1
Master’s Thesis
Individual Perception of Cultural Diversity and its Effect on Team Creativity and other Organizational Processes
Master’s Programme in Communication Science Graduate School of Communication
University of Amsterdam
Written by: Ivan Markovic (11317442)
Supervisor: Dr James Slevin
2
Abstract
As organizations expand across national boundaries, it becomes increasingly common for individuals that differ in culture and ethnicity to come together in work teams. The issue with this organizational transition is that work teams with diverse members can often face challenges that reflect on organizational processes. This study investigates how individual perception of cultural diversity affects the output of team creativity in work groups. In doing so, this study provides thought markers on what these various implications are and how to manage and interpret them to an organizations favour. An online questionnaire was sent out (N = 117) in order to analyze the relationships between perceived cultural diversity, team creativity, knowledge sharing, and employee engagement. The main finding was that
perception of cultural diversity does not seem to have a significant impact on group processes and that knowledge sharing is the most vital resource to fostering team creativity. As such, this study provides practical implications on these findings as well as future research recommendations on similar subjects.
3
Acknowledgments
First and foremost, I’d like to thank my parents, Tijana and Milos Markovic, for always supporting me despite years of my antics and stress I put them through. Without your constant reassurance, pressure to be great, and occasional bouts of anger, I would not be where I am today.
Second, I’d like to thank Jim Slevin, my thesis supervisor, for all the advice and last-second feedback he provided me with. Your help was greatly appreciated.
Third, I’d like to individually thank a handful of people that have been beside me during this ride.
To Alex LH, it really is a small world. Your compassionate, ambitious, and uplifting personality makes me proud to call you one of my closest friends.
To Elliot Parry, my transition from Toronto to Amsterdam back in August 2017 was only easy because of you and your friendly attitude. Thank you for introducing me to Amsterdam and the people in it.
To Miranda Spiga, you are the loveliest person who can always put a smile on my face no matter the mood I’m in. Thank you for teaching me how to make Carbonara pasta.
To Karlito Sanchez, a friend of mine for just over a year, you are caring, open, and an enthusiastic individual that I am lucky to know.
To all my Bijltjespad Residents, thank you for the most exciting and joyful year of my life. Hopefully we continue our friendships for years to come.
4
Introduction
The rapid development of globalization has made it common for individuals with varying personal characteristics to work together in organizational domains (Neves & Melé, 2013). Employees of major international organizations now face situations where they interact with fellow employees that differ from them in certain ways. For multinational and international organizations, it has become the norm and is often essential to possess a workforce consisting of a culturally diverse set of employees (Hooghe, Trappers, Meuleman, & Reeskens, 2008). However, regardless of its prominence, workplace diversity can lead to positive or negative effects to many organizational processes (Jansen, Vos, Otten, Podsiadlowski, van der Zee, 2016; Joshi & Roh, 2009). Knowledge sharing, employee engagement, and creativity output are a few vital organizational processes that contribute significantly to achieving organizational success (Shore, Chung-Herrera, Dean, Ehrhart, Jung, Randel, & Singh, 2009). With a changing business paradigm that emphasizes employee diversity over heterogeneity, it is important to understand if diversity positively or negatively impacts these processes and how to manage them in an organization’s favour.
Creative output of work teams in organizations is a resource that fosters competitiveness and performance advantages in a business environment (Srivastava, Bartol, & Locke, 2006). Creativity in itself stimulates organizational success and has the ability to ensure that organizations stand out in today’s highly competitive and dynamic business environment (Hon, Bloom, & Crant, 2014). However, to produce team creativity, communicative elements between employees must be considered, particularly in diverse domains. Knowledge sharing, or the discourse between employees regarding technical information, skills, and know-how, is a significant factor that contributes to efficiency and performance outputs with relation to creativity potentials (Srivastava et al., 2006; Cohen & Bailey, 1997; Lee, Gillespie, Mann, & Wearing 2010). Group demographics like cultural characteristics can elicit positive or negative
5 effects on creativity depending on an individual’s sentiment towards diversity and the development of other group dynamics (Hargadon & Bechky, 2006; Van Knippenberg, Dreu & Homan, 2004; Bodla, Tang, Jiang, & Tian, 2016). Cultural diversity is a form of diversity that is easily noticeable compared to other personal traits and as a result of its saliency, enables strong effects on group dynamics (Neves & Melé, 2013). In this sense, perception and saliency of cultural differences between employees can evoke certain implications within work processes. With an increasing emphasis on diversity in business and corporate workforces, this relationship must be understood to a further degree.
Employee sentiments towards feelings of trust and inclusion, highlighted by the presence of diversity, relates highly to factors of employee engagement (Downey, van der Werff, Thomas, & Plaut, 2015). Depending on how aspects of diversity are managed in a workplace, diversity can be framed as a threat or an exciting opportunity towards engagement (Howard-Grenville & Hoffman, 2003). The importance of employee engagement as an organizational factor lies within its close relationship to positive workplace output and has been emphasized in communications framework relating to positive psychology research movements (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). With respect to its impact on significant workplace processes, employee engagement is fundamental in achieving employee job satisfaction, work performance, turnover rates, and overall employee sentiment towards one’s job (Rich, LePine, & Crawford, 2010).
The seeming relationship between cultural diversity, knowledge sharing, and employee engagement encourages further research into how these processes affect organizational team creativity; a highly sought out aspect related closely to organizational success. As such, this study poses the following research questions:
RQ1: How does perception of cultural diversity impact knowledge sharing in an organization?
6
RQ3: What is the effect of employee engagement on the relationship between perceived cultural diversity and knowledge sharing?
The ever-changing, global-centric work environment encourages further research into developing a communications understanding of how societal and cultural developments have a direct relationship with organizational procedures. By empirically evaluating the implications of diversity in the workplace, this paper will aim to provide a concrete understanding of how and when diversity affects certain processes. In response to these findings, strategies and recommendations will be formulated for communications professionals that stand to gain from a deeper understanding of the impact of perception of diversity. As such, this paper will provide a refreshing outlook on the topic of diversity and its relation to organizational communications frameworks (Van Knippenberg et al., 2004; Kurtzberg & Amabile, 2001).
Theoretical Framework
The Perception of Cultural Diversity in Organizations
In past research, diversity has been defined in many different ways, distinguishing various characteristics of individuals like ethnic, religious, physical, mental, and other descriptors (Stairs & Galpin, 2010). Past diversity research on this topic relate more closely to organizations that possess a divided and hierarchal workforce rather than the modern transition to a more team-focused and interdepartmental working environment (Bassett-Jones, 2005). The increase of cultural diversity in organizations, and the transition mentioned above, encourages further research into the implications of cultural characteristics of employees in the workplace. Furthermore, this research study will look more closely at an often overlooked factor that has the ability to determine an overall sense of cultural diversity in an organization; perception.
