilities could explain the absence of (shared) confidence in the register of team climate variables.
Resembling team cohesion, various scholars argue that confidence could potentially be considered as a group characteristic (i.e., Stajkovic et al., 2009; Staples & Cameron, 2005).
Nonetheless, shared confidence is an aspect that may fluctuate across time (i.e., it may increase after completing complex challenges) and is thus not necessarily typical for a group’s identity (Howell & Shea, 2006). Furthermore, (shared) confidence is considered a belief within a group that the group can be effective (Pearce et al., 2002), and beliefs are classified as either cognitive or affective variables (contingent on the type of belief) (Trafimow & Sheeran, 1998). A second explanation for the absence of shared confidence in prior research is that it could be assumed distinct for semi-autonomous teams or SMT’s. (Shared) confidence is often argued to be fueled by leadership (i.e., Gil et al., 2005; Howell & Shea, 2006). Correspondingly, Amabile et al.
(1996) mention team confidence among another variable: supervisory encouragement. The absence of a supervisor as an integral part of the team thus may activate the prevalence of (shared) confidence as a climate variable. In line with the preceding, de Jong et al. (2005, p.
Moreover, “transparency,” which is defined as “fostering visibility to enable its employees to properly adjust behaviors” (Che et al., 2018, p. 225), involves aspects of both
“reflexivity” (as identified by West & Sacramento (2012)) and “debate” (as determined by Ekvall (1996)). Nonetheless, neither “reflexivity” nor “debate” involve the “visibility” property of transparency, while the interviewees have explicitly identified this. By “visibility,” this research implies visibility over the work in process (Könnölä et al., 2016). The significance of visibility could be explained by the fact that the analyzed cases worked remotely due to the COVID-19 pandemic (He et al., n.d.), or by the fact that “transparency” and “visibility” are, like a self-managed team structuring, inherent aspects of agile working methods (Laanti et al., 2011).
Ultimately, in the current study, some of the variables identified initially by West &
Sacramento (2012) are not mentioned or are categorized among other variables. First, since the primary task of the analyzed cases is to be innovative and creative, support for innovation imbricates strongly with task orientation and team member support. Second, the “participation in decision-making” variable of West & Sacramento (2012) is an implied characteristic of the analyzed cases of the current study since their structuring is self-managed or semi-autonomous (Cummings, 1978). The team climate variables identified in this research elaborate on aspects that stimulate participation in decision-making, such as transparency (Walker et al., 2021).
Building on the aggregation of the findings of the current study and the available literature, the following proposition is developed:
Proposition 1: A contemporary team climate for creativity likely consists out of ten variables: (1) task orientation, (2) a shared vision, (3) participation safety, (4) conflict management, (5) openness, (6) dynamism/liveliness, (7) team member support, (8) team
cohesion, (9) (shared) confidence, and (10) transparency
Also, this research aimed to explore the exact facets of a team climate are. Herewith, the study of Carr et al. (2003) and Ostroff (1993), who insinuated that an organizational climate consists of a cognitive, affective, and instrumental facet, functioned as a solid foundation for this research design. Herewith, they implied that all organizational climate variables could be categorized among these higher-order classifications. However, the current study results reveal that this taxonomy could not entirely be applied to a team climate for creativity. Instead, as mentioned in the results section, this research stipulates that the subsequent three facets are existent in a team climate for creativity: Team member emotions, team member manner of processing information, and normative interpersonal behavior. These team climate facets are equivalent to the prominent tripartite model of attitude: affect, behavior, cognition (Breckler, 1985). Against this background, team member emotions correspond to “affect,” which refers to an emotional response or gut feelings and could be captured by verbal reports of emotions or feelings (Breckler, 1985). Therefore, it would include three of the suggested variables of a team climate for creativity. These variables are (1) (shared) confidence, which is described as a feeling of effectiveness (de Jong et al., 2005; Pirola-Merlo et al., 2002), (2) team cohesion, which involves emotional involvement and a sense of oneness (Joo et al., 2012), and (3) participation safety, which involves the team members’ feeling of psychological safety (West
& Sacramento, 2012). Similarly, team members' manner of processing information resembles
“cognition,” which refers to knowledge structures, perceptual responses, and thoughts (Breckler, 1985). By this explanation, this facet would involve (1) task orientation and (2) shared vision, since both involve cognitive-perceptual responses to a concern for excellence and project pursuit (West, 1990), and (3) openness, which involves thoughts about novel ideas
2018), (2) dynamism/liveliness, since this involves alterations in manners of handling issues (Ekvall, 1996), (3) Conflict management and (4) team member support since both involve interaction processes (Amabile et al., 1996; West & Sacramento, 2012).
