University of Amsterdam
Graduate School of Communication
Master’s Programme Communication Science
Thesis Supervisor: Dr. P.G.A. (Pernill) van der Rijt
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
The Promotion of Creativity by successfully dealing with Cultural Diversity
in the Work Environment
Master’s Thesis
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Antonia Werther Student number: 10864377 Submitted: 29th of January 2016Abstract
!
The present research investigated the impact of two different communication styles of organizational leaders on team creativity. The goal was to determine whether a solution-oriented communication style and a control communication style influence the relationship between intra-group conflict, possibly triggered by cultural diversity, and team creativity. A survey among 111 employees was conducted, measuring the following variables: Cultural Diversity, Task-, Relationship- and Process Conflict, Team Creativity, the communication style Solution Orientation, as well as the communication style Control. In line with the expectations, results illustrated that cultural diversity leads to enhanced task- and process conflict. It was also established that task conflict mediated the relationship between cultural diversity and team creativity and that task conflict can be beneficial for team creativity. With regards to the moderation, the study showed that a control communication style indeed affected the relationship between intra-group conflict and team creativity. A control communication strategy by the team leader was found to enhance the negative effects of relationship conflict and process conflict on creativity and thus ought to be avoided when approaching arguments among employees. No impact was found for the solution-oriented communication style on the relationship between task conflict and team creativity. However, it was ascertained that this communication style can stimulate team creativity.
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Introduction
!
Nowadays, against the background of a competitive economic situation, it is crucial for organizations to value important resources and to keep up with modern times by adapting to continuously changing market conditions. In order to reach overarching goals such as productivity, creativity and innovation, research illustrated that organizations would benefit from including employees of different cultural backgrounds into their workforce (Van Knippenberg, De Dreu & Homan, 2004; Jehn, Northcraft & Neale, 1999). Thomas and Ely (1996) confirm this angle by stating that diversity should be understood as the ‘‘varied perspectives and approaches to work that members of different identity groups bring.’’
As an emerging research topic, the concept of diversity often refers to differences between individuals, focusing on distinct levels such as gender, age, race/ethnicity, tenure, educational or the functional background (Van Knippenberg, De Dreu & Homan, 2004). Thus, the concept makes references to the differences between individuals on any attribute that may lead to the perception that another person is different from the self (Williams & O’Reilly, 1998). However, according to Luijters, Zee and Otten (2008), different cultural backgrounds of organizational members are the main source of disparity that employees perceive in a culturally diverse organization compared to a homogenous organization. This is why cultural diversity, referring to the existence of a variety of cultural groups within a certain environment, is a significant matter in organizational life.
Several studies examined the relationship between a culturally diverse work environment and its contribution to organizational performance (e.g. Hofhuis, van der Zee & Otten, 2013; Milliken & Martens, 1996; Van Knippenberg, De Dreu & Homan, 2004; Williams & O’Reilly, 1998). Taking a look at organizational performance in any organization, creativity is considered to be a crucial contributing factor. Creativity denotes the generation of products or ideas that are both novel and appropriate (Hennessey & Amabile, 2010). At a group level, it regards creative insights as a result of the interactions between multiple participants in a process (Hargadon & Bechky, 2006). Creativity is seen as complex and multilevel, impacting organizational performance, success, and longer-term survival (Anderson, Potočnik & Zhou, 2014). It has therefore developed into a valuable organizational asset in order to build up unique characteristics and thereby to dissociate from competitors.
Culturally diverse work teams have the advantage of drawing on a big pool of resources but they are also inclined to generate conflict, shifting employees’ attention from actual work tasks and thereby possibly reducing team effectivity (e.g. Hofhuis, van der Zee & Otten, 2013; Pelled, 1996).
Nevertheless, one should not neglect the positive implications that are accompanied by conflict: the status quo will be critically questioned so that new topics and ideas will be brought to the agenda, thus the emergence of creative ideas might be facilitated. To equal the status where cultural diversity within a team aids the generation of novel and useful ideas, it is crucial to consider selected facets of inter-human communication such as leadership communication styles. In this respect, it is important to find out how an organizational leader can communicatively approach conflict among culturally diverse employees in order to reduce its negative impact on creative thinking processes in groups. The intervention of a third party might be necessary in order to steer arising conflicts in the right direction and to positively impact team performance (Peterson & Harvey, 2009).
Consequently, this thesis will focus on the relationship between cultural diversity and organizational creativity which is predicted to be mediated by intra-group conflict. Moreover it is expected that different communication styles of organizational leaders will moderate the relationship between intra-group conflict and creativity. Hence, the following research question arises: how can an organizational leader of a culturally diverse team limit the negative consequences of intra-group conflict by means of effective communication, so that team creativity will not be harmed?
On a scientific level, this study offers a more multifaceted view about conflict in organizations, since most scholars traditionally viewed conflict as dysfunctional and harmful to the strategy and performance of organizations (Rose & Shohan, 2004). It further fills a gap in literature in that it analyzes creativity from a different perspective, namely on a team level. Research noticed that past studies rather investigated creativity at individual level than examining it as a collective process (Kurtzberg & Amabile, 2001; James & Drown, 2012; Im, Montoya & Workman Jr., 2013). Moreover, cultural diversity will be examined from distinct perspectives in that its positive impact on team performance, as well as its negative force will be investigated. This thesis will also assist in valuing the difference between objective and perceived cultural diversity. Perceived cultural diversity captures members’ subjective beliefs about the diversity level within their teams. Perceived and objective diversity are separate constructs which do not necessarily need to be aligned. However, an investigation on subjective diversity has received much less attention within research than objective diversity (Hentschel et al., 2013). From a more practical perspective, this research opens the possibility of identifying communication approaches which can steer conflicts among employees in a fruitful direction, while also grasping the complexity of the involvement of various diverse employees.
Thus, when aiming to maintain team creativity, the obtained results will aid management in applying suitable communication styles in conflict situations. As a consequence thereof, important implications and tasks will be derived for communication professionals in organizations.
!
Theory and Hypotheses
!
Objective Cultural Diversity and Team Creativity in Organizations
Cultural diversity is commonly believed to broaden viewpoints and expertise in teams and therefore stimulate team creativity. However, at the same time, it might suppress team creativity through the negative social processes it possibly evokes (Leung & Wang, 2015). This illustrates that scholars are divided into opposing perspectives concerning the impact of cultural diversity on creativity. Various related studies are based on the categorization-elaboration model (CEM), developed by Van Knippenberg, De Dreu and Homan (2004). CEM investigates work group diversity and team performance by linking information/decision making perspectives to social identity/social categorization perspectives.