7 Cultural differences in organizations can be illuminated more easily among employees with respect to race and ethnic differences since these characteristics are salient and on the surface (Homa, Hollenbeck, Humphrey, Van Knippenberg, Ilgen & Van Kleef, 2008). The visibility of these differences is what evokes a perception of variance from one employee to another and results in workgroup members noticing a distinctiveness between themselves and their fellow colleagues (Ely & Thomas, 2001). Following this theme, it is the degree of one’s perception in how different they are compared to their colleagues with respect to cultural values, identity, and personality, that summons a level of diversity within a workgroup (Ely & Thomas, 2001). Perception of diversity is a factor that provides additional insight compared to simple objective diversity in demographic or structural differences (Hobman, Bordia, & Gallois, 2014). Hobman et al., (2004) make an interesting point in that it is difficult to predict how differences among employees are perceived and it is these perceptions that greatly influence the interaction that occurs. When employees perceive their colleagues to be culturally different from themselves, communication and interactions between those employees can vary (Hulsheger, Anderson, Salgado & Kozlowski, 2009). For some groups, colleagues that are culturally different from one another may bring about struggles in their communication due to standards of working and interacting (Van Knippenberg et al., 2004). In other groups, different individual perspectives can fuel a creative impulses and perspectives (Van Knippenberg et al., 2004). Due to the evidence that individual perception and presence of cultural difference are important factors in diversity research, this paper will define cultural diversity as “perceived cultural diversity.”
Work Teams and Team Creativity in Organizations
Work teams in organizations can be loosely defined as a set of individuals that bring various skills and knowledge together toward the achievement of a common goal, purpose, or approach (Katzenbach & Smith, 1993). Within this research, work teams will be defined as
8 composing of at least two employees working in the same organization that communicate regularly to achieve a common organizational goal (Kozlowski & Bell, 2003). In addition, work teams are created in prospect of achieving organizational objectives through emphasis of employee-to-employee interaction, coordination, and communication, making it an appropriate focus for diversity research (Uhl-Bien & Graen, 1998). The creative outputs of work teams is the ability for employees to come together to produce unique and modern ideas in how organizational processes should be carried out (Farmer, Tierney, & Kung-McIntyre, 2003). Creative productivity is a highly sought out factor of organizations that can stimulate a competitive advantage and can increase efficacy within highly competitive markets (Srivastava, Bartol & Locke, 2006). The ability for teams to come up with creative and innovative solutions to strenuous organizational tasks makes team creativity a strong element of organizational success and prominence (Hon, Bloom, & Crant, 2014). However, group dynamics within these work groups must be carefully considered as they can have profound effects on the productivity and proficiency of creative outputs. As work teams come together to complete a shared organizational objective, the inclusion of diverse members can complicate group effects with respect to team creativity outputs (Van Knippenberg et al., 2004; Kurtzberg & Amabile, 2001).
The Effect of Perceived Cultural Diversity on Team Creativity
The relationship between work teams, team creativity output and cultural diversity is one that has been analyzed in the past and illustrated the complexity between the three. Hulsheger et al., (2009) conducted an extensive study that showed diversity preventing creativity due to its enablement of communication and division issues between employees. In this case, team creativity was prevented since employees found it difficult to agree with one another on how to handle tasks, resolve clashing ideas, and what path they should follow to achieve their organizational objective (Hulsheger, Anderson, Salgado & Kozlowski, 2009). The tension that occurs between employees that are different from one another can arise primarily
9 because individuals sense a threat to their identity (Van Knippenberg et al., 2004). Individuals ranging in cultural diversities may have difficulty in interacting and agreeing with one another since they perceive other member’s diverse characteristics as going against their norms of thoughts and behaviours (Van Knippenberg et al., 2004). As the perception of these differences increase from one employee to another, it can lead to work teams not communicating effectively, limiting important processes such as elaboration and discourse with respect to task completion and group cohesion (Kurtzberg & Amabile, 2001). Cultural diversity can also bring about employees that vary with respect to their working styles. Belief systems on how to carry out tasks can range, forcing members that are different in their experiences to work together and complicating the output of team creativity (Michailova & Hutchings, 2006). The fact that organizations are increasingly favouring team-focused rather than independent labour outputs makes cultural diversity in an important factor to understand (Bassett-Jones, 2005). With respect to these findings on the relationship between diversity and creativity outputs, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H1: Perceived cultural diversity poses a negative effect on team creativity output, such
that if employees perceive their colleagues to be different from themselves, team creativity will decrease.
The Effect of Perceived Cultural Diversity on Knowledge Sharing
Knowledge sharing is the interaction between employees sharing information and knowledge that they possess regarding job tasks from one employee to another (Cummings, 2004). The process of knowledge sharing occurs through interaction of employees and is closely related to achieving employee and company success (Hau, Kim, Lee & Kim, 2013; Van den Hooff & Huysman, 2007). However, the perception of cultural differences from one employee to another can complicate discourse within the workplace, gradually limiting the positive outcomes that knowledge sharing can facilitate (Kurtzberg & Amabile, 2001). The ability for
10 employees to share important and sometimes not commonly known job information with fellow colleagues illustrates the reputation of communicative elements within knowledge sharing (Cohen & Bailey, 1997). The presence of a culturally diverse workforce, as well as the individual perception that each colleague has towards these diverse characteristics, can cause profound effects on knowledge sharing tendencies (Van Knippenberg et al., 2004)
Once again, feelings of threat and perception of those who vary in their cultural and demographic characteristics contributes to this issue (Van Knippenberg et al., 2004). Studies in the past on cross-national teams illustrate that perceived differences among team members pose negative effects on knowledge sharing tendencies (Bodla, Tang, Jiang, Tian, 2016). Cross-national teams saw others as unlike themselves, deafening their interaction with others and towards organizational objectives (Bodla et al., 2016). It has also been demonstrated that there are work-ethic distinctions that exist between employees with various cultural origins. In a comparative study on Chinese and Russian knowledge sharing in respective organizations, motives for knowledge sharing varied (Michailova & Hutchings, 2006). Chinese members shared knowledge to preserve their ingroups well-being and productivity while Russian members in their organization shared knowledge with a focus on self-interest to establish a professional advance within the organization (Michailova & Hutchings, 2006). This case illustrates that certain cultures in the world view and act differently in their motives for organizational success. The absence of communication between employees in the same organization limits knowledge sharing and results in employees that are more ignorant towards certain organizational tasks compared to others (Lauring, 2009). The presence of ingroups and outgroups, groups that one sees themselves as similar or dissimilar, can lead to rejection of new community members and makes participation more difficult (Ardichvili, Maurer, Li, Wentling, & Stuedemann, 2006). If individuals in work groups do not see or feel as if their fellow employees are similar to them, it can limit them sharing or seeking information pertaining to
11 their jobs (Lauring, 2009). The increase in diversity of organizations competing in global markets brings employees together that would normally operate differently in their respective workplaces (Basset-Jones, 2005). The more similar workgroups are, the more individuals will feel comfortable in interacting and sharing valuable job information with their co-workers. With that being said, the following hypothesis is proposed for this relationship:
H2: Perceived cultural diversity has a negative effect on knowledge sharing, such that
if employees perceive their colleagues to be different from themselves, knowledge sharing tendencies will decrease.
