THE ROLE OF MODERATING FACTORS IN THE LINK BETWEEN A TEAM’S COGNITIVE DIVERSITY AND CREATIVITY, AND BEWEEN
THE PROCESSES OF CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION
Master Thesis, MSc HRM University of Groningen
Faculty of Management and Organization
ADRIANNA SOKAL Student number: 1635107
Van Houtenlaan 27 9722 GR Groningen
Tel. +31646522468 A_sokal@wp.pl
First Supervisor Dr Onne Janssen
Second Supervisor Prof Eric Molleman
Acknowledgements:
I would first of all like to thank Dr. Onne Janssen, my thesis supervisor, for his guidance in developing the concept and content of my thesis, as well as for his guidance throughout in ensuring that the end result is of optimum standard.
ABSTRACT
This paper presents the theoretical model of impact of cognitive diversity of team members on creativity, and further, its influence on the innovation process. I argue additionally that there are different factors moderating the processes of creativity and innovation. They are introduced and compared on three distinct levels: individual, team and organizational levels. This paper attempts to give a broad overview of and comparison between those factors, and also to examine linear relations between cognitive diversity, creativity and innovation in teams.
INTRODUCTION
Companies are aiming to attract the best qualified employees to secure productivity and competitive advantage, which have become essential needs in market-driven economies.
Global competition emphasizes the need of introducing innovativeness through their human capital, which has become the most important asset of strongly innovative businesses.
It is commonly believed that a better qualified and more diverse workforce is the key to success. It is especially believed that cognitive diversity, defined as diversity of knowledge and skills, plays a key role in team performance (Hendriks 2004). Both scholars and practitioners believe that a team’s cognitive diversity can bring more knowledge and experience (Fay, Borril, Amir, Haward & West 2006). Companies believe that diverse teams are better at developing and introducing novel and useful ideas and, therefore, creativity. There is also a common understanding that development of ideas provides different challenges from those offered by their implementation. This distinction is illustrated in the understanding of the difference between the terms ‘creativity’ and
‘innovation’. While creativity is a cognitive process within an individual, and can only be further stimulated by the team, innovation is the process developed within a team, dependent upon the collective element. Compared to a vast amount of research on how creative ideas are developed, there is a relative lack of comprehensive analysis as to how ideas are implemented, and as regards the moderating factors for this process (West, Hirst, Richter & Shipton 2004).
Though diversity within teams is believed to have a positive effect on the teams’
creativity, creative performance is not a linear result of a team’s diversity. A variety of knowledge and skills have the potential value of generating ideas, but these have to be supported by other factors. Similarly, in order to implement newly generated ideas into practice during the innovation process, cognitive diversity is an asset to the team. It can encourage creativity; however, it is not enough, on its own, since certain other conditions also need to be secured in order for this process of implementing ideas to succeed.
Furthermore, if a team’s cognitive diversity is not supported by individuals’
characteristics, as well as team and organizational processes, it can result in outcomes offsetting creativity and innovation (e.g. West 2002). When comparing to the development of ideas, it seems that their implementation is more complex, and also much less research was devoted to identifying factors that affect the relationship between creativity and innovation (West et al. 2004, Kratzer, Leenders & Engelen 2006).
Therefore, the purpose of this work is to develop and conceptualize the model of a team’s cognitive diversity affecting both the development and implementation of creative ideas (See Figure 1). This paper will focus on key conditions on individual and team level, affecting development of creative ideas by a diverse team, and additionally being compared to potential conditions affecting the level of success of implementation of those ideas. It is argued that both an individual’s characteristics (individual level moderators), as well as team processes (team level moderators), can affect creativity and innovation.
Additionally, individual’s and team’s broader environment (organizational level
moderators) should deliver supporting for the above mentioned processes conditions, and additionally can influence the effectiveness of team and individual moderators, through securing adaptable to the needs environmental context. As generating and implementing ideas are highly separate processes, the key focus of this paper is the comparison of those moderating conditions securing the use of cognitive diversity within a team for encouraging creativity and innovation. Those moderators will be discussed on three levels: individual, team and organizational. Additionally, I will attempt to discuss whether it is possible to have both a creative and an innovative team.
Model 1. Conceptual model of relationships between team’s cognitive diversity, creativity and innovation processes
This paper attempts to provide and conceptualize the missing link in available literature, first of all in the form of the relationship between a team’s cognitive diversity and its creativity, and furthermore between creativity and innovation. The second value added of this paper is the discussion and comparison of the differential conditions determining the relationship between cognitive diversity and creativity, and between creativity and innovation. I will attempt to provide a comparison on organizational, team and individual levels. Finally, it is argued that individual and team level processes are not stable over time. This requires that the organization drafts its policies to stimulate both the individual and team levels, in order to maximize the utilization of the diverse characteristics and ideas of individuals within a team. Such an exercise must be able to both create novel ideas, as well as put them in practice.