Investigating the positive angle of the model by following the information/decision making theory, it is stated that diverse groups have greater access to informational networks outside their teams. Due to the added information, group performance might be enhanced. It is stated that a variance in group composition possibly leads to a higher level of skills, abilities, information and knowledge (Williams & O’Reilly, 1998). Linking to creativity, Lazear (1997) illustrates that cultural diversity can be a valuable asset when immigrants have information that is different from the existing workforce, when this information is relevant and useful and, adding to this, when the individuals are able to communicate the information to others. Because culturally diverse teams are equipped with diverse knowledge and perspectives, elaboration of task-relevant information and perspectives is supported, therewith enhancing team creativity at work (Leung & Wang, 2015). This assumption was also supported by a meta-analysis of Stahl et al. (2010), confirming that cultural diversity was related to a high level of team creativity.
Conversely, the identity/social categorization perspective of work group diversity and group performance argues that due to social categorization processes, diversity produces adverse reactions among a group, thus resulting in conflict, decreased group cohesion, identification and commitment (Van Knippenberg, De Dreu & Homan, 2004). The idea of social categorization processes is that individuals desire a high level of self-esteem.
To achieve that, these individuals define themselves and afterwards social comparison with others takes place. In defining themselves, the process of self-categorization is subconsciously applied, whereby the individual himself and others will be classified into social categories such as age, race, gender or status. Due to this process, the person is able to define him- or herself in terms of a social identity (Williams & O’Reilly, 1998). However, the presence of these salient attributes can harm team processes and outcomes (Van Dick et al., 2008). The CEM further posits that social categorization processes moderate the positive effect of cultural diversity on information/decision-making procedures. Thus, creative thinking processes might be suppressed. What’s more, harmful social categorization processes triggered by cultural diversity, lead to undermining a group’s creative potential (Giambatista & Bhappu, 2010). Social categorization also emphasizes group distinctions and accordingly interferes with a teams’ ability to use information (Dahlin, Weingart & Hinds, 2005).
The aforementioned model investigated by Van Knippenberg, De Dreu and Homan (2004) allows for the conclusion that cultural diversity in work teams has opposing impacts on team creativity in organizations. On one hand it might promote the creativity level of a group; on the other it possibly harms creative thinking processes among employees. This study will examine the negative side of the model, laying the focus on identity and social categorization perspectives. These are assumed to cause distinct forms of intra-group conflict among culturally diverse employees and thereby impacting team creativity.
!
Objective Cultural Diversity and Intra-group Conflict in Organizations
!
Analyzing recent literature, it is striking that cultural diversity within work groups is often related to distinct forms of conflicts. This study will focus on three specific types of intra-group conflict. Namely task-, relationship- and process conflict which are assumed to be triggered by cultural diversity. In a broad sense, intra-group conflict is described as a pervasive, vital and often troublesome aspect of organizational life (Putnam, 1988), which can range from a minor disagreement to an unmanageable and destructive event (Kurtzberg & Amabile, 2001).
Task conflicts, including discussions and debates about the work being done, can improve team performance through gathering multiple viewpoints and opinions among group members (Kurtzberg & Amabile, 2001). It is caused by the task that the group is executing, as well as by decisions which are to be made by the team, including distinct ideas and opinions (Jehn, 1995; 1997).
For instance, arguments could include conflict about the distribution of resources, procedures and policies, as well as conflict about judgments and interpretation of facts (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003). The predictions of the similarity-attraction theory can be used in order to analyze task conflicts resulting from cultural diversity. This theory posits that similarity on attributes such as attitudes, values, and beliefs will facilitate interpersonal attraction and liking. Thus, individuals will be more attracted to similar others and will experience more cohesion and social integration in homogeneous groups (Mannix & Neale, 2005). It follows that employees in heterogenous groups are less attracted to get along and common understandings and shared experiences are limited. Consequently, disagreement and miscommunication among individuals related to work tasks, goals and objectives possibly emerges. This is why workers might stick to and defend their differences within an argument about work assignments, in contrast to thinking as a collective. Based on these assumptions, the first hypothesis is derived:
!
H1a: There is a positive relationship between cultural diversity and task conflict.
!
Adding to this, based on empirical research, Zhang, Zhong and Yu (2015) argue that employees with specific characteristics, as a consequence, are more likely to experience social alienation within an organization. In this context, social alienation denotes a psychological state of an individual who becomes estranged physically, mentally or both from aspects of social interactions (Clark, 1959). This assumption is based on the homophily principle, stating that people prefer being with similar individuals. Since culturally diverse employees show certain unique characteristics (their cultural background), it is increasingly difficult for them to build strong relationships with co-workers, having a different cultural background. It can therefore be assumed that cultural diversity possibly results in relationship conflict, referring to interpersonal incompatibilities among group members (Jehn, 1995). Relationship conflict triggers negative feelings among team members such as anger or annoyance. Examples of this conflict type are discussions about values, political preferences or personal taste (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003). Due to the reason that employees feel estranged, they might give vent to their feelings and show fear and anger, thus engage in interpersonal frictions and problems with conflicting parties. Accordingly, the second hypothesis arises as follows:
!
H1b: There is a positive relationship between cultural diversity and relationship conflict.
By means of semi-structured interviews, Hofhuis, van der Zee and Otten (2013) established that cultural diversity in the workplace might provoke diversity-related resistance among employees. They go further, saying that workers in a culturally diverse environment experience certain threats. These could involve fears about physical, economic or status losses (realistic threats), an anxiety that the out-group’s beliefs, values and symbols are a threat to the in-group’s beliefs, values and symbols (symbolic threat) or they imply negative feelings of in-group members when interacting with out-group members (inter-group anxiety). It can be assumed that due to the experienced threats, cultural diversity might cause conflict about duties and resources among team members. For example, team members could fear a loss or constraint of their status, thus they might start an argument about how task accomplishment should be organized, thereby trying to defend their role in the team and to keep the most important tasks for impression management reasons. Hence, responsibility issues, reflected in process conflict are likely to emerge. Process conflict therefore depicts disagreements about assignment of resources and addresses the means of accomplishing a task instead of the content of the task itself (Ayoko, Ashkanasy & Jehn, 2014). Reorganization disagreements can serve as an example for this conflict type (Jehn, 1997). Arguments are likely to emerge during the planning stage, where team members show opposing interests regarding division of labor, responsibility and schedules (Jehn & Rispens, 2008). Taking the aforementioned into consideration, the third hypothesis is derived:
!
H1c: There is a positive relationship between cultural diversity and process conflict.
!
Three types of Intra-group Conflict and their effect on Team Creativity in Organizations
!