Employee Engagement’s Moderation on Perceived Diversity and Knowledge Sharing
Employee engagement can be defined as a passion for work that an individual expresses (Stairs & Galpin, 2012). Employee engagement involves positive feelings of one’s professional career and organization and can influence employees to go the extra mile for their organizations (Truss, Baron, Crawford, Debenham, Emmott, Harding, & Totterdill, 2014). An engaged employee expresses enthusiasm and determination towards their job, reinforcing attitudes such as loyalty and commitment in their respective organizations (Seijts & Crim, 2006; Stairs & Galpin, 2012).
The importance of employee engagement lies within its relationship to positive workplace outputs and its emphasis in communications frameworks, particularly in positive psychology movements (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). Employees that feel engaged in their jobs express positivity in job satisfaction and work performance, limiting turnover rates and expanding overall employee sentiment towards tasks and objectives (Rich, LePine, & Crawford, 2010). The way in which employees feel at work towards trust, inclusion and openness relates closely to factors of employee engagement in the workplace (Downey, van der Werff, Thomas & Plaut, 2015). Engaged employees are positioned higher in the “social
12 networks” of their organizations giving them a heightened sense of inclusion (Anderson, 2008). The feeling of inclusion that comes along with employee engagement makes it likely for engaged employees to share knowledge with colleagues compared to unengaged employees. Employees that are less engaged at work usually have fewer opportunities to share their knowledge with colleagues compared to those who are more engaged (Wasserman & Faust, 1994; Reinholt, Pedersen, & Foss, 2011). As individuals increase their engagement in the workplace, the support and trust they feel towards their fellow employees creates an environment that encourages knowledge sharing between employees, regardless of the levels of diversity that may persist (Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby & Herron, 1996; Lee et al., 2010). In addition, the motivation to succeed that stems from employee engagement is often a driver of knowledge sharing in organizations (Reinholt et al., 2011). Employees that feel engaged in their workplace are focused on accomplishing their organizational tasks and sharing their knowledge in order to be able to achieve that success. Taking these findings into account, employee engagement is expected to reduce the negative relationship between knowledge sharing and high perception of cultural diversity, proposing the following hypothesis:
H3: Employee engagement positively moderates the effect of perceived cultural
diversity on knowledge sharing, such that high employee engagement will have a positive effect on knowledge sharing when perceived cultural diversity is high.
The Effect of Knowledge Sharing on Team Creativity
Job knowledge is a vital asset that can contribute to an organization's success, particularly in fields of productivity, efficiency, and employment processes (Grant, 1996). Sharing useful knowledge between employees that improves certain organizational processes can motivate team creativity outputs (Srivastava et al., 2006). With that being said, there is a
13 seemingly complex relationship that exists between knowledge sharing and creativity outputs in an organization (Lee et al., 2010).
Organizational knowledge is imperative since it is created by the organization’s own employees and is an exchange of valuable information that new and old employees are able to refer to (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998). When employees share information with each other regarding work processes, there is an impact on employee performance with respect to task completion and work comprehension skills (Lee et al., 2010). The spreading of knowledge gives way to many positive aspects that are related to organizational success. Employees absorb a higher level of knowledge in how to complete their tasks more efficiently, how to learn from their manager and fellow employees’ experiences, and how to engage certain tasks with specific solutions that have worked in the past (Lee et al., 2010). Organizations must stress the importance of knowledge sharing within an organization since it a resource that is available, accessible, and transferable (Hinds, Patterson, & Pfeffer, 2001). By encouraging knowledge sharing, organizations can spur the development of innovation and creativity (Arthur & Huntley, 2005; Collins & Smith, 2006). Employee support systems can clear the way for progress of inclusion and trust among employees working together, probing an “openness” by employees in listening and debating novel ideas. Factors of trust and inclusion relate to higher creativity levels, particularly in environments where such actions are encouraged (Amabile, et al., 1996). Trust and efficiency of interaction between employees can result in environments that support and encourage the formation of creativity (Lee et al., 2010). Even in conversations that are unrelated to work, socializing among employees makes creativity outputs more likely since individuals will be open to discussion (Hu, Horng, & Sun, 2009). These vital interactions that occur between employees can be defined as an organizational infrastructure that favours creativity outcomes and a sense of community among those involved (Van den Hooff & Huysman, 2009). An organization that has a highly diverse work environment may present a
14 threat to certain employees interacting with their fellow colleagues. The unfortunate aspect to this, as mentioned previously, is that culturally diverse employees may have different ways of completing tasks, some more efficient than others (Michailova & Hutchings, 2006). Without interaction and openness, organizations may limit rather than encourage knowledge sharing and as a result, dampen creativity (Van den Hooff & Huysman, 2009). As is evident, efficient knowledge sharing is closely related to positive team creativity outputs. Therefore, the final hypothesis is proposed.
H4: Knowledge sharing has a positive effect on team creativity outputs, such that when
knowledge sharing tendencies increase, team creativity outputs will also increase.
15
Methodology
Participants
The data collected for this study was conducted through the use of an online survey questionnaire that was shared through online mediums in order to achieve an appropriate sample size. The sample was non-random and utilized LinkedIn as a social media tool since it was seen as an appropriate tool for finding participants that fit the employment and organizational requirements of my sample. In addition, some individuals were personally contacted and informed of the study by email. These individuals were colleagues, friends, family, and acquaintances that fit the participation requirements. These individuals were encouraged to share the survey with at least two other individuals of their choosing that they knew fit the target group of my sample.
The target sample of my study was individuals that worked in organizations with more than 30 employees. In addition, it was mandatory that those individuals also indicated that they worked in “work teams”, which was defined in the survey as consisting of at least two individuals that meet regularly in order to achieve a common organizational task. Lastly, participants were asked to state certain demographic and employment characteristics such as the size of organization they work for, the industry they work in, and the length of their working week on average.