Although much research in the field of team climate refers to one or two of these facets (i.e., George, 1996; Isaksen & Lauer, 2002; Pirola-Merlo et al., 2002; Reiter-Palmon et al., 2012), to the researcher's knowledge, this tripartite model has not been used to describe a team climate for creativity in the existing body of literature. It could be reasoned that the tripartite model of attitude could only be applied to individuals, yet this is contradicted by the multiple studies that have utilized the model to study groups (i.e., Jackson et al., 1996; Thompson &
Fine, 1999; van Kleef et al., 2017). Furthermore, according to González‐Romá et al. (2009), a team climate is an emergent phenomenon, and Kozlowski & Klein (2012) describe emergent phenomena employing this tripartite model. Per these reasonings, the following propositions are put forth:
Proposition 2: The taxonomy of a contemporary team climate for creativity likely consists of (1) an affective, (2) a cognitive, and (3) a behavioral facet.
Proposition 3: Each of the team climate variables could be subsumed to one of the facets, such that (1) the affective facet involves team cohesion, (shared) confidence, and participation safety, (2) the cognitive facet involves task orientation, shared vision, and openness, and (3) the behavioral facet involves transparency, dynamism/liveliness, conflict
management, and team member support
Furthermore, current research insinuates that the facets are contingent upon each other:
Team member emotions possibly influence their manner of processing information, which in
turn likely prompts normative interpersonal behavior. This proclamation is in unison with the inferences of researchers in social psychology, such as Isen (1987), who also argues that team members' feelings seem to influence their pattern of thought and their behavior significantly.
Her successive research elaborates on the rationalizations behind the influence of positive affect on cognitive activity and behavior, stating that positive affect increases cognitive flexibility (in current research, this could be illustrated by the association between participation safety, team cohesion, and openness). Furthermore, positive affects release additional cognitive materials available for processing (in current research, this could be illustrated by the association between team cohesion and openness) (Isen, 1999). These theories have been associated with an individual’s creativity by Amabile et al. (2005), who proposed the affect-creativity cycle, which indicates that the emotions that are provoked by creative thoughts, or by others’ receptions of innovative ideas, appear to give rise to alterations in cognition and subsequent creativity.
Furthermore, according to Kozlowski & Klein (2012), affect and cognition prompt interactions for emergent phenomena. Analogously, van Kleef et al. (2017) infers that affective contagion in teams (“catching” the emotions of others) influenced cognitive processes (i.e., inferences about performance quality), which in turn, could improve team performance. Hence, these theories affirm that the configuration likely does not solely apply to individual creativity but also team creativity.
Furthermore, current research results also stipulate that the absence of cognition might inhibit appropriate behavior and hence inhibit creativity. The findings thus argue for the significance of the presence of cognition. This finding could be substantiated by the research
part of openness), are more effective in the overpowering of potential conflict in teams. Hence, it could be argued that the prevalence of cognitive reappraisal could offset the negative emotions to stimulate appropriate behavior (van Kleef et al., 2017).
Therefore, the following proposition is put forth:
Proposition 4: The three facets of a team climate that stimulates creativity are likely connected and expectedly influence one another in the subsequent circular order: affect
influences cognition, which together encourages appropriate behavior, and behavior in turn influences affect.
Moreover, this research aimed to understand how SMT’s could stimulate creativity through these facets and subsumed variables. Although a team climate of SMT’s seems to consist of the same variables as that of semi-autonomous teams, the results of this research demonstrate two fundamental differences. First, for semi-autonomous teams, the affect-cognition-behavior-affect configuration appears to be a one-way street stemming from the seniors in a team, which may inhibit creativity. Second, some variables seem more pervasive and significant for self-managed teams.