The structure of this paper will be as follows. Firstly, I will introduce basic concepts of a team’s cognitive diversity, creativity and innovation; attempting to focus on two basic relationships: that between cognitive diversity and creativity, as well as between creativity and innovation. This will be followed by an introduction to possible moderators, differentiating between the relationships just mentioned. Moderators will be discussed on organizational, team and individual levels. Finally, this will be followed by a discussion section, where conclusions from this paper will be incorporated, limitations to the model will be outlined, and recommendations for future research made.
Cognitive diversity
(knowledge and skills) Creativity Innovation
Individual level Team level
Individual level Team level Organizational level Organizational level
M o d e ra to rs
COGNITIVE DIVERSITY, CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION
Cognitive diversity
Diversity refers to all kinds of differences between people, which could be seen from an almost infinite number of dimensions (Van Knippenberg, De Dreu & Homan 2004). In general, diversity is believed to result in better team performance, though depending on which of the dimensions one takes into consideration, and also factors affecting it e.g., group processes (e.g. Knight, Pearce, Smith, Olian, Sims, Smith & Flood 1999).
Cognitive diversity, which will be discussed in this research, is commonly defined in different terms. It can, for example, be portrayed as differences in beliefs and preferences Miller, Burke & Glick 1998). Cognitive diversity is also conceptualized as differences between individuals as regards knowledge and skills, as the opposite to affective diversity (Hendriks 2004), while Taylor and Greve (2006) associate cognitive diversity with a
“deep-level diversity”, referring to differences in education only as the opposite when it comes to surface characteristics such as demographics. Van der Vegt and Bunderson (2005), on the other hand, use the same operationalization for the term ‘expertise diversity’. Van Knippenberg et al. (2004) also differentiate between informational/functional diversity operationalized as differences in job attributes, such as functional and educational background resulting from social category diversity, and representing more visible categories of e. g. gender and age.
For the purpose of this work, a team’s cognitive diversity will be broadly operationalized as diversity of knowledge and skills.
Creativity versus innovation
Many scholars claim that authors do not distinguish creativity from the innovation process, or do not do this enough (e.g. Rank, Pace, Frese 2004). Creativity is defined as the generation of novel and useful ideas (West 2002, West et al. 2004), while innovation as the practical implementation of those ideas, or in a more elaborate manner -
“behavioral and social processes whereby individuals, groups or organizations seek to achieve desired changes or to avoid the penalties of inaction” (West & Rickards p.45).
Therefore, authors treat creativity as the first stage of the innovation process (West &
Rickards 1999; Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby & Herron 1996; West et al. 2004;
Oldham & Cummings 1996), and associate creativity with the thinking process, and innovation being conceptualized as underlining the behavioural factor - doing (Hendriks 2004). Therefore, it is argued that creativity cannot be far removed from practice. This even though creativity cannot exist separately from innovation as novel ideas are only creative if they are implementable. Creative ideas must be, therefore, appropriate (Sternberg & Lubart 1999), implementable (Thompson 2003), and effective (Cropley 1999). Basadur and Gelade (2006) describe the whole process of creativity and innovation as starting from the generation of ideas, and ending with their implementation.
The first two stages of Generating and Conceptualizing can be identified with the creativity process, and involve imagining possibilities, finding problems, abstract thinking and discovering insights. The following two stages are: Optimizing and Implementing, these involve evaluation and selection of best alternatives and
implementation of new ideas (See: Model 2), therefore, in the common understanding of authors they are identified with the innovation process.
Additionally, it is debated whether creative ideas are better developed individually or within the team. Authors put forward different points of view, claiming that a team can develop more creative ideas (e. g. Chen 2006), or instead present an exactly opposite point of view (Thompson 2003). Nevertheless, as to innovation, there are not so many arguments, as literature mainly focuses on the organizational level. Thompson (2003) asserts an even stronger position, claiming that it is impossible to achieve innovation through the individual. Additionally, teams excel at convergent thinking, and individuals at divergent thinking.
Therefore, the key to understanding the difference between these processes is the fact that creativity, in the team and organizational contexts, is an intra-individual process. Even in the case of teamwork, a team can only stimulate the cognitive processes happening at the individual level (West & Anderson 1996, Thamhain 2003). On the other hand, innovation is an opposite concept, a strictly inter-individual process where the team works together and the outcome is observable as an achievement of the collective (Paulus 2002).