Procedure
Participants received a weblink that directed them to an online survey page where they could answer questions either on mobile or desktop mediums. Participants were briefly told about the purpose of the study followed by an ethical form that indicated that their answers would be anonymous and that each participant had the right to opt-out of the survey at any point
16 during its completion. Responses included several five-point Likert scales indicating agreement or disagreement, ranging from “Totally Agree” to “Totally Disagree.” In addition, there were several multiple choice questions where respondents were forced to select at least one answer. The sample was distributed 156 individuals of which 117 valid responses were produced following data clean-up of non-answers and missing questions. The sample achieved did not deviate from the target population and as such produced appropriate data for the intended analysis. The total time to complete the survey was eight minutes in length. The survey was distributed between December 15th, 2017 to January 10th, 2018.
Descriptive Statistics
Following data collection, our survey collected a total of 117 valid responses. Of this total, there were 64 males (54.7%) and 53 females (45.3%). The mean age of a respondent was 37 years old (SD = 15.12). Relating more closely to career and employment, respondents ranged in various ways. 63 respondents (53.8%) indicated that they worked in organizations with more than 500 employees. The second most common organization size was 101 to 250 employees with 18 participants (15.4%) selecting this option. Work week length was also factored in. 55 respondents (47%) specified that they work between 31 to 40 hours per week while another 52 (44.4%) chose more than 40 hours per week. In addition, respondents reported a wide range of industries and sectors they worked in. The two most selected options were “Finance” with 21 individuals (17.9%) and “Business Services” with 17 individuals (14.5%).
Table 1 depicts the descriptive statistics of mean scores and standard deviations for each of our research variables. For the variable “perceived cultural diversity” a higher score on the scale indicates that perception of cultural diversity is low. As such, respondents seemed to view their work teams as slightly more diverse than homogeneous (M = 3.94, SD = 1.27). For knowledge sharing, a higher score on the scale indicated a high amount of knowledge sharing tendency by that participant. As such, respondents reported that they more often than not
17 participated in knowledge sharing in their respective offices (M = 5.67, SD = 1.04). Regarding the employee engagement variable, a high score on the scale indicated high levels of employee engagement at work. Therefore, participants indicated that their level of engagement was relatively high (M =4.95, SD = .91). Lastly, a high score on the team creativity scale depicted higher team creativity levels by the participant. In this case, team creativity was reported to be quite high (M = 5.23, SD = 1.26). These figures are listed below in Table 1.
Table 1 - Mean Scores (7-point Likert Scales) and Standard Deviations of relevant research variables (N = 117)
Measures M SD
Team Creativity 5.23 1.26
Knowledge Sharing 5.67 1.04
Employee Engagement 4.95 .91
Perceived Cultural Diversity 3.94 1.27
Measures
Perceived Cultural Diversity
This concept was measured using a scale from Zellmer-Bruh, Maloney, Bhappu, & Salvador’s (2008) research on the perceived similarities between working group members. 7 items were selected from their scale. In particular, these seven items exemplify how similar workgroup members feel to one another with regards to ethnic, cultural, and national backgrounds (Zellmer-Bruhn et al., 2008). In addition, the significance that perception plays in interaction and communication styles between culturally diverse employees is also included. A
18 sample item from this scale is “Members from my team share similar ethnic backgrounds as me” and “Members of my team share a similar communication style.” The scale for this variable achieved a Cronbach’s alpha of .80. Therefore, it appears the scale measures perceived cultural diversity within the workplace. A high score on the perceived cultural diversity items indicate a more homogeneous work group with respect to perception.
Knowledge Sharing
The measurement for knowledge sharing was determine through the use of a knowledge sharing scale that was previously used in Van den Hooff & Huysman’s (2009) study on a similar topic. Their 19-item scale was minimized to a seven-item scale that more accurately represented knowledge sharing tendencies within the workplace from colleague to colleague. A sample item that was used is “When I need certain knowledge, I ask my colleagues for it.” The reliability test for this scale achieved a Cronbach’s alpha of .89. As such, it appears the scale measures knowledge sharing tendencies in the workplace. A high score on the response options for this scale indicates increased knowledge sharing tendencies.
Work Teams
In order to postulate whether or not participants belonged to a work team at their organization, I formed one question that was composed and adapted using three major characteristics of teams deriving from Kozlowski and Bell’s (2003) literature review on work teams and groups in organizations. The three main characteristics of a work team were that it be composed of at least two individuals that communicate regularly in order to achieve a common organizational goal or task. Participants were presented with this definition of a work team and were then asked to indicate whether they belonged to a work team at their respective organization according to that description.
19
Team Creativity
To measure team creativity, Zhou and George’s (2001) 13-item scale was utilized and modified to become a seven-point scale. Zhou and George’s (2001) scale was adjusted accordingly to measure team creativity rather than individual creativity, its original measure. The items were worded in a different way so that participants knew the intended measure was for team creativity. For example, a sample item used was “My team is a good source of creative ideas.” A reliability test conducted showed that the scale for team creativity produced a Cronbach’s alpha of .93. The scale appears to measure team creativity among workgroups in organizations. A high score on the response options for this scale indicates a high level of team creativity.
Employee Engagement
The measurement for employee engagement was created by adjusting two six-item scales from Sak’s (2006) study on job and organizational engagement by employees. The items were formatted to one six-item scale that permitted an assessment of participant’s engagement in their job and at their organization resulting in a measure for employee engagement. A sample item used was “Sometimes I am so into my job that I lose track of time.” A reliability test conducted produced a Cronbach’s alpha of .74. According to this, the scale appears to measure employee engagement in organizations. A high score on the answer options for this scale indicates a heightened sense of employee engagement.
20
Results Correlations
To analyze any correlations between our main variables (knowledge sharing, employee engagement, perceived cultural diversity, and team creativity) we conducted a Pearson correlation coefficient test. Findings show that a significant positive correlation was discovered between knowledge sharing and team creativity (r = .36, p < 0.001, N = 117). As a result, we concluded that an increase in knowledge sharing has a significant moderate correlation with an increase in team creativity. In addition to this, another correlation coefficient test was conducted on variables employee engagement and knowledge sharing. Results showed a significant positive correlation between the two variables (r = .28, p < 0.05, N = 117). This finding showed that an increase in employee engagement has a significant weak correlation with an increase in knowledge sharing. Lastly, results showed a significant positive correlation between employee engagement and team creativity (r = .43, p < 0.001, N = 117). This finding shows that an increase in employee engagement has a significant moderate correlation with an increase in team creativity. Table 2 depicts these findings including both significant and insignificant correlations.