Primarily, it appears that in semi-autonomous teams, the senior member often feels responsible for the warrant of certain variables, such as participation safety, task orientation, a shared vision, and transparency. As mentioned in the literature, the felt responsibility of seniors may be explained by the presumption of managers that entirely decentralized decision-making involves too much risk (Parker et al., 2015). As an example, the findings illustrate that in semi-autonomous teams, senior members have a specific frame of reference in mind for the quality of the output and ensure that each team member is motivated by the same vision. Therefore, the demonstrated behavior of the senior appears to resemble that of transformational leaders.
Transformational leadership is described as the aspiration to inspire followers to pursue higher-order goals (shared vision) and to exert extraordinary effort (task orientation) through transforming the followers' attitudes, beliefs, values, and behaviors (To et al., 2015). Although transformational leadership is often praised for increasing the creative capabilities of a team (i.e., Bai et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2016), the adverse effects of transformational leadership on creativity have recently also received empirical attention. These scholars argue that transformational leadership may inhibit creativity due to the reduction of follower autonomy (Mumford et al., 2014). The current study results similarly demonstrate that juniors in semi-autonomous teams adopt a relatively passive role that inhibits pro-active and semi-autonomous processing of information and behavior. This effect is described as follower dependency:
individuals uncritically accept leadership ideas and are thus less likely to develop unconventional concepts (Eisenbeiß & Boerner, 2013). On the contrary, the current study reveals that individuals instead are attentive to each other’s thinking and behavior in SMT's.
Hence, the affect-cognition-behavior-affect configuration works both ways. This reciprocity is affirmed by Mcnair et al. (2011), who state that SMT’s stimulate dynamic learning and knowledge management, which promotes creativity. Based upon the above reasoning, the following proposition is formulated:
Proposition 5: SMT’s are likely to stimulate creativity through the elimination of follower dependency in the team climate for creativity configuration
Second, certain configuration variables appear to have an increased significance in an
Zárraga & Bonache, 2005). Hence, the current study results agree that, in the absence of a senior who encourages knowledge sharing and emboldens task orientation and a shared vision, participation safety has become vital (Marlow, 2018). However, Erdem (2003) argues that excessive trust could instigate extreme solidarity, which, in turn, activates “groupthink.”
Correspondingly, she argues that inquiry and critical questioning ought to transpire in a psychologically safe environment. In the current research, this argument is substantiated by the increased significance of (shared) confidence. This reasoning is further validated by Ali et al.
(2020), who state that when members have confidence in their knowledge and abilities, they can give an opinion while performing a task and will most likely exchange ideas without fearing being ridiculed or dismissed. Hence, an appropriate balance between participation safety and (shared) confidence would likely inhibit peer control and groupthink, which were earlier identified as potential menaces of an SMT structure (Magpili & Pazos, 2018; Ottaviani
& Sørensen, 2001).
In congruence with the significance of participation safety and (shared) confidence, research stipulates that team empowerment, which is defined as “a process of enhancing the feelings of self-efficacy” (Elmuti, 1997, p. 233), is essential for the effectiveness of SMT’s (Elmuti, 1997; Van Esch et al., 2020). Similarly, Druskat & Wheeler (2003) stipulate that leaders in organizations with SMT’s ought to build relations with team members to understand team needs and empower teams by flexibility regarding team decisions and coaching.
Given the above reasoning, the researcher has formulated the following proposition:
Proposition 6: In comparison to teams that have seniority differences, participation safety and (shared) confidence are likely increasingly significant in an SMT’s team climate for
creativity.
5.1. Theoretical contributions
This study makes several theoretical contributions. First, this research contributes to the literature on climate for creativity (i.e., Amabile et al., 1996; Ekvall, 1996; West, 1990; West
& Sacramento, 2012) by demonstrating that a contemporary team climate for creativity must exist of ten variables (team cohesion, participation safety, (shared) confidence, task orientation, shared vision, openness, transparency, dynamism, conflict management, and team member support). The proposed register of variables substantiates that certain organizational variables of a climate for creativity also apply to team climates (Amabile et al., 1996; Ekvall, 1996).
Also, this research stipulates that contemporary manners of working (agile or semi-autonomous/self-managing team structures in particular) highlight the prevalence of novel team climate variables, such as transparency (Laanti et al., 2011).