The three different types of conflict - task-, relationship- and process conflict will be further outlined in this section and their impact on team creativity will be examined. Past research confirmed that some of these conflict types, at a certain level, might be favorable for team performance (e.g. Jehn, 1995; Jehn, 1997). Conflict about work tasks can contribute to a group’s efficiency since the creativity level will be increased through the influence of minority dissent. Minority team members contradict the assumptions of the majority and thus, majority team members will experience a certain level of cognitive conflict, thereby bringing the minority opinion into question and supporting divergent thinking (De Dreu & West, 2001). What’s more, task conflict aids employees in work groups to re-assess the status quo and to better adapt their ideas in line with the tasks (Nemeth & Staw, 1989).
Therefore, presenting and defending multiple viewpoints on work details and goals within a group serves to make conflict a valuable contribution for creative outcomes. Task conflict can also improve the quality of decisions since it produces results which outperform individual perspectives (Jehn & Mannix, 2001). However, an empirical study of 71 information technology project teams conducted by Farh, Lee and Farh (2010) ascertained that the level of conflict plays an important role when focusing on divergent thinking and creativity in teams. Too much task conflict might result in difficulties to handle information properly. Group members may not succeed in finding a cohesive solution because they are exposed to various lines of thinking. As a result, team members might lose sight of overarching goals and creative outcomes are restricted. In line with this, Farh, Lee and Farh (2010) found that team creativity is at its greatest level when moderate levels of task conflict affect the work group. At very low or very high levels of task conflict, team creativity was found to be lower. Accordingly, the following hypothesis arises:
!
H2a: A moderate level of task conflict in culturally diverse teams is related to a higher team
creativity level, compared to low and high levels of task conflict.
!
As aforementioned, certain types of conflict can be detrimental to creativity. Jehn (1995) illustrated that relationship conflicts lead to enhanced negative reactions such as anxiety or fear and thereby lower team members satisfaction with the group experience. If interpersonal tensions or problems occur and employees dislike or feel disliked by other members of the group, workers might experience frustration, strain and uneasiness (Walton & Dutton, 1969). An experiment conducted by Roseman, Wiest and Swartz (1994) supported a decrease of employees’ cognitive function and complex information processing as a consequence. Further, relationship conflict makes members less open to the ideas of group members, whom they may not like or who may not like them (Pelled, 1996). Thereby, individual performance will suffer and the development of creative ideas might be limited. It follows that, in contrast to task conflict, relationship conflict should be kept on a minimum level in order not to harm creativity within work teams. The evidence on how relationship conflict influences creativity leads to the following hypothesis:
H2b: There is a negative relationship between relationship conflict and team creativity.
Process conflict was also found to limit group performance (Jehn, 1997) in that team members will have problems coordinating with each other and are not able to work towards a
common goal. Furthermore, discussions about responsibilities will probably increase the time of task completion and, additionally, team members might feel inhibited by the uncertainty that the conflict produces. Accordingly, group members experience inconsistencies in certain tasks and time management problems can occur. It also follows that team members will possibly be distracted from their actual work tasks through process conflict (Greer, Jehn & Mannix, 2008). Hence, employees are inclined to focus upon irrelevant discussions so that the task content might be disregarded (Jehn, 1997). Accordingly, process conflict is likely to result in decreased performance and impacts employees’ satisfaction with being a team member (Jehn, 1997). It follows that creative thinking and cooperation can be negatively influenced, which suggests the following hypothesis:
H2c: There is a negative relationship between process conflict and team creativity.
Drawing on the aforementioned literature findings and summarizing the expectations that cultural diversity leads to different types of intra-group conflict and furthermore, that these types of conflict have the ability to impact team creativity, it can further be derived that:
!
H3a: Cultural diversity impacts team creativity through task conflict.
!
H3b: Cultural diversity impacts team creativity through relationship conflict.
!
H3c: Cultural diversity impacts team creativity through process conflict.
!
The impact of Leadership Communication Styles on Intra-group Conflict and Team Creativity in Organizations
!
Past research confirmed that team leaders can have a significant positive impact on team performance. For instance, a survey among 62 teams in a multinational pharmaceutical company proved that nationality and educational diversity were positively related to team performance when transformational leadership was high (Kearney & Gebert, 2009). Referring to creativity as team performance, Shin and Zhou (2007) even confirmed that when transformational leadership was high, informational diversity, namely greater educational specialization heterogeneity, was positively related to team creativity. This allows for the conclusion that different leadership styles can adopt a moderating role when considering the relationship between diversity and creativity.
Gebert, Boerner and Kearney (2006) then draw attention to conflict within this relationship, stating that team leaders have a powerful position in managing diverse team members and handling conflict between them. Consequently, the question arises of how leaders should approach conflict in an appropriate way in order to reduce its negative impact on creativity. To answer this question, several researchers looked at team leaders’ conflict management style and outlined various models of handling intra-group conflict (Rahim, 2015). Rahim, Buntzman and White (1999) illustrated that leaders can use five distinct styles of conflict management: integration, obliging, dominating, avoiding and compromising. Each of the styles assumes to be applicable to a certain type of disagreement among conflicting parties and is dependent on conflict intensity and care for other people. For the purpose of this study, the integrating style as well as the dominating style will be further investigated.
Since Rahim, Buntzman and White (1999) state that an integrating conflict management style requires the manager to be open, focusing on information exchange and examination of differences this thesis further reasons that conflict managing styles need to be linked to communication styles of organizational leaders. To be able to link conflict management to conflict communication, Putnam and Wilson’s (1982) Organizational Communication Conflict Instrument (OCCI) will be used as a basis. It serves as a tool to assess communicative tactics, applied by individuals in organizational conflict situations. The following five communication strategies were determined by the authors: solution orientation, control, non-confrontation, collaboration and compromise (Wilson & Waltman, 1988). The importance of appropriate communication strategies of organizational leaders is also confirmed by De Vries, Bakker-Pieper & Oostenveld (2010), arguing that one of the core elements of leadership is a leader’s interpersonal communication style. The authors define a leadership communication style as ‘‘a distinctive set of interpersonal communicative behaviors geared towards the optimization of hierarchical relationships in order to reach certain group or individual goals’’. The significance of leaders’ communication within an intra-group conflict was also illustrated by Putnam (1988), stating that conflict management has become a major topic, with trainings focused on the role of communication. Putnam (1988) further argues that messages set the basis for making attributions of intent, provide explanations of behavior and organize actions. Moreover, the author states that communication provides ways of merging conflict interaction with individual goals. Thus, communication constitutes the essence of conflict. The assumption that communication, and especially communication of organizational leaders, can impact and steer organizational conflicts is further confirmed by an empirical research of Mo, Booth and Wang (2012), who reason that organizational leadership can effectively facilitate
collaboration with others. In addition, Wilmot and Hocker (2007) noted that communication is a crucial part of conflict in that communication often creates conflict, reflects conflict and finally, communication is the way in which conflict is productively or destructively managed. Summing up, it can be supported that how successful a leader manages conflict is dependent on individual communication competence.