Table 2 – Pearson’s Coefficients (r) of Research Variables
Measure 1 2 3 4 1 Team Creativity .36** .02 .43** 2 Knowledge Sharing .36** - .05 .28* 3 Perceived Cultural Diversity .02 - .05 .09 4 Employee Engagement .43** .28* .09 Note: *p ⪯ 0.05, **p ⪯ 0.01
21
Regression Analysis
H1: Perceived cultural diversity poses a negative effect on team creativity output, such
that if employees perceive their colleagues to be different from themselves, team creativity will decrease.
A simple linear regression model was designed to predict the dependent variable, team creativity, from the independent variable perceived cultural diversity. An insignificant finding was discovered F(1,115) = .07, p = .799, with an R2 of .001. Since the results are insignificant, we cannot predict team creativity based upon perception of cultural diversity. With these findings, hypothesis 1 rejected. For these effects, we assume that independent variables are held constant. The findings of this analysis can be located in Table 3.
Table 3 - Regression Analysis with “Team Creativity” as dependent variable (N = 117)
Measure B β F R2 p
Perceived Cultural Diversity
.24 .02 .07 .001 .799
H2: Perceived cultural diversity has a negative effect on knowledge sharing, such that
if employees perceive their colleagues to be different from themselves, knowledge sharing tendencies will decrease.
A simple linear regression was calculated to predict the dependant variable, knowledge sharing, from the independent variable, perceived cultural diversity. Results produced an insignificant regression equation F(1, 115) = .28, p > .599, with an R2 of .02. The insignificant results achieved show that we cannot predict knowledge sharing based on perceived cultural diversity. As a result of this finding, hypothesis 2 is rejected. For these effects, we assume that independent variables are held constant. The findings of this analysis can be found in Table 4.
22
Table 4 - Regression Analysis with “Knowledge Sharing” as dependent variable (N = 117)
Measure B β F R2 p
Perceived Cultural Diversity
- 0.04 - .05 .28 .02 .599
H3: Employee engagement positively moderates the effect of perceived cultural
diversity on knowledge sharing, such that high employee engagement will have a positive effect on knowledge sharing when perceived cultural diversity is high.
For this analysis, a multiple regression analysis was used if the effect of perceived cultural diversity on knowledge sharing would be moderated by employee engagement. Moderation analysis was tested with PROCESS plug-in software in SPSS (Hayes, 2013). Within the moderation model, the main effect of perceived cultural diversity on knowledge sharing was found to be insignificant, t(113) = .07, p = .94. The analysis showed a significant moderation effect of employee engagement on knowledge sharing, R2 change = .05, F(1,113) = 6.31, p < .05. Probing the interaction showed that participants with lower employee engagement were less likely to share their knowledge, MDiff = -.17, t = -2.03, p = .049, 95% CI [-.34, -.01], whereas the effect of high and medium engaged employees had no significant effect on knowledge sharing tendencies. As such, hypothesis three is rejected.
H4: Knowledge sharing has a positive effect on team creativity outputs, such that when
knowledge sharing tendencies increase, team creativity outputs will also increase.
For this analysis, a simple linear regression was calculated to predict the dependent variable, team creativity, based on the independent variable, knowledge sharing. A significant regression equation was found F (1, 115) = 17.52, p < 0.001, with an R2 of .13. As such, with every unit increase in team creativity we can expect team knowledge sharing to increase by .44,
23
β = .36, t = 4.15, p < 0.001, 95% CI [0.23, 0.64]. Consequently, we can accept the fourth hypothesis as outlined above. For these effects, we assume that independent variables are held constant. These results can be found in Table 5.
Table 5 - Regression Analysis with “Team Creativity” as dependent variable (N = 117)
Measure B β F R2 p
Knowledge sharing .44 .36 17.52 .13 .000
Conclusion
As organizations expand their boundaries and operate globally to stay competitive, various employees deriving from various cultures, ethnicities, and work habits are coming together to achieve a common organizational objective (Hooghe, Trappers, Meuleman, & Reeskens, 2008). The presence of a diverse work groups is becoming an organizational norm and as any organizational transition it can bring about unknown effects that may impact certain processes such as knowledge sharing and team creativity. With that being said, this study aimed to provide a better understanding of the implications that diverse work groups provoke as well as how organizations can approach and manage the prospect of cultural diversity. On the basis of the research findings in this study, those involved in managing work groups in organizations should understand the following.
First, although it is often claimed that cultural diversity can pose undesirable effects on creative processes due to division of identity and working style, this study provided an interesting finding relating to this matter (Hulsheger et al., 2009; Hulsheger, Anderson, Salgado & Kozlowski, 2009). As results show, the perception of cultural diversity shows no significant negative effect relating to team creativity outputs and as such indicates that this relationship is
24 not as predictable as previous studies have shown. Employees may vary from one another culturally and ethnically without impacting group processes. In practical application, organizations do not need to focus their resources on managing the perception of cultural diversity. In fact, in this situation, organizations can stand to gain more from cultural differences if they leverage them to promote creativity and knowledge sharing tendencies. Through indication that there is no significant negative effect of cultural diversity on team creativity, employees can be encouraged to express and highlight their various identities and features.
Second, the relationship between perceived cultural diversity and knowledge sharing produced an insignificant effect. Previous studies that go into detail on variance of cross-national teams and individual work ethic suggest that processes like knowledge sharing can be lessened due to complications in communicative elements between employees (Bodla et al., 2016; Michailova & Hutchings, 2006). However, as the results indicate, perception of cultural diversity has no implications on knowledge sharing tendencies in the workplace. Employees may look at one another differently in terms of culture and work style but this does not ultimately lead to an increase or decrease in knowledge sharing. From an organizational point of view, the presence or management of perception of cultural diversity will not determine whether employees engage in knowledge sharing. Therefore, organizations should spend more time looking at other factors that relate to knowledge sharing if they wish to improve this organizational process.
Thirdly, results relating to employee engagement concluded an interesting discovery. Previous findings on the subject attributed employee engagement to heightened sense of inclusion in the workplace (Anderson, 2008). The presence of a stable and inviting workplace fostered by employee engagement suggest that employees will easily communicate with one another, sharing their valuable knowledge with others around them (Wasserman & Faust, 1994). Results from participants in this study showed that medium to high employee
25 engagement has no real effect on the tendency for an employee to share their knowledge with others. However, low employee engagement among participants was shown to correlate with a decrease in knowledge sharing. As such, organizations should take the necessary steps in maintaining employee engagement to ensure that it does not drop to a level low enough to impact knowledge sharing tendencies. Organizations must value and support aspects of employees engagement to a point that their employees do not feel distant or disconnected from their tasks and working environment. Through promotion of work and task engagement, organizations can ensure that negative repercussions, such as decreased knowledge sharing, do not prevail.