Second, the current study contributes to, and challenges, research on the taxonomy of team and organizational climates (i.e., Carr et al., 2003; Ostroff, 1993) by stipulating that the elements of a team climate for creativity could be captured through the tripartite taxonomy of attitude. Therefore, this research argues that the normative and descriptive aspects of a team climate could be structured utilizing a triple of team climate facets: (1) affection (what emotions team members feel/ought to feel), (2) cognition (how team members think/should think), and (3) behavior (how team members behave/ought to behave).
Third, this research has exploited principles of the social psychology of teams (Amabile et al., 2005; Isen, 1987; van Kleef et al., 2017) and emergent phenomenon (Kozlowski & Klein, 2012) to describe the configuration between the different facets of a team climate. Herewith, a team climate for creativity desirably specifies a circular structure, such that affect influences
Ultimately, this study responds to Muthusamy et al. (2005) and Stray et al. (2018), who called for further investigation on the conditions with- and mechanisms through which SMT’s are more creative and innovative. The findings of this research substantiate the discovery that SMT’s could function as a management tool to increase creativity (Muthusamy et al., 2005).
Increased creativity is likely caused by the elimination of follower dependency (Eisenbeiß &
Boerner, 2013). However, the current research also reasons that, in the absence of seniority in teams, (shared) confidence and participation safety are likely to become increasingly significant (Ali et al., 2020; Erdem, 2003).
5.2. Practical Implications
First, this research provides managers with an understanding of the team climate for creativity taxonomy and variables. If SMT’s or semi-autonomous teams do not deliver the creative output they are expected to deliver, the understanding of this arrangement facilitates identifying problem areas: By speaking with each team member individually, managers could comprehend which variables are potentially missing. Furthermore, the configurations between the team climate for creativity facets insinuate that flaws in one facet are likely caused by the absence of a variable in another facet. For example, a lack of participation safety, team cohesion, and openness likely will lead to team members being untransparent.
Second, the findings suggest what possible proper management interventions could be employed to stimulate the prevalence of specific variables and thus prompt creativity.
Illustratively, team cohesion is found to be aroused through the celebration of successes and by granting credit to entire teams rather than to a team member that initially thought of an idea.
Hence, HRM interventions may involve team performance measures in performance achievement systems (Aguinis et al., 2013). Similarly, transparency could be stimulated by encouraging team members to actively share progress and seek feedback. To promote feedback-seeking behavior, managers must accommodate a constructive environment (Lee &
Kim, 2021). In conclusion, a thorough comprehension of the team climate for creativity taxonomy could hence advance the appropriateness of HRM and management interventions.
Third, this research advocates that the implementation of SMT’s as part of an organizational structure could function as a viable management tool to increase creativity and innovation in firms. Furthermore, the identification of the team climate for creativity variables
achieved through empowerment and building relationships between leaders and team members. Although empowering employees is an intrinsic aspect of transformational leadership, managers should be cautious about adopting the transformational leadership practice in its totality. The communication of an appealing collective vision and the encouragement of exerting extraordinary effort are inherent transformational leadership behaviors (Wang et al., 2016). However, this behavior likely triggers follower dependency, which inhibits follower’s critical and creative thinking. Hence, in organizations that utilize SMT’s as a management practice, managers must thus be selective in which leadership behaviors it adopts. Preferably, managers should assume a coaching role where they talk to each member individually and reward the behavior of individual team members that fuels participation safety within their team.
5.3. Limitations and suggestions for future research
This research involves several limitations, which highlights potential directions for future research.
The first three limitations relate to the team structure of the sampled cases. First, the sample of cases exclusively consists of semi-autonomous teams and SMT’s. Nonetheless, bureaucratic teams, which involve a design where team members serve fixed duties, carry responsibility according to the position in the functional hierarchy, and behave reactively (Poulsen, 2007), are not involved in the current study. Second, it became clear that for certain teams, the perception of autonomy differs from actual autonomy: Before the interview, one of the cases indicated that their team was self-managed, while during the interview, it appeared that their team structure did involve seniority differences. Third, many of the individual interviewees of semi-autonomous teams have worked in SMT’s on former projects and vice-versa. Interviewees hence did often refer to these prior teams in their answers. This caused difficulties in distinguishing whether answers did apply to the climate of their current team, their previous team, or a team climate in general.