Referring back to conflict management, the style Integration involves collaboration between the conflicting parties, aiming to reach a solution acceptable for all individuals involved. It assumes confrontation of attitudes, joint identification of the problem and is applicable when a synthesis of ideas is needed in order to come up with a better solution and if one party alone can not solve the problem (Spaho, 2013). Thus, integrating conflict management implies a diagnosis of and intervention in the issues at stake (Rahim, 2002). This way of approaching conflict among employees can be linked to the solution-oriented communication style, applied by leaders who are encouraging the team to create alternatives in order to resolve arguments. Moreover, the leader tries to combine a variety of viewpoints to be able to create a solution which is acceptable for all parties involved (Wilson & Waltman, 1988). Accordingly, this research argues that an integrating type of conflict management, paralleled by the leader’s communication style solution orientation, will keep up a conversation between the conflicting parties without suppressing the conflict itself. Thereby, task conflict should be kept on a moderate level and creativity is expected not be harmed. Hence, the subsequent hypothesis states:
!
H4a: Task conflict will have less negative influence on team creativity when the team leader uses a
solution orientation conflict communication strategy.
!
Conversely, a dominating conflict management style implies a forcing behavior to win one’s position, therefore representing a win-lose orientation (Rahim, Buntzman & White, 1999). By using this style, managers force employees to obey (Spaho, 2013). A dominating or competing individual will do everything to win his or her objective but ignores the needs and expectations of the other party. However, this conflict management style is useful if quick decisions are needed (Rahim, 2002). Dominating conflict management goes in line with a control communication style since it refers to forceful leader communication. By arguing insistently and by dominating the conversation, the leader expresses his or her viewpoint against any resistance (Wilson & Waltman, 1988). Regarding relationship- and process conflict, it was determined that both types will hinder team creativity and should therefore be reduced to a minimum level.
Hence, this study assumes that because of its characteristic to strive for a quick solution, a dominating style in line with a control communication style will decrease the level of relationship- and process conflict, so that the creativity level of a team will not suffer. Considering that, the subsequent hypotheses are derived:
!
H4b: Process conflict will have less negative influence on team creativity when the team leader
uses a control conflict communication strategy.
!
H4c: Relationship conflict will have less negative influence on team creativity when the team
leader uses a control conflict communication strategy.
Figure 1: Conceptual Research Model
!
!
Method
!
Research Design, Procedure and Sample
!
This research is characterized as a deductive study, which is based on cross-sectional, quantitative data (Bryman, 2008). The aim of this study was to test the hypotheses that were derived from literature research.
These included the relationship between cultural diversity and task-, relationship- and process conflict, the three types of intra-group conflict and team creativity, the mediating role of intra-group conflict, as well as leadership communication styles influencing the impact of distinct conflict types on team creativity. All measures were conducted on an intra-organizational level of analysis.
Data were collected through an online survey, containing a questionnaire with closed questions. Based on a personal social network of family and friends, the online questionnaire was mainly distributed via Social Media such as Facebook or LinkedIn with a short informative note and the request to further share the survey link with friends, family and acquaintances, following the snowball sampling method. E-mails were also sent out, using distinct distribution lists from three sports clubs in Germany and additionally, from two German companies. Respondents received a link, directing them to a website (qualtrics.com), where the survey was provided. The questionnaire was written in English language and online available for ten days in November 2015.
The sample consisted of respondents above 18 years old, currently employed or having past experience with the work environment. Moreover, participants were required to currently work or have past experiences with working in at least one team. In total, 209 respondents started the online questionnaire, 73 of them only partially completed it (34,9 %). 25 Individuals were filtered out, since they did not fulfill the requirements and thus were not allowed to continue answering the survey. Hence, the final sample consisted of 111 participants. Data were collected from individuals of 15 different nationalities. Most participants indicated to hold the German nationality (76,6%). The mean age of team members was 34.92 years (SD = 13.61), the youngest being 20, the oldest 74. Male employees comprised 39,6% of the sample, women 60,4%. 51 respondents indicated to have experience with being a team leader (45,9 %). Team size ranged from 2 to 200 members, with an average of 12.22 members per team (SD = 20.57). The mean job tenure of participants was 7.62 years (SD = 8.87), ranging from 0 to 39 years duration of employment.
!
Measures
!
Several measures were needed in order to test the research model. These included: level of objective and subjective cultural diversity, level of intra-group task-, relationship- and process conflict, team creativity and the two conflict communication styles by the team leader. For each construct, existing measures were used and slightly adapted to fit the purpose of this study. In the online questionnaire, each set of items was provided with a short additional information to support
the respondents’ interpretation of the questions. Except for Objective Diversity, all variables in the survey involved perceptual measures (see Appendix A for all survey items).
Objective diversity. This information was retrieved with respondents’ self-reported country of origin and country of origin of their team members. It was asked how many team members (including oneself) came from which of the countries, provided in the list. On the basis of this categorization, group-level diversity was calculated, using Blau’s Index (Blau, 1977):
D = (1 - ∑ p i ²)
In this formula, p stands for the proportion of members with a particular nationality and i is the number of different nationalities represented. Blau’s Diversity Index implies that objective cultural diversity is a continuous variable with its values between 0 and 1. Whereas a totally homogeneous team would receive a score of 0, a completely heterogeneous team would receive a score of 1. The average diversity level of the observed teams indicated a diversity score of .29 (SD = 0.29).
Perceived cultural diversity was measured in order to be able to examine whether different results would be obtained when objective diversity was replaced with a perceptual perspective of cultural diversity. This investigation is relevant since previous researchers obtained only weak or no correlation between both variables (Curry & Kenny, 1974; Harrison et al., 2002). The variable was examined by using three items provided by Hentschel et al. (2013). All items were adapted in order to reference the required unit (the team) and to particularly address cultural diversity. Questions were asked as follows: “When I am supposed to describe my team, I automatically think about the cultural differences among my colleagues.”, “I am very aware of the different nationalities among the colleagues in our team.” and “I sometimes think about the cultural differences among the colleagues in our team.” Respondents answered on 5-point Likert-type scales, with response options ranging from 1= don’t agree at all to 5= agree very much. The Cronbach’s α for Perceived Cultural Diversity indicated a reliable scale (.84).