Finally, studies in the past often depict knowledge sharing as a positive determinant of team creativity outputs. The sharing of knowledge, skills, and know-how between employees is associated to various organizational processes such as the easing of task completion, which relates closely to the development of team creativity (Lee et al., 2010; (Van den Hooff & Huysman, 2009). The findings in this study show a similar relationship and conclude comparable patterns of behaviour. Results specify that a positive relationship exists between knowledge sharing and team creativity outputs such that as employees increase their knowledge sharing tendencies so did team creativity outputs. Knowledge of employees in an organization is a vital resource for one major reason; employees all have individual knowledge and skills, making it readily available and easily accessible organizational resource. In practical circumstances, organizations should aim to motivate their employees in engaging in knowledge sharing tendencies. Since the perception of cultural diversity does not pose a significant effect on knowledge sharing tendencies, it would be intelligent for organizations to create a workplace domain where individual skills and expertise are collectively known and shared, resulting in more creative team processes.
26
Discussion
From a theoretical perspective, this research delivers several important considerations. First, the insignificant effect of perceived cultural diversity on team creativity was an
interesting finding as it did not coincide with many previous studies on the matter. The trending theme in past research on this subject was pessimistic regarding the presence of cultural diversity in the workplace. To understand this finding further, we must attribute it to the findings of Van Knippenberg et al. (2004). In their study, there is a specific focus on what is known as the categorization-elaboration model. Essentially, this model proposes that creativity outcomes are related closely to social categorization of individuals (sex, nationality, ethnicity, age, etc.) but also include a vital factor known as the information and decision making perspective (Van Knippenberg et al., 2004). What this perspective includes is characteristics of individuals that are more closely related to skill sets, knowledge and experience, as well as career abilities with regards to task completion and organizational conduct. Therefore, as this study was primarily focused on the social-categorization model it did not evaluate seemingly important factors of team creativity outputs that individuals differentiate in. These important factors could be skills and abilities that participants adopt and transfer from their different cultures, which has shown to have great influence on team creativity results (Michailova & Hutchings, 2006). In addition, other studies on diverse teams show that individuals in certain jobs can often possess similar organizational perspectives in terms of career advancement and task completion (Buderson & Reagans, 2011). With that being said, employees that work together in similar departments, regardless of cultural differences, moderate tension in groups since their discussions and decision-making perspectives are more easily aligned (Bunderson & Reagans, 2011). As a result of these related research findings, future research on the relationship between perceived cultural
27 diversity and team creativity should involve other factors such as information and decision making perspectives in order to depict a more accurate representation of diversity.
Second, the fact that perceived cultural diversity was not significant in predicting knowledge sharing tendencies posed an interesting thought-marker. Studies researching this relationship have previously pointed out that working in diverse teams may elicit sentiments of exclusion and inclusion and can form environments that make it difficult for employees to seek and find knowledge (Ardichvili, Maurer, Li, Wentling, & Stuedemann, 2006; Lauring, 2009; Basset-Jones, 2005). In this study however, this effect is not as influential as previously stated. One reason for this can be related back to information and decision making
perspectives. Essentially, the more time group members spend together the more time they have in learning and understanding the differences or similarities that their fellow colleagues possess in working style, skill, and ability (Van Knippenberg et al., 2004). The perception of difference that employees see between one another, particularly in cultural characteristics, are often formed through workplace and cultural stereotypes. As such, Van Knippenberg et al., (2004) suggest that as employees spend more time together working in groups, overarching stereotypes will slowly disappear. With that being said, work tenure would be a compelling factor to include in future research since over time information and decision making
perspectives can be favoured over categorization perspectives such as ethnicity or culture. In addition, future studies should also aim to understand whether respondents indicate if they are part of the cultural minority or majority within their working groups. The reasoning for this is that some studies have shown that ethnic or cultural minorities are able to understand and handle multicultural differences to a large extent since they are already used to such societal impositions (Dinsbach, Feij & de Vries, 2007). As a result, these types of participants would better understand the implications that perception of cultural diversity has on organizational processes and may adjust their behaviour accordingly.
28 Thirdly, the moderation analysis of employee engagement on the relationship of perceived cultural diversity and knowledge sharing produced inconclusive results. Presence of high to medium engagement in participants showed no real correlation with knowledge
sharing tendencies. However, findings did show that the presence of low job engagement relates closely to employees exhibiting decreased knowledge sharing tendencies overall. This result was expected since previous studies on the subject regularly associate employee
engagement with factors of inclusion and job satisfaction, which have been correlated directly with knowledge sharing tendencies (Rich, LePine, & Crawford, 2010). The decrease in knowledge sharing from low employee engagement may occur since the latter produces negative organizational repercussions such as high turnover rates and decreased work
satisfaction, making employees less likely to converse and share their knowledge with fellow colleagues (Downey, van der Werff, Thomas, & Plaut, 2015; Wasserman & Faust, 1994). As such, it is important from an organizational perspective to emphasize and encourage employee engagement within departments in order to foster feelings of inclusion, limit employee
turnover, and ensure that employees feel comfortable and driven to share their skills and know-how.
For organizations to ensure that employee engagement does not reach low levels, managers can be put to effective use. The phrase, “people join companies and leave managers,” is one that accurately describes this scenario. For employees to be engaged, managers need to focus and communicate sentiments based upon performance management; encouraging workers to reflect and understand on what has granted them a sense of fulfilment in their work (Stairs & Galpin, 2010). Going along with this view, induction of new employees is a vital first step in fostering employee engagement from the start (Stairs & Galpin, 2010). Are managers supporting, recognizing, and encouraging the individual strengths and progress that an employee has achieved? Does the manager help an employee understand the overall impact and
29 importance they possess within the company? Lastly, is there a clear set of goals and a balance of negative and positive reinforcement for employees and their task completion? By monitoring, training, and informing managers of their impact on employee engagement, organizations can ensure that their employees reflect similar feelings, contributing to what was found as a determinant of team creativity.
Lastly, the final finding in this analysis was one that agreed with past research and studies on the subject. The development of team creativity outputs in an organization depends very much on individual knowledge sharing among colleagues. As was discovered in this analysis, an increase in knowledge sharing amounted to an increase in total team creativity outputs. According to literature on the subject, this positive correlation often occurs since knowledge sharing revolves around spreading skills and expertise from one colleague to another relating to task completion and work comprehension (Lee et al., 2010). Encouraging employees to share knowledge with one another probes trust and inclusion which in turn can generate a work environment where individuals support and encourage creative discussions (Lee et al., 2010). The prospect of knowledge sharing and its positive implications arise for two main reasons; it is an organizational resource that is easily obtainable and transferred. Connecting this point to the information and decision making model, each individual employee enters the work environment with their own experiences and skills that they have developed. As such, each employee within an organization holds their own valuable knowledge that they can easily transfer to another. Continuing with this trend, employees and the knowledge they have are vital resources that organizations can access and promote with certain managerial actions.