The relationship between cognitive diversity and creativity
As indicated earlier, groups of people with diverse knowledge domains and skills are believed to be more creative, and also more likely to use analogies, and more willing to take risks. These will, therefore, be more able to develop new ideas (West 2002), while cognitive diversity increases the total sum of a team’s skills, information and perspectives. Additionally, teams where new members were introduced improved communication within, and also sought new information outside the group (West 2002), which also improves knowledge sharing and increases the overall pool of information in the team’s possession. While knowledge, knowledge-sharing and expertise are beneficial for the team’s creativity to occur (e.g. Paulus 1999) (See: Team Level Moderators), exchange of information among members can be in the form of knowledge, skills or new perspectives. Though knowledge and skills are essential for creativity, creative thinking goes beyond knowledge, implying that there are other conditions required in order to achieve creative output. This is best summarized by Bogenrieder (2004), who argues that
“effective groups should have individuals with a diversity of knowledge and skills, and be motivated for a full exchange of ideas. “
Weisberg (1999) argues that “in order for these building blocks to be available, the mortar holding all of the old ideas together must not be too strong” (Weisberg 1999), additionally he claims that knowledge is necessary, though if there is too much experience within a field it might be impossible to move outside of stereotypical answers.
Therefore, possibly too much of the team’s knowledge transferred to individuals can also inhibit a person’s creativity. An ‘inverted U’ relationship is thus proposed as the relationship between knowledge and creativity. Maximal creativity occurs with a middle range of knowledge.
Proposition 1. High level of team’s cognitive diversity supports development of creative ideas
Creativity as a prerequisite for innovation
While creativity results in creation of novel ideas, it is a prerequisite for innovation to take place, though it can be based on ideas adopted from previous experience or previous organizations (Rank et al. 2004). As such, the processes of creativity and innovation can be treated as linear in nature (Haner 2005), composed of sequential phases (See Model 2), which is consistent with the theory by Basadur and Gelade. According to Basadur and Gelade (2006) newly generated and conceptualized ideas (creativity) are prerequisites for the next stage of evaluation, that of selection (optimizing), in order to be brought to completion in the implementation stage. They point out the sequential aspect of these processes, with creativity being a forcing condition for the optimizing and implementation stages of innovation.
Figure 2. The Four-Stage Innovation Process (Adapted from Basadur, Gelade 2006)
Proposition 2. High level of creativity is a prerequisite for innovation in a team to occur Even though creativity is a prerequisite for innovation, these two processes vary instantly, and as stated earlier in this work authors emphasize they are different in nature. So the remaining question is what the factors affecting the same individuals in the team are, in order for these individuals to be creative, and to afterwards work together on innovation.
It seems clear that, even though the model (See Figure 2) does not touch on the different factors affecting creativity and innovation, this paper will attempt to elaborate on differences between moderators.
MODERATORS OF CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION
As discussed earlier, the processes of creativity and innovation vary widely in their nature, having to be supported by differential conditions affecting the diverse results that creativity and innovation introduce. Therefore, it is essential to distinguish between the two main groups of moderators that will be discussed in this section: (1) moderators affecting the relationship between a team’s cognitive diversity and creativity, and; (2) moderators affecting the relationship between creativity and innovation.
The moderators affecting creativity and implementation are mostly conceptualized on the individual and organizational level, and little research is devoted to factors on the team level (Chen 2006, West 1990). As was discussed earlier in this work, creativity is an intra-individual process, therefore, individual characteristics are essential for this process.
Generating Conceptualizing Optimizing Implementing
Creativity Innovation
In addition to personal factors, authors also focus on the role of situational and organizational factors (Shin and Zhou 2003; Oldham and Cummings 1996). Though this study focuses on team creativity and innovation, which furthermore raises the need to discuss the concept of team creativity, Taggar (2002) argues that team creativity is an aggregated concept of individual creativity and group creativity. He points out the fact that a team is composed of individuals, indicating individual and group factors equally affecting creativity. While specific behaviours within the team context affect individual creativity, on the other hand a group, in order to be creative, needs to be able to utilize individual resources. Group creativity is not the simple sum of an individual’s creativity, but the result of individual and team level factors’ interaction.. Similarly, Axtell, Holman, Unsworth, Wall & Waterson (2000) claim that also studies on team innovation should focus on predictors on the individual, team and organizational levels. Apart from this, it is also essential to underline the fact that teams are always embedded in an organizational context. Therefore, this study will focus on combining and comparing moderators on the individual, team and organizational levels.