Intra-group conflict was assessed using three scales. Task- and Relationship Conflict were measured with four items respectively by Jehn (1995). These items were also adapted in order to reference the team unit. Sample items for Task Conflict included: ‘‘How often do people in your team disagree about opinions regarding the work being done?’’, ‘‘How frequently are there conflicts about ideas in your team?’’ and ‘‘How much conflict about the work you do is there in your team?’’. Relationship Conflict was investigated with items such as: ‘‘How much friction is there among members in your team?’’, ‘‘How much are personality conflicts evident in your team?’’ and ‘‘How much tension is there among members in your team?’’. Process Conflict was analyzed by means of three items provided by Shah and Jehn (1993), including: ‘‘To what extent do you disagree about
the way to do things in your team?’’, ‘‘How much disagreement is there about procedures in your team?’’ and ‘‘How frequently are there disagreements about who should do what in your team?’’. All items were measured by five-point Likert scales with response options ranging from 1= none to 5= a lot. In order to test the reliability of the scales, Cronbach’s α was calculated for Task Conflict, Relationship Conflict and Process Conflict. An acceptable reliability was confirmed with the values .85, .88 and .72 respectively.
The team leader’s conflict communication style was based on Putnam and Wilson’s (1982) Organizational Communication Conflict Instrument (OCCI). The construct was divided into two styles that seemed relevant for this study: Solution Orientation and Control. Measures were slightly adapted in order to be able to analyze the communicative conflict handling style of a team leader, in which the leader himself is not being involved. The Solution Orientation scale included items such as: ‘‘In an intra-group conflict, my leader suggests solutions which combine a variety of viewpoints.’’, ‘‘My leader integrates arguments into a new solution from the issues raised in disputes among team members.’’ and ‘‘My leader offers creative solutions in discussions of disagreements within the team.’’ On the other hand, the control communication approach was measured with statements such as: ‘‘My leader makes his opinion known in a disagreement amongst team members.’’, ‘‘My leader raises his voice when making clear his or her position.’’ and ‘‘My leaders asserts his or her opinion forcefully.’’ All items were measured by five-point Likert scales with response options ranging from 1= never to 5= very often. The Cronbach’s α for Solution Orientation and Control were .89 and .83 respectively, thus approving an acceptable reliability of the distinct scales.
Team Creativity was investigated using a scale from Zhou and George (2001). For this variable, adjustments were made in order to be able to focus on the team unit. Thus, the set included items such as: ‘‘My team suggests new ways to achieve goals or objectives.’’, ‘‘My team is a good source of creative ideas.’’ and ‘‘Members of my team exhibit creativity on the job when given the opportunity to.’’ All items were measured by five-point Likert scales with response options ranging from 1= not at all characteristic to 5= very characteristic. The Cronbach’s α for Team Creativity indicated a high reliability of .94.
Control variables. Even though Job Tenure was not of theoretical interest for this study, it was included as a control variable. Additionally, all respondents were required to answer whether they have experience with being a team leader. Finally, respondents provided some demographic data such as age, gender and nationality.
Analyses and Results
!
Before starting the analysis, the variables Objective Cultural Diversity, Task Conflict, Relationship Conflict, Process Conflict, Team Creativity, Solution Orientation, Control and Perceived Cultural Diversity are computed. Moreover, cases are selected. Only participants who finished the survey, who had a team size greater than one, and who answered the agreement question, as well as the age, employment and team requirement questions with yes (1) are selected for all analyses. Since the sample size is rather small (111), bootstrapping with 1000 replications is applied. The first nine hypotheses are tested by conducting a mediation analysis via the SPSS toolbox PROCESS (Hayes, 2012) (model 4). The final three hypotheses are tested by means of a standard moderation analysis.
!
Objective Cultural Diversity and Intra-group Conflict
!
Objective Cultural Diversity and Task Conflict
!
The first regression model with Objective Cultural Diversity as the predictor variable and Task Conflict as the outcome variable, controlling for Age, Gender and Job Tenure is significant,
F (4, 106)= 10.42, p < .001. Therefore, the regression model can be used to predict Task Conflict.
28% of the variation in Task Conflict can be predicted on the basis of Objective Cultural Diversity and the control variables (R2 = .28). Objective Cultural Diversity has a significant positive effect on
Task Conflict, b= .81; SE= .21; p < .001; 95% CI [.39; 1.23]. The analysis shows that for each additional unit on the scale of Objective Cultural Diversity, the average Task Conflict increases by .81. This means the more the respondents indicate to work in a culturally diverse team, the more they perceive task conflict to be present in the organization. Thus, H1a is confirmed. In addition, Gender has a significant negative effect on Task Conflict, b= -.28; SE= .14; p= .046; 95% CI [-.56; -.00]. Age also has a significant negative effect on Task Conflict, b= -.03; SE= .01; p < .001; 95% CI [-.05; -.02]. A significant positive effect on Task Conflict can be established for Job Tenure, b= .02; SE= .01; p= .035; 95% CI [.00; .04] (see Appendix B for regression table 3).
!
!
!
!
Objective Cultural Diversity and Relationship Conflict
!
The second regression model with Objective Cultural Diversity as the predictor variable and Relationship Conflict as the outcome variable, controlling for Age, Gender and Job Tenure does not prove to be significant, F (4, 106)= 1.19, p= .319. Thus, the model can not be used to predict Relationship Conflict. No significant effect is found for Objective Cultural Diversity on Relationship Conflict: b= .36; SE= .27; p= .186; 95% CI [-.18 ; .90]. Therefore, H1b needs to be rejected (see Appendix B for regression table 4).
!
Objective Cultural Diversity and Process Conflict
!
The third regression model with Objective Cultural Diversity as the predictor variable and Process Conflict as the outcome variable, controlling for Age, Gender and Job Tenure is again significant, F (4, 106)= 3.10, p= .005. The regression model can therefore be used to predict Process Conflict. 13% of the variation in Process Conflict can be predicted on the basis of Objective Cultural Diversity and the control variables (R2= .13). Objective Cultural Diversity has a significant
positive effect on Process Conflict, b= .52; SE= .23; p= .025; 95% CI [.07 ; .96]. The analysis shows that for each additional unit on the scale of Objective Cultural Diversity, the average Process Conflict increases by .52. This means the more the respondents indicate to work in a culturally diverse team, the more they perceive process conflict to be present in the organization. Thus, H1c is confirmed. In addition, Age has a significant negative effect on Process Conflict, b= -.02; SE= .01;
p= .007; 95% CI [-.04; -.01] (see Appendix B for regression table 5).
!
Intra-Group Conflict and Team Creativity
!