Organizations should not emphasize extrinsic awards in exchange for employee knowledge sharing. Extrinsic awards, such as salary incentives or bonuses, will only ensure a temporary increase in knowledge sharing and will not ultimately initiate the process. Instead, intrinsic rewards that relate closely to pleasure and satisfaction should be more significantly
30 emphasized and will act as the main driver for success (Lin, 2007). Through team meetings and other sorts of group activities, managers can encourage interpersonal relationships between employees, creating a positive knowledge sharing culture in return. Finally, by making it apparent to employees that knowledge sharing can contribute to organizational success and advancement, employees are more likely to engage in the act since it gives them a higher sense of achievement in completing their organizational objectives (Lin, 2007). In doing so, employees are able to visualize their own impact on organizational success and can act towards achieving that success in a more efficient manner.
31
Work Cited
Anderson, M. H. (2008). Social networks and the cognitive motivation to realize network opportunities: A study of managers' information gathering behaviors. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 29(1), 51-78.
Ardichvili, A., Maurer, M., Li, W., Wentling, T., & Stuedemann, R. (2006). Cultural influences on knowledge sharing through online communities of practice. Journal of
knowledge management, 10(1), 94-107.
Arthur, J. B., & Huntley, C. L. (2005). Ramping up the organizational learning curve: Assessing the impact of deliberate learning on organizational performance under gainsharing.
Academy of Management Journal, 48(6), 1159−1170.
Bassett‐Jones, N. (2005). The paradox of diversity management, creativity and innovation. Creativity and innovation management, 14(2), 169-175.
Bodla, A. A., Tang, N., Jiang, W., & Tian, L. (2016). Diversity and creativity in cross-national teams: The role of team knowledge sharing and inclusive climate. Journal of
Management & Organization, 1-19.
Bunderson, J. S. & Reagans, R. E. (2011). Power, status, and learning in organizations. Organization Science, 22(5), 1182-1194.
Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. (1997). What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of management, 23(3), 239-290.
Collins, C. J., & Smith, K. G. (2006). Knowledge exchange and combination: The role of human resource practices in the performance of high-technology firms. Academy of
Management Journal, 49(3), 544−560.
Cummings, J. (2004). Work Groups, Structural Diversity, and Knowledge Sharing in a Global Organization. Management Science, 50(3), 352-364.
32
das Neves, J. C., & Melé, D. (2013). Managing ethically cultural diversity: Learning from Thomas Aquinas. Journal of Business Ethics, 116(4), 769-780.
Downey, S. N., Werff, L., Thomas, K. M., & Plaut, V. C. (2015). The role of diversity practices and inclusion in promoting trust and employee engagement. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 45(1), 35-44.
Ely, R., & Thomas, D. (2001). Cultural Diversity at Work: The Effects of Diversity Perspectives on Work Group Processes and Outcomes. Administrative Science Quarterly,
46(2), 229-273.
Green, K. A., López, M., Wysocki, A., & Kepner, K. (2002). Diversity in the workplace: Benefits, challenges, and the required managerial tools. University of Florida,
1(4).
Hau, Y. S., Kim, B., Lee, H., & Kim, Y. G. (2013). The effects of individual
motivations and social capital on employees’ tacit and explicit knowledge sharing intentions.
International Journal of Information Management, 33(2), 356-366.
Hinds, P. J., Patterson, M., & Pfeffer, J. (2001). Bothered by abstraction: The effect of expertise on knowledge transfer and subsequent novice performance. Journal of applied
psychology, 86(6), 1232.
Hirschorn, L. (1991). Managing the new team environment. Reading, MA.:
Addison-Wesley.
Hollenbeck, J. R., Ilgen, D. R., Sego, D. J., Hedlund, J., Major, D. A., & Phillips, J. (1995). Multilevel theory of team decision making: Decision performance in teams
incorporating distributed expertise. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80(2), 292.
Hobman, E. V., Bordia, P., & Gallois, C. (2004). Perceived dissimilarity and work group involvement: The moderating effects of group openness to diversity. Group &
33
Homan, A. C., Hollenbeck, J. R., Humphrey, S. E., Van Knippenberg, D., Ilgen, D. R., & Van Kleef, G. A. (2008). Facing differences with an open mind: Openness to experience, salience of intragroup differences, and performance of diverse work groups. Academy of
Management Journal, 51(6), 1204-1222.
Hooghe, M., Trappers, A., Meuleman, B., & Reeskens, T. (2008). Migration to
European countries: A structural explanation of patterns, 1980–2004. International Migration
Review, 42(2), 476-504.
Howard-Grenville, J. A., & Hoffman, A. J. (2003). The importance of cultural framing to the success of social initiatives in business. The Academy of Management Executive, 17(2), 70-84.
Huang, C.C. (2009). Knowledge sharing and group cohesiveness on performance: An empirical study of technology R&D teams in Taiwan. Technovation, 29(11), 786–797.
Hülsheger, U. R., Anderson, N., & Salgado, J. F. (2009). Team-level predictors of innovation at work: a comprehensive meta-analysis spanning three decades of research.
Jansen, W. S., Vos, M. W., Otten, S., Podsiadlowski, A., & van der Zee, K. I. (2016). Colorblind or colorful? How diversity approaches affect cultural majority and minority employees. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 46(2), 81-93.
Katzenbach, J.R. and Smith, D.K. (1993) The wisdom of teams: Creating the high-performance organisation. Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge, MA.
Kozlowski, S. W., & Bell, B. S. (2003). Work groups and teams in organizations. Handbook of psychology.
Lin, H. F. (2007). Effects of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation on employee knowledge sharing intentions. Journal of information science, 33(2), 135-149.
34
Michailova, S., & Hutchings, K. (2006). National cultural influences on knowledge sharing: A comparison of China and Russia. Journal of Management Studies, 43(3), 383-405.
Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of management review, 23(2), 242-266.
Oliveira, M., Curado, C. M., Maçada, A. C., & Nodari, F. (2015). Using alternative scales to measure knowledge sharing behavior: Are there any differences?. Computers in
Human Behavior, 44, 132-140.
Reinholt, M. I. A., Pedersen, T., & Foss, N. J. (2011). Why a central network position isn't enough: The role of motivation and ability for knowledge sharing in employee
networks. Academy of Management Journal, 54(6), 1277-1297.