As research lacks comparison and clear distinction between different conditions supporting the relationship between cognitive diversity and creativity, and the relationship between creativity and innovation, I will attempt to provide a broad comparison of differences within each of the levels. More importantly, as individual and team work is embedded in the organizational context, it is argued that organizational level factors can play a key role in securing the beneficial use of resources on the individual and team levels or on the other hand if not carefully adopted organizational policies can inhibit the use of resources.
Proposition 3. The conditions supporting the relationship between cognitive diversity and creativity, and between cognitive diversity and innovation in a team vary in nature
Proposition 4. Conditions moderating team cognitive diversity for the creativity process and conditions moderating the innovation process vary on three levels: individual, team and organizational
The following section of this paper will firstly examine three individual level moderators, namely, personality, thinking styles, and task motivation. Then four team level moderators will be discussed: knowledge sharing, team longevity, conflict, and leadership. Finally, two organizational level moderators are discussed, namely, autonomy vs. external demands, and performance appraisal system. All moderators will be discussed with reference to their influence on the relationship between team cognitive diversity and creativity, and to the relationship between creativity and innovation.
Figure 3. Elaborated conceptual model of relationships between team’s cognitive diversity, creativity and innovation processes
INDIVIDUAL LEVEL MODERATORS
While discussing creativity authors focus mainly on personality traits (e.g. Taggar 2002), while Amabile’s (1983) theory of individual creativity elaborates on an individual’s characteristics, focusing on domain-relevant skills, creativity-relevant skills and task motivation. Most authors (e.g. Cropley 1999) list three individual creativity basics:
personality, thinking style and task motivation. At the same time it is interesting to examine what role these play in the process of transforming creativity into innovation. In the case of studies on innovation, individual factors were rather poorly developed in literature, with only thinking styles relatively well elaborated. Therefore, this section will focus on (1) personality, (2) thinking styles, and (3) task motivation, and their role in transforming team cognitive diversity into creativity, and creativity into innovation.
Personality
Traits as moderators in the link between cognitive diversity and creativity
Scholars argue that there are characteristic personality traits needed to make sure that the diverse information a team possesses can be utilized by individual team members to enhance their creativity. Literature lists several personality traits that characterize creative people. It tends to focus on sensation (Georgsdottir 2004), openness to experience (Taggar 2002, McCrae 1987), active imagination, flexibility of thought , ambition , self- confidence , self efficacy (Shalley et al. 2004; Taggar, 2002; Axtell et al., 2000;
Sternberg, 2006), autonomy (Axtell et al. 2000), willingness to tolerate obstacles, taking sensible risks and tolerance for ambiguity (Sternberg 2006). It seems that all those traits refer to the need for openness to experience, which can be broadly understood as incorporating intellectual curiosity, aesthetic sensitivity, liberal values and emotional differentiation (McCrae 1987). At the same time it can be required that a creative person
Cognitive diversity
(knowledge and skills) Creativity Innovation
Individual level:
Personality Thinking style, and Task Motivation
Team level:
Knowledge sharing, Team longevity, Conflict, and
Organizational level:
Autonomy vs. External demands, Appraisal system
should be able to adopt and utilize the overall information that is the team’s main resource. Additionally, scholars are not consistent as to the level of extroversion needed for creative individuals. While Rank (2004) argues for introversion, Taggar (2002) stands for high extroversion predicting creativity. Therefore, I argue that in order for a team to make use of diverse information, there is a certain degree of extroversion needed. Feist (1999) possibly resolves this dispute about the level of extroversion as he claims that independence, hostility and arrogance are more of asocial traits. While they provide the individual with autonomy and independence from a possibly inhibiting environment, in the sense of openness to other people, creative individuals seem to be more introverted.
However, e.g. openness to experience and sensation-seeking points to extroversion towards the external environment, rather than internally towards the organization or other people. In this sense, creative individuals can be asocial personalities, though they have to remain open to the external information provided within the team, and make use of cognitive diversity in order to develop creative products.