Next, the relationship between three distinct types of intra-group conflict and team creativity was tested. The regression model with Task, Relationship and Process Conflict as the predictor variables and Team Creativity as the outcome variable, controlling for Objective Cultural Diversity, Age, Gender and Job Tenure is significant, F (7, 103)= 2.47, p= .022. Therefore, the regression model can be used to predict Team Creativity. 14% of the variation in Team Creativity can be predicted on the basis of Task, Relationship and Process Conflict, Objective Cultural Diversity and the control variables (R2= .14).
Task Conflict and Team Creativity
!
Task Conflict has a significant positive effect on Team Creativity, b= .46; SE= .16;
p= .006; 95% CI [.14; .79]. The analysis shows that for each additional unit on the scale of Task
Conflict, the average Team Creativity increases by .46. This means the more the respondents indicate to perceive Task Conflict, the higher they perceive their level of Team Creativity. Consequently, a curvilinear relationship between Task Conflict and Team Creativity can be excluded and hypothesis 2a needs to be disproved (see Appendix B for regression table 6). However, to verify this result, the squared term of Task Conflict was computed and added to the regression. Therewith, it is possible to identify whether a moderate level Task Conflict is indeed not related to higher Team Creativity, compared to low and high levels of Task Conflict. The regression model with the squared term of Task Conflict as the predictor variable and Team Creativity as the outcome variable, controlling for Age, Gender and Job Tenure is not significant, F (5, 105)= 1.75,
p= .130. Therefore, the regression model can not be used to predict Team Creativity. The R² change
from step 1 (linear model) to step 2 (curvilinear model) is not significant for Team Creativity either, (R Change= .01; p= .462), thus confirming the linear effect (see Appendix B for regression table 7).
!
Relationship Conflict, Process Conflict and Team Creativity
!
Relationship Conflict has no significant effect on Team Creativity, b= -.20; SE= .14;
p= .138; 95% CI [-.48; .07]. Process Conflict does not significantly impact Team Creativity either,
b= -.21; SE= .15; p= .171 95% CI [-.52 ; .09]. Accordingly, H2b and H2c need to be rejected. However, Job Tenure establishes a significant negative effect on Team Creativity, b= -.03; SE= .01;
p= .033; 95% CI [-.05; -.00] (see Appendix B for regression table 6).
!
The mediating role of three distinct Intra-group Conflict types
!
! In order to determine whether Objective Cultural Diversity impacts Team Creativity through
the three distinct forms of Intra-Group Conflict, the output from the regression analysis of the SPSS toolbox PROCESS is analyzed again. Results show that there is a significant indirect effect of Objective Cultural Diversity on Team Creativity through Task Conflict, b= .38 BCA CI [.062 ; 851], allowing to confirm H3a. However, no significant mediation is found for Relationship Conflict (b= -.07 BCA CI [-.401; .026]), nor for Process Conflict (b= -.11 BCA CI [-.413; .014]).
These findings require the rejection of H3b and H3c. Figures 2 - 4 illustrate the models for all hypotheses as derived from the SPSS output.
!
!
Direct effect, b= .28, p= .341 Indirect effect, b= .38, 95% CI [.06 ; .85] Figure 2: Mediation Model 1
!
!
Direct effect, b= .28, p= .341
Indirect effect, b= -.07, 95% CI [-.40 ; .03] Figure 3: Mediation Model 2
!
!
!
!
Direct effect, b= .28, p= .341 Indirect effect, b= -.11, 95% CI [-.41 ; .01] Figure 4: Mediation Model 3!
b= .46, p= .006 b= .81, p= < .001
Objective Cultural
Diversity Team Creativity
Task Conflict
b= -.20, p= .138 b= .36, p= .186
Objective Cultural
Diversity Team Creativity
b= -.21, p= .171 b= .52, p= .025
Objective Cultural
Diversity Team Creativity
Relationship Conflict
The interaction effect of Leadership Communication Styles and Intra-Group Conflict on Team Creativity
!
Before starting the moderation analysis, a standardized version of the variables Task Conflict, Relationship Conflict, Process Conflict, Control and Solution Orientation is created. Afterwards, the interaction terms of Task Conflict and Solution Orientation, Relationship Conflict and Control, as well as Process Conflict and Control are computed.
!
Task Conflict and Solution Orientation on Team Creativity
!
To test the hypothesis whether leaders’ solution-oriented communication style moderates the relationship between Task Conflict and Team Creativity, another hierarchical multiple regression analysis is conducted. By means of this procedure, it is possible to identify whether there is an interaction effect of Solution Orientation and Task Conflict on the dependent variable Team Creativity. The regression model with Task Conflict as the independent variable, Team Creativity as the dependent variable, Solution Orientation as the moderator variable, controlling for Age, Gender and Tenure proves to be significant, F (6, 104)= 5.91, p < .001. Therefore, the model can be used to predict Team Creativity. 25% of the variation in Team Creativity can be predicted on the basis of Task Conflict, Solution Orientation and the control variables (R2= .25). No significant interaction
effect is found for Task Conflict and Solution Orientation on Team Creativity, b= .06; SE= .06;
p= .298; 95% CI [-.05; .17]. Therefore, H4a is rejected. However, leaders’ communication style
Solution Orientation has a significant positive effect on Team Creativity, b= .36; SE= .07; p < .001; 95% CI [.22; .51] (see Appendix B for regression table 8).
!
Relationship Conflict and Control on Team Creativity
!
The second regression model with Relationship Conflict as the predictor variable, Team Creativity as the outcome variable and leaders’ communication style Control as the moderator variable, controlling for Age, Gender and Tenure again proves to be significant, F (6, 104)= 2.25,
p= .044. Thus, the model can be used to predict Team Creativity. 12% of the variation in Team
Creativity can be predicted on the basis of Relationship Conflict, Control and the control variables (R2= .12).
A significant interaction effect of Relationship Conflict and Control on Team Creativity is found, b= -.21; SE= .08; p= .007; 95% CI [-.36 ; -.06]. Figure 5 illustrates that at high levels of relationship conflict, a high level of control communication is related to lower team creativity. Therefore, H4b needs to be rejected (see Appendix B for regression table 9).
!
Figure 5. The interaction of a Control Communication style and Relationship Conflict on Team
Creativity.
!
Process Conflict and Control on Team Creativity
!
The final regression model with Process Conflict as the predictor variable, Team Creativity as the outcome variable and leaders’ communication style Control as the moderator variable, controlling for Age, Gender and Tenure also proves to be significant, F (6, 104)= 3.21, p= .006. Thus, the model can be used to predict Team Creativity. 16% of the variation in Team Creativity can be predicted on the basis of Process Conflict, Control and the control variables (R2= .16). A
significant interaction effect is found for Process Conflict and Control on Team Creativity, b= -.24; SE= .07; p= .001; 95% CI [-.37; -.11]. In figure 6, where the interaction effect is demonstrated, it is shown that when high levels of process conflict are present, a high level of control communication is related to lower team creativity. This finding allows to reject H4c (see Appendix B for regression table 10).