Rich, B. L., Lepine, J. A., & Crawford, E. R. (2010). Job engagement: Antecedents and effects on job performance. Academy of management journal, 53(3), 617-635.
Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal
of managerial psychology, 21(7), 600-619.
Seijts, G. H., & Crim, D. (2006). What engages employees the most or, the ten C’s of employee engagement. Ivey Business Journal, 70(4), 1-5.
Seligman, M. E., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Special issue on happiness, excellence, and optimal human functioning. American Psychologist, 55(1), 5-183.
Shore, L. M., Chung-Herrera, B., Dean, M. A., Ehrhart, K. H., Jung, D. I., Singh, G., & Randel, A. E. (2009). Diversity of Organizations: Where are we now and where are we going? Human Resource Management Review, 19(2), 117-133.
Srivastava, A., Bartol, K. M., & Locke, E. A. (2006). Empowering leadership in management teams: Effects on knowledge sharing, efficacy, and performance. Academy of
35
Stairs, M., & Galpin, M. (2010). Positive engagement: From employee engagement to workplace happiness. In Oxford handbook of positive psychology and work.
Truss, K., Baron, A., Crawford, D., Debenham, T., Emmott, M., Harding, S., ... & Totterdill, P. (2014). Job design and employee engagement.
Uhl-Bien, M., & Graen, G. B. (1998). Individual self-management: Analysis of professionals' self-managing activities in functional and cross-functional work
teams. Academy of Management Journal, 41(3), 340-350.
Van Knippenberg, D., De Dreu, C. K., & Homan, A. C. (2004). Work group diversity and group performance: an integrative model and research agenda. Journal of applied
psychology, 89(6), 1008.
Van den Hooff, B., & Huysman, M. (2009). Managing knowledge sharing: Emergent and engineering approaches. Information & management, 46(1), 1-8.
Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications (Vol. 8). Cambridge university press.
Xue, Y., Bradley, J., & Liang, H. (2011). Team climate, empowering leadership, and knowledge sharing. Journal of knowledge management, 15(2), 299-312.
Zellmer-Bruhn, M. E., Maloney, M. M., Bhappu, A. D., & Salvador, R. B. (2008). When and how do differences matter? An exploration of perceived similarity in
teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 107(1), 41-59.
Zhou, J., & George, J. (2001). When Job Dissatisfaction Leads to Creativity:
36
Index of the appendix
Page number
Survey items 30-34
37
Survey and Questionnaire Items
Information on Study Form
Thank you for your interest in this Master's Thesis study conducted at the University of Amsterdam.
For this study, we ask you to complete an online survey that will take about 10 minutes of your time to complete. You are free to opt-out at any point during the survey. Any of your information that you provide will remain anonymous and there will be no recording of your name or any other identifiable information. If you have any questions now or later, feel free to contact Ivan Markovic via email at ivan.markovic@student.uva.nl
Please click the arrow below to begin. Consent Form
I hereby declare that I have been informed in a clear manner about the nature and method of the research, as described in the online invitation for this study.
I agree, fully and voluntarily, to participate in this research study. With this, I retain the right to withdraw my consent, without having to give a reason for doing so. I am aware that I may halt my participation in the experiment at any time.
If my research results are used in scientific publications or are made public in another way, this will be done in such a way that my anonymity is completely safeguarded. My personal data will not be passed on to third parties without my express permission.
If I wish to receive more information about the research, either now or in the future, I can contact ivan.markovic@student.uva.nl
Should I have any complaints about this research, I can contact the designated member of the Ethics Committee representing ASCoR, at the following address: ASCor Secretariat, Ethics Committee, University of Amsterdam, Postbus 15793, 1001 NG Amsterdam; 020 - 525 - 3680; ascor-secr.fmg@uva.nl
• I have read the above information and agree to participate in the survey. • I do not agree to participate in this survey.
Q1 Do you currently work for an organization or company with at least 30 employees?
• Yes • No
- If no, end survey.
Q2 Work-teams are made up of 2 or more employees that communicate regularly to achieve a common organizational objective. According to this criteria, are you part of a work-team at your organization?
• Yes • No
38 Q3 Below are statements on sharing information and skills in the workplace. Please indicate your level of agreement towards each statement below.
When I have learned something new, I make sure my colleagues learn about it too. Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Agree
When I need certain knowledge, I ask my colleagues for it. Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Agree
I ask my colleagues about their skills when I want to learn particular skills Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Agree
When a colleague is good at something, I ask them to teach me. Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Agree
I am regularly in contact with colleagues who have knowledge at their disposal that is relevant to me. Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Agree
When I tell someone what I know, I can count on them to tell me what they know. Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Agree
I share relevant information I acquired with my colleagues. Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Agree
Q4 Below are statements on levels of engagement and involvement towards one's job. Please indicate your level of agreement towards each statement below.
Sometimes I am so into my job that I lose track of time. Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Agree
My mind often wanders and I think of other things when doing my job. Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Agree
I am highly engaged in this job.
Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Agree
Being a member of my organization is very captivating for myself. Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Agree
39
I am excited to get involved in things happening in my organization/company. Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Agree
Q5 Below are some statements describing a team's ability to be creative and innovative. Please indicate your level of agreement towards each statement below.
My team comes up with new and practical ideas to improve performance. Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Agree
My team is a good source of creative ideas. Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Agree
My team exhibits creativity when given the opportunity to do so. Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Agree
My team often comes up with new and innovative ideas. Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Agree
My team has a fresh approach to problems. Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Agree
My team is not afraid of taking risks.
Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Agree
My team suggests new ways of performing work tasks. Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Agree
Q6 Below are some statements regarding the level of cultural diversity at a workplace. Please indicate your level of agreement towards each statement below.
Members of my team share similar ethnic backgrounds. Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Agree
Members of my team are from the same country. Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Agree
Members of my team come from common cultural backgrounds. Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Agree
40
Members of my team share a similar work ethic. Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Agree
Members of my team share similar work habits. Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Agree
Members of my team share similar communication styles. Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Agree
Members of my team have similar personalities. Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Agree
Q7 What is your gender?
• Male • Female
Q8 How old are you? _______
Q9 Which of the following industries most closely matches the one in which you are employed?
• Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing • Arts Entertainment, or Recreation • Business Services • Construction • Communications • Energy • Education or Science • Finance • Service
• Government and Public Administration • Health Care
• Information Services or Data Processing • Legal Services
• Trade and Commercial Services • Public Utilities
• Transport • Other _______
41 Q10 How many people are employed at your organization?
• 30 – 50 • 51-100 • 101 – 250 • 251 – 500 • 500+
Q11 How many hours a week do you work approximately?
• 1 – 10 • 11 – 20 • 21 – 30 • 31 – 40 • 40+