Traits as moderators in the link between creativity and innovation
Due to differences in the nature of the process of innovation, since this requires inter- individual orientation, Feist (1999) claims that individuals performing well at the innovation process can be characterised as being exactly opposite to creative individuals – here one can speak of social traits. Social orientation aims to secure efficiency of team decision-making and later implementation (Feist 1999). West recommends more research, as the area of personality supporting innovation is unexplored so far, nevertheless, he claims that innovative team members tend to be self-disciplined and self- directed (West et al. 2004). They are as well characterised by individual flexibility (Axtell et al.), which also reflects the need for social orientation during the process of innovation (Rank et al. 2004). Similarly, good innovators should be high on the scale of extroversion (Rank et al. 2004). West et al. argue that extroverts stimulate discussion and high expectations (2004) and, therefore, can contribute to wise use of information and communication during decision-making (innovation), and convince other stakeholders at the stage of decision-making concerning ideas to be implemented. Therefore it seems that social traits are needed in order to transfer outcomes of creativity process into innovation.
Proposition 5. Moderate asocial personality is a moderator of the relationship between cognitive diversity and creativity, while moderate social personality traits moderate relationship between creativity and innovation
Convergent vs. Divergent Thinking
Divergent thinking as moderator in the link between cognitive diversity and creativity Scholars agree that in order for the creative product to occur divergent thinking is needed (e.g. Thompson 2003). Divergent thinking seeks to generate multiple appropriate and adequate alternative responses to a single stimulus (West, Rickards 1999), and is characterized by work with metaphors, encouraging wide ideas but also evaluating them (individually) (Buijs 2007). Therefore, it encourages one to go beyond the information the team possesses and create several responses to the problem. Haner (2005) claims that divergent activities are characterised by consensus on approach and are open to a content (creativity) that is new. Thus, a team’s cognitive diversity is the base, divergent activities aim at novelty and high quantity. Those are essential for a creative product to appear, as a
result of the high number of new ideas generated. He goes on to state that the processes depend on both individual and group efforts. Similarly, Basadur and Gelade (2006) distinguished that during the creativity part, while generative thinking is the aim, divergent thinking is involved, as team processes can inhibit individual creativity. In order to allow the group effective use of divergent thinking, there is the need of diversity of knowledge and skills, and their exchange (Paulus 1999) Scholars agree that people preferring the divergent style are stronger in generating ideas (Cropley 1999), as it encourages thinking outside the box (Thompson 2003). Thus, even though a team’s cognitive diversity is an essential asset for creativity it needs to be moderated by divergent thinking and, therefore, encourage moving beyond the possessed information, resulting in the novel outcomes of divergent thinking (creativity).
Convergent thinking as moderator in the link between creativity and innovation
On the other hand, convergent thinking seems to be the essence of the activities performed during the innovation process. The aim of convergent thinking is to narrow down the available responses with the goal of identifying or selecting the single best choice (West, Rickards 1999). Also, according to Basadur and Gelade (2006), the evaluation and implementation of ideas have the main role, and can be summarized in the form of a convergent style Therefore, this is useful at the decision-making stage, both while evaluating ideas, as well as when implementing them. Both these stages are essential stages of a team’s innovation process. As a result of creativity the team is in possession of pool of creative products which needs to be furthermore evaluated and subsequently narrowed down to the number that can be introduced in practice at a later stage (innovation). Furthermore, Haner (2005) claims that convergent activities characterise consensus on content, and are ambiguous in their approach. Thus, the innovation phase, in order to translate creative products into practice, needs the team’s convergent thinking. The team needs a certain level of agreement on the creative product content to be used in later stages. Furthermore, this agreement on content resulting from a convergent style is expected also at the implementation stage. Therefore narrowing down the options as well as consensus on the content reflect the activities that are essential during the evaluation and implementation phase, needed to transform creative product into practice.
Proposition 6. Divergent thinking style is a moderator of the relationship between cognitive diversity and creativity, while convergent thinking style moderates relationship between creativity and innovation
Task Motivation
Intrinsic motivation as moderator in the link between cognitive diversity and creativity Intrinsic motivation is widely accepted to be the essential characteristic of the creative individual (Amabile 1983, Oldham and Cummings 1996). Additionally people working in a team have to make use of diverse knowledge they have in order to transfer it into creativity. Individuals intrinsically motivated carry out activities for their own sake, and hardly ever do people invest their time in creative work unless they are really focused on work and not on rewards (Sternberg 2006). Intrinsically motivated people tend to be more creative and, therefore, have a personal interest in taking advantage of cognitive diversity While extrinsic incentives in the form of personal recognition by peers and colleagues,
praise, promotion etc. are believed to inhibit creativity (Cropley 1999), they can have a limited effect on an individual’s willingness to provide other team members with their knowledge. Additionally, Beersma and De Dreu (2005) claim that creativity demands proself motivation of team members.