!
Te am Cre at ivi ty 1 2 3 4 5Low Relationship Conflict High Relationship Conflict
Low Control Communication High Control Communication
!
Figure 6. The interaction of a Control Communication style and Process Conflict on Team
Creativity.
!
Additional analysis: Perceived Cultural Diversity as predictor variable
!
As an addition to the previous analyses, Perceived Cultural Diversity is replacing Objective Cultural Diversity as the independent variable and therewith, the research model (figure 1) is tested again. The mediation analysis via the SPSS toolbox PROCESS (model 4) is repeated. The results confirm the outcomes from the prior analyses:
The first regression model with Perceived Cultural Diversity as the predictor variable and Task Conflict as the outcome variable, controlling for Age, Gender and Job Tenure is significant,
F (4, 106)= 10.52 p < .001. Thus, the regression model can be used to predict Task Conflict. 28% of
the variation in Task Conflict can be predicted on the basis of Perceived Cultural Diversity and the control variables (R2= .28). Perceived Cultural Diversity demonstrates a significant positive effect
on Task Conflict, b= .22; SE= .06; p < .001; 95% CI [.11; .33]. The control variable Age also shows a significant but negative effect on Task Conflict, b= -.04; SE= .01; p < .001; 95% CI [-.05; - .02]. A significant positive effect can be established for Job Tenure, b= .03; SE= .01; p= .011; 95% CI [.01; .05] (see Appendix B for regression table 11).
Next, the regression model with Perceived Cultural Diversity as the predictor variable and Relationship Conflict as the outcome variable, controlling for Age, Gender and Job Tenure is tested and disproves to be significant, F (4, 106)= 1.90 p= .116.
Te am Cre at ivi ty 1 2 3 4 5
Low Process Conflict High Process Conflict
Low Control Communication High Control Communication
Accordingly, the model can not be used to predict Relationship Conflict. However, a significant effect is found for Perceived Cultural Diversity on Relationship Conflict b= .15; SE= .07; p= .035; 95% CI [.01; .30] (see Appendix B for regression table 12).
Analyzing the regression model with Perceived Cultural Diversity as the predictor variable and Process Conflict as the outcome variable, controlling for Age, Gender and Job Tenure, the model proves to be significant again, F (4, 106)= 5.72 p < .001. Hence it is suitable to predict Process Conflict. 18% of the variation in Process Conflict can be predicted on the basis of Perceived Cultural Diversity and the control variables (R2= .18). Perceived Cultural Diversity
establishes a significant positive effect on Process Conflict: b= .20; SE= .06; p= .001; 95% CI [.08; .32]. Further, the control variable Age demonstrates a significant negative effect on Process Conflict, b= -.02; SE= .01; p= .002; 95% CI [-.04; -.01] (see Appendix B for regression table 13).
Moreover, the impact of Perceived Cultural Diversity on Team Creativity was tested. The regression model with Perceived Cultural Diversity as the predictor variable and Team Creativity as the outcome variable, controlling for Age, Gender and Job Tenure is significant, F (7, 103)= 2.62;
p= .016. 15% of the variation in Team Creativity can be predicted on the basis of Perceived
Cultural Diversity, Task- Relationship-, Process Conflict and the control variables (R2= .15). Task
Conflict proves to have a significant positive effect on Team Creativity: b= .46; SE= .16; p= .005; 95% CI [.15; .78]. Relationship Conflict has no significant effect on Team Creativity, b= -.21; SE= .14; p= .131; 95% CI [-.48; .06]. Neither Process Conflict has a significant effect on Team Creativity, b= -.24; SE= .16; p= .132; 95% CI [-.54; .07] (see Appendix B for regression table 14).
Regarding the mediating role of different types of intra-group conflict, it is again approved that only Task Conflict mediates the relationship between Perceived Cultural Diversity and Team Creativity (b= .10 BCA CI [.028; .241]). No mediation effect was found for Relationship Conflict, b= -.03 BCA CI [-.115; .006], nor for Process Conflict b= -.05 BCA CI [-.150; .004].
!
Conclusion and Discussion
!
The main goal of this research was to examine the communicative actions a team leader can take in order to reduce the negative effects of various conflict types on team creativity, often triggered by cultural diversity. In line with the hypotheses, the results suggest that cultural diversity is related to higher levels of task conflict and that task conflict positively impacts creativity within work teams in an organization.
However, contradicting the initial hypothesis, it is determined that the more respondents perceive task conflict to be present, the higher they indicate their level of team creativity. It is also established that cultural diversity is related to increased process conflict within work teams. Aside from that, the findings outline a moderating effect of a control conflict communication style on the relationship between process conflict and team creativity, as well as on the relationship between relationship conflict and team creativity. Surprisingly, a control communication strategy by the team leader is likely to increase the negative effects of process and relationship conflict on creativity. Consequently, the research question - how an organizational team leader can limit the negative consequences of intra-group conflict in order to maintain team creativity - can be answered by stating that at high levels of process-, as well as relationship conflict, creativity would benefit from work teams being approached by low levels of control communication. Besides, the results illustrate that the solution-oriented communication style is positively related to team creativity. Hence, it ought to be considered as an effective way to communicate when aiming to stimulate team creativity.
Although the hypotheses are only partly confirmed by this study, several noteworthy findings should be discussed. First of all, it is striking that, against the assumption that a control communication style of an organizational leader will reduce process and relationship conflict so that the creativity level of a team will not suffer, the findings establish an opposing effect. This leads to the assumption that work teams in which conflict is present, possibly have difficulties to unfold their creative thoughts when they are managed and addressed in a dominating way. This can be linked to an other interesting finding of this research, namely that the solution-oriented communication style is found to be positively related to team creativity, which confirms the previous explanation. Consequently, it may be concluded that, regardless of the conflict type, employees possibly benefit from being approached in an encouraging way by a team leader and by having the possibility of discussing alternatives and solutions regarding an issue at stake, instead of their discussion being suppressed by a third party. Hence, directiveness and strength of a leader possibly harm creative and divergent thinking processes (Nemeth, 1997). Nevertheless, the fact that a moderating effect is not supported for the solution-oriented communication style might be explained by the reason that this study supposed a crucial role of the team leader in managing intra-group conflicts. This is not always the case since some leaders might also stay away from arguments in order to give their employees more autonomy or simply to avoid stress and time wasting (Rahim, 2002).