Unfortunately, these three limitations complicate making explicit inferences on whether the identified team climate for creativity taxonomy and variables are distinctive for semi-autonomous teams or SMT’s. This has implications for the theoretical validity of the study, as it may entail that the theoretical explanations fit the data to a lesser extent (Johnson, 1997).
These three limitations lead to two suggestions for future research. First, a study could be conducted that would compare the findings of this research with a bureaucratic team climate for creativity. Second, an extended fieldwork study, during which the researcher collects data
A fourth limitation relates to the utilization of initial theories. For this research, a combination of the views of Ostroff (1993) and West & Sacramento (2012) is used as a foundation of the researcher’s understanding of a climate for creativity. These theories were subsequently translated to an interview protocol, which possibly already delineates the subjects covered. This delineation could threaten the construct validity since this study intends to study a team climate for creativity. Still, it might not provide an accurate representation due to these delineations and subjective judgments (Yin, 2009). Therefore, it is suggested to replicate this study by utilizing different initial theories or conducting qualitative grounded theory research on a team climate for creativity in SMT’s.
Fifth, the findings of this research did not coincide with the “support for innovation”
team climate for creativity variable, which’ occurrence in the team climate variable register was initially argued by West (1990). This could be validated by the fact that the task of the analyzed cases in the current study is centered around innovation and creativity. Thus, the variable essentially overlaps with task orientation and team member support. Moreover, West
& Sacramento (2012) argue that “support for innovation” as a predictor of team creativity is substantiated in longitudinal studies on health care teams, whose tasks do not generally concern being innovative and creative. This alludes that the prevalence of this variable possibly depends on the job of the team. Ergo, future research may possibly discover if the aspects of a team climate for creativity are contingent upon the industry in which teams operate.
Similarly, this study did not accord with the suggestions of Langfred (2007) and Stray et al. (2018), who insinuated that team autonomy or self-management give rise to unclear responsibilities and misinterpretations, which in turn, induces task and relationship conflict.
This could be explained by the fact that the analyzed teams in the current study consisted of individuals with specific and complementary skills and capabilities. Although it is not a prerequisite of SMT’s that each team member should have the same skills and abilities
(Renkema et al., 2018; Weerheim et al., 2019), it does lead to an automatic assumption of responsibilities. Hence, it is suggested that a future study could discover whether SMT’s in which each team member has the same skills and capabilities does experience an increased rate of task and relationship conflict.
Additionally, to decrease subjectivity and increase the robustness of the findings, this study considered climate strength. This implies that each case involved two interviewees to understand whether the results per team were mutually agreed upon (González‐Romá et al., 2009). Although the researcher considered if the interviewees did not contradict each other, some of the findings emerged from the answers of solely one team member per case. The researcher chose not to verify the responses of one interviewee during the interview with their colleague since this would potentially harm confidentiality. For this reason, future, presumably quantitative research could discover whether the degree of climate strength of SMT’s would impact the team’s creativity.
Ultimately, it must be noted that this study concerns an exploratory and descriptive qualitative case study; one may thus not make any causal inferences about the findings (Yin, 2009). Therefore, the conclusions solely concern associations. If one wishes to discover whether the structuring of an SMT causes an alteration in team climate variables and increases creativity, longitudinal research must be conducted.
5.4. Conclusion
This research endeavored to understand how SMT’s could stimulate creativity, utilizing its cognitive and affective team climate facets. The results of this study point towards the existence of three climate facets: (1) affect, (2) cognition, and (3) behavior, each overarching a set of variables that are prevalent in a contemporary team climate for creativity. Furthermore, these facets and variables appear to ensue in a sequential configuration: Affective variables influence cognitive variables, which together stimulate behavioral variables, which, in turn, stimulate affective variables. Furthermore, the research revealed that, as opposed to teams with seniority differences, the affect-cognition-behavior configuration is likely reciprocal between team members in SMT’s. This reciprocity is beneficial for team creativity since it supposedly eliminates follower dependency. Nonetheless, to ensure the presence of all team climate variables in SMT’s, the absence of seniority must be compensated to prevent peer pressure and groupthink. Correspondingly, the adoption of SMT’s as a management tool to increase creativity must be paired with empowering leadership that stimulates (shared) confidence and coaching to ensure participation safety.