Extrinsic motivation as moderator in the link between creativity and innovation
West (2004) claims that also intrinsic motivation is essential for a team’s innovation, a team should have a certain level of freedom of choice of means in achieving the aims, and at the same time the task should be motivating. On the other hand, extrinsic motivators imposed by external demands and an appraisal system support the team’s innovation. Innovation requires team work, apart from financial incentives that affect extrinsic motivation, as well as appreciation from colleagues, supervisors. and rewards for cooperation that supports decision-making. While it is clear that the task should be a motivator for achieving creativity and innovation, additionally, Beersma and De Dreu (2006) state that innovation requires prosocial motivation. Prosocial motivation of team members is consistent and stands in line with social personality traits needed to support innovation in a team, this being examined in the section before. Thus, possibly extrinsic motivation supporting the innovation process refers in the same degree to monetary as well as non-monetary (social) incentives.
Proposition 7. Intrinsic motivation is a moderator of the relationship between cognitive diversity and creativity, while both extrinsic and intrinsic motivation moderate relationship between creativity and innovation
Figure 4. Individual level moderators of the relationships between a team’s cognitive diversity and creativity, and between creativity and innovation
Self orientation vs. social orientation
Perhaps the most accurate description of the creative individual is given by Georgsdottir and Getz (2004), as they believe that creative people should be characterised by flexibility and, therefore, ability to adapt dissimilar traits and function adequately.
Possibly flexibility could be extended as a trait needed also for a person to be innovative,
Cognitive diversity
(knowledge and skills) Creativity Innovation
Intrinsic motivation Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation Prosocial personality Proself personality
Divergent thinking Convergent thinking
Individual level moderators
as these two roles seem to demand a wide range of characteristics, including depending on the stage of a process. As a cognitively diverse team has to operate both in order to be creative and later on to be innovative, it is essential that it firstly acts in a way such as to share and make use of the team’s information resources on the individual level to achieve creativity. Later, teamwork will act in order to activate more social attitudes, which demand some level of flexibility.
TEAM LEVEL MODERATORS
It is a team that drives innovation, also having to gain external support to the team for its activities (Buijs 2007). Presence of a multidisciplinary team is positively related to innovation if team processes are good (Fay 2006), therefore, there are conditions needed to make use of information possessed by the team. As there are quite many team-level factors that potentially affect creativity and innovation, it is not the aim of this paper to examine them all, but to indicate the differences at all three levels of moderators deriving from the nature of the relationship between cognitive diversity and innovation, and between creativity and innovation. To provide this comparison, I will compare four possible moderators on the team level. Firstly, knowledge sharing - possibly among other moderators, knowledge sharing and transfer, diversity of knowledge and skills will contribute to a team’s creativity and innovation, dependent upon the sophistication of group processes (West 2002). Additionally, there is also the aspect team longevity - which seems to be a neglected subject and worth exploring in studies on creativity and innovation. As Puccio (1999) examines, team ageing can play a role in team creativity, and the temporal perspective on team studies is often undermined (Katz 1982). Next, conflict is also another factor playing an ambiguous role and possibly having a contradictory effect on creativity and innovation. Finally, leadership is recognized as one of the key factors affecting team work (Paulus 1999), and literature states a desire for different approaches depending on support for creativity and for innovation in the team. . Knowledge-sharing
Knowledge sharing as moderator in the link between cognitive diversity and creativity In order to make use of diverse information individuals have, there is certainly a need for the knowledge-sharing process as it was already described before. This should result in more individual knowledge and, therefore, increase individual creativity. At the same time comes a contradiction, as diverse teams are supposed to secure lack of conformism, which can be inhibiting for creativity as well as for innovation, especially in the evaluation phase (Thompson 2003). Therefore, extensive information-sharing results in increased homogeneity, while the best performance in the innovation phase is due to team members’ role differentiation (Katz 1982). Information-sharing can thus be moderated by the team leader, techniques used for developing ideas e.g. brainstorming, brainwriting (Thompson 2003), and team longevity, as the amount of information shared decreases with time. Therefore it is essential to realize that only certain level of knowledge-sharing, not leading to teams homogenity has positive moderating effect on creativity.
Knowledge sharing as moderator in the link between creativity and innovation
As was argued before, diverse knowledge is also useful for the innovation phase, so the key question is that of how to assure that a process of information-sharing occurs. Moye
and Langfred (2004) analyze this from two perspectives, the first being that information- sharing improves the decision-making process, the second that it secures better team processes, and also decreases the possibility of conflict. In the case of the latter this increases positive resolution (For the role of conflict, see next section). Groups with the ability to consider more information from diverse sources are considered as being able to take better decisions than individuals (Gigone, Hastie 1993). At the same time comes a contradiction, as diverse teams are supposed to secure lack of conformism, which can be inhibiting for creativity as well as innovation, especially in the evaluation phase (Thompson 2003). Therefore, extensive information-sharing results in increased homogenity, while the best performance in the innovation phase is due to team members’
role differentiation (Katz 1982).