Secondly, results illustrate that through task conflict, cultural diversity affects team creativity. This finding confirms that organizational conflict is not utterly a harmful force in organizations. On the contrary, it might also contribute to a team’s performance, in particular to team creativity (Jehn, 1995; Jehn 1997; James, 1995).
Thirdly, a positive relationship between cultural diversity and process conflict is approved. Since the same positive relationship can be established for cultural diversity and task conflict, it can be derived that cultural diversity indeed plays an important role in causing arguments among employees (Kurtzberg & Amabile, 2001). Nevertheless, it is interesting that cultural diversity is found to be unrelated to relationship conflict. This finding seems reasonable insofar that task conflict and process conflict are highly related to work topics, whereas relationship conflict disregards organizational matters. One can conclude that culturally diverse teams are inclined to provoke conflict. However, these arguments rather address work topics than interpersonal relations. Regarding the latter, culturally diverse employees possibly experience excitement and curiosity encountering dissimilar others. They might like to exchange knowledge and information and thus are eager to win the friendship of complemental colleagues (Mannix & Neale, 2005). This refers again to the positive side of the categorization-elaboration model (Van Knippenberg, De Dreu & Homan, 2004), which was not investigated within this study. Thus, one could expect that, instead of enhanced relationship conflict, cultural diversity within organizations might rather lead to increased knowledge sharing or open communication among employees.
Fourthly, somewhat surprisingly, the curvilinear relationship between task conflict and creativity is not confirmed by this study. This contradicts the findings of earlier research (e.g. Jehn, 1995; Jehn, 1997; Kurtzberg & Amabile, 2001). It can be concluded that it might not be necessary to limit task conflict to a moderate level in order to maintain team creativity. Instead, this study suggests that higher levels of discussions about work tasks and goals are beneficial for the creativity level of a work group. An explanation for the differing results might be derived from the distinct sample composition. The empirical research conducted by Farh, Lee and Farh (2010) based their outcomes on a sample consisting of project teams in a Chinese company. However, these findings were derived from a predominantly German sample. Comparing the German and Asian culture, it is striking that in terms of behavioral structures, Chinese people rather engage in collective behavior, which implies that relationships are of crucial importance to them. Thus, Chinese employees possibly aim to avoid high levels of conflicts in their work environment (Schreiter, 2014). On the contrary, German people are positioned closer to individualism instead of collectivism, therefore having a very clear communication style and striving for personal goals.
Accordingly, German employees are possibly more inclined to engage in conflict situations when necessary (Schreiter, 2014). Thus, this study reasons that whereas a high amount of task conflict is undesirable for Chinese employees, possibly leading to a decreased level of team creativity, German individuals might consider higher levels of task conflict as advantageous in order to reach their personal goals and team creativity might be stimulated.
Fifthly, process conflict but also relationship conflict are found to be unrelated to team creativity. Since an interaction effect of relationship conflict and control on team creativity, as well as an interaction effect of process conflict and control on team creativity is supported by the obtained results, these conflict types seem to only impact the creativity level of a group when a third party comes into play, addressing issues of the team by means of a certain communication style. According to that, also the mediating role of process- and relationship conflict between objective cultural diversity and team creativity is disproved. Thus, when considering the relationship between cultural diversity and team creativity, other mediating factors such as elaboration of information and perspectives (Van Knippenberg, De Dreu & Homan, 2004) might play a role in preference to the aforementioned conflict types.
Next, although it was assumed that divergent results would occur when testing the model with perceived cultural diversity as independent variable (Hentschel et al., 2013), no differences are established. A reason could be that measures for both constructs are too similar. While objective cultural diversity should reflect the actual diversity level in the work teams, perceived cultural diversity should measure the perception of the participants regarding cultural diversity in their teams. However, the measurement of objective cultural diversity is problematic insofar as it requires the nationalities of all team members to be salient to the participant. People working in larger work teams could experience challenges in recapitulating this information. Thus, in both questions the respondent gave a self report, thereby having the chance to include a personal perception, which might lead to the same outcomes for the two different variables. Alternatively, it might be possible that respondents’ perception of the teams’ diversity level was indeed aligned when they answered the distinct survey item sets. This would imply that the cultural background of a person is a highly salient attribute which attracts employees’ attention and is therefore easy for them to re-arouse. This conclusion leads to the assumption that additional correlation measures of the two concepts are necessary in order to further define and delimit objective and perceived cultural diversity.
Finally, additional insights are provided by the control variables age and tenure. It is found that the older participants are, the less they perceive task and process conflict within their teams. This implies that older employees are possibly more adept at dealing with conflict situations and
know better how to solve critical situations without involving themselves in discussions. Besides, long job tenure is found to stimulate task conflict. Employees working for longer time in their organization have inherently more possibilities to experience task conflicts than employees who just entered the organization. Additionally, it is established that females experience in general less task conflict in their teams than males. Therefore, when striving for a minimum level of task conflict, employers should rely on older and female employees, who are working only for a short time in the organization. Furthermore, the longer participants worked in an organization, the less they perceived creativity to be present in their teams. Thus, according to the obtained results, long tenure can also harm the creative thinking processes of a team. Previous research outlined that employees who are new in an organization might be less restrained by habitual ways of problem solving, thus perceiving increased possibilities for new ideas and change (Ford, 1996). They could also adopt new approaches and ideas from their former employers and therefore set an appropriate climate for the development of creative and innovate ideas. Researchers therefore confirmed this negative relationship between tenure and creativity climate in organizations (Power & Lundmark 2004).
!
Managerial Implications
!
Supplemental to theoretical contributions, this research provides insights for practical management in organizations. In particular, the study illustrates how to deal with conflict among culturally diverse employees. Most important, it concludes that the more leaders use a control communication strategy to approach two different types of conflict among employees, the less they perceive their level of team creativity. Consequently, in order not to jeopardize the creative thinking processes of a team, leaders ought not to try to suppress arguments. Instead, regardless of the conflict type, they should apply a more cooperative communication style, thereby searching for alternatives, confronting attitudes, identifying the problem as a group and proposing potential solutions. This is because individuals must feel free to question and discuss existing values and issues in order to be open for creative ideas (Nemeth, 1997). In line with this, communication professionals should strive for establishing a pro-active and open communication culture in order to stimulate creative thinking within the organization. The creation of an open communication environment is important since it will create a climate of safety. Thus, employees will not be afraid to share their thoughts and creative behavior is likely to emerge (Edmondson, 1999; West & Sacramento, 2012). This can be managed through providing shared offices or forums in which employees have the possibility to exchange opinions and ideas.