Proposition 8. Moderate knowledge sharing is a moderator of the relationship between cognitive diversity and creativity, and between creativity and innovation
Team longevity
Team longevity as moderator in the link between cognitive diversity and creativity Managing diversity is one of the major challenges in organizations, but in the case of cognitive diversity within a team it does not have the same effect over time, and it is often neglected in research. A team’s longevity refers to the time a team has existed (Schippers, Den Hartog, Koopman & Wienk 2003). One of the recognized problems with studies about teams is the lack of temporal perspective. It is a crucial characteristic of teamwork that this changes with time (Katz 1982), and team outcomes appear at different points of team existence. Cognitive diversity is not stable over time and this diminishes through repetitive knowledge-sharing. This provides the author with the hypothesis that a team’s cognitive diversity has its maximum effect on creativity only at some stage of the team’s existence. There is potentially an advantage of relatively short-lived groups for creativity. As early in the group, process groups are more heterogenic, which supports creativity, with time they become homogenic, which results in diminishing team creativity (King & Anderson 1999). Homogenous teams tend to limit the search for information externally and, therefore, do not allow for an increased overall pool of knowledge and skills (Katz 1982). In order to offset the homogeneity of the team for the purpose of creativity, individuals can be rotated between teams, as with time knowledge transfer is not as productive as at the beginning, and information possessed by team members’ becomes more homogenic (Lazear 1999, Thompson 2003). Additionally, membership change keeps diversity at a certain level, which also offsets social loafing and free raiding. (Thompson 2003). Thus, a team’s cognitive diversity seems to be the team’s advantage for the team’s creativity only at a certain, relatively early point of team longevity.
Team longevity as moderator in the link between creativity and innovation
As already stated, with time teams become more cohesive, leading to greater homogenity, while only a moderate level of cohesiveness is needed to support innovation, providing a team with e.g. a feeling of safety (King, Anderson 1999). While it seems to be commonly agreed that teams start producing outcomes only at later stages of their development, it is
argued that this is not always the case, as it clearly depends on the kind of outcome desired (e.g. creativity)
With time teams seek to achieve behavioural stability (Katz 1982) and develop stable work patterns, which can support decision-making processes and implementation. With time individuals also learn to select communication methods thanks to which they are able to avoid conflicts, and obtain better role differentiation results. This is good for innovation (teamwork), but this time also cannot exceed certain limits and, on the other hand, without changes in membership teams become less productive (West, Rickards 1999). At later stages of development, when norms and practices are developed and tasks are more focused on implementation and information-sharing, not that many conflicts arise (Moye, Langfred 2004). Finally, with time, as teams become relatively more homogenic, this seems to produce an advantage for the innovation process (King, Anderson 1999).
Proposition 9. Early stage of team longevity is a moderator of the relationship between cognitive diversity and creativity, while team at later stages of longevity is a moderator of the relationship between creativity and innovation
Conflict
Conflict as moderator in the link between cognitive diversity and creativity
A role of conflict in the creativity process takes an important place in the literature. A task conflict is defined as a perception of disagreement about decisions or a difference in viewpoints, ideas and opinions, while a relationship conflict is a perception of personal incompatibility and includes interpersonal tension or annoyance (Jehn 1995) and, as was stated before, information-sharing should diminish this effect. While personal conflict can result in lack of communication and knowledge-sharing, a team’s advantage obtained from cognitive diversity can be offset by the conflict. On the other hand, information sharing (deriving from team’s cognitive diversity) can also lead to task conflict, though it happens rather during the early stages of a team’s longevity (Moye & Langfred 2004). In contrast to this, information-sharing should, in principle, result in lack of conflict or its positive resolution and, therefore, contribute to positive performance. Therefore, it seems that there can result a potential negative spill-over between the use of cognitive diversity and conflict. Kurtzberg and Mueller (2005) argue that task conflict has a positive effect on creativity, and on the other hand process and relationship conflict is always negative.
It is argued in this work, though, that in case of a team in the creativity process, conflict can have an inhibiting effect on the generation of ideas, as it affects autonomy (West et al. 2004), bringing in an evaluationary factor, and also possibly inhibiting use of overall information in possession of a team. Osborn (e.g. Dugosh el al. 2000) argued that for brainstorming (which was supposed to stimulate free exchange of information and ideas - cognitive diversity), lack of criticism, freewheeling, encouragement for quantity and improvement of ideas already developed are needed. Additionally, tolerance for disagreement and lack of premature judgment were other ways to avoid all kinds of conflict within a team, this being essential not to inhibit use of diverse information (cognitive diversity) at the creativity stage (Paulus 1999, Taylor and Greve 2006).
Conflict as moderator in the link between creativity and innovation
It is argued that though task conflict includes evaluative factors, this can be inhibiting for creativity, on the other hand task disagreement can have positive moderating effect at the innovation stage. Discussion and task conflict can provide better elaboration in the discussion and, therefore, can stimulate the need to make use of cognitive diversity at the evaluation stage. Disagreement as part of communication can support performance of innovative teams (Moye & Langfred 2004), though relationship conflict is believed to have a negative effect on team survival and outcomes (Jehn 1995)
Additionally, the key to successful conflict use is the full exchange of information which can play down differences and emphasize common interests (Varela, Fernandez, Del Rio
& Bande 2005 p.361). Thus, the positively resolved task conflict can have a supporting effect on innovation in the team.
Proposition 10. Conflict avoidance is a moderator of the relationship between cognitive diversity and creativity, while positive conflict resolution positively moderates the relationship between creativity and innovation
Leadership
Leadership as moderator in the link between cognitive diversity and creativity
Though certain team processes can suppress the creative process (e.g. Chen 2006), it is for instance recognized that supervisory management can affect positive conflict resolution and, therefore, result in increased creativity and moderate the relationship cognitive diversity-creativity. Even though scholars agree on the importance of leadership in a team, literature lacks clear recommendations as to leadership style supporting the relationship between cognitive diversity and creativity. In general there is agreement that teams should have some level of autonomy or be self-directed (e.g. Paulus 1999), though that does not secure use of cognitive diversity, and it is the leader’s role to make sure that information-sharing takes place. Similarly, but with relatively less focus on autonomy, Shin and Zhou (2003) claim that a leader should influence followers by broadening and elevating followers’ goals and providing them with confidence to perform. Shalley, Zhou & Oldham (2004) recommend a supportive leadership style with developmental evaluation and lack of criticism, while saying that a highly directive or authoritarian leadership style inhibits creativity and intrinsic motivation. He also states that it can also decrease the level of information-sharing in the team, or possibly undermine the information’s value. In general, authors recommend a leader’s role in guiding team processes, and leaving autonomy to the team to cope with the task.
Additionally, leaving autonomy to the team supports intrinsic motivation (e.g. Paulus 1999, Shalley et al. 2004). Nevertheless, making use of cognitive diversity needs to be secured, and that demands a certain level of flexibility between allowing autonomy and directing the information exchange process.
Leadership as moderator in the link between creativity and innovation
As was mentioned, literature does not provide high differentiation between leadership styles, supporting creativity and supporting innovation. West et al. (2004) point out the importance of clarity of leadership, and the role of a leader in managing conflict effectively (West 2002). Therefore, similarly a leader plays a role in guiding the team
through team processes. Puccio additionally elaborates on facilitating skills of a leader who listens, ask questions, coaches, teaches, builds consensus, shares goal-setting, shares in decision-making and empowers (Puccio 1999), which is needed to transform the creative product into practice. Finally, participative leadership is believed to be valuable for all heterogeneous teams in translating heterogenity into advantage (Somech 2006).
Therefore, authors agree that for both creativity and innovation, teams should enjoy a supportive/participative leadership style, especially if they support intrinsic motivation required for both processes. Nevertheless, the process transferring creativity into innovation requires more judgemental evaluation (Shalley et al. 2004), especially during decision-making and in choosing the best alternative. Consequently, it seems that the leader’s role is similarly complex during the innovation process, and also demands a certain level of flexibility in applying the moderated level of directive leadership style (Somech 2006).
Proposition 11. Supportive/participative leadership style is a moderator of the relationship between cognitive diversity and creativity, while combined supportive and directive leadership style moderates the relationship between creativity and innovation
Figure 5 Team level moderators of the relationship between a team’s cognitive diversity and creativity and between creativity and innovation
ORGANIZATIONAL LEVEL MODERATORS
Throughout this paper it is argued that the factors forming all three levels vary as to the way they affect a team’s cognitive diversity to generate creative ideas, as opposed to those stimulating the team to implement them. Finally, I argue that it is the organizational level that activates and can influence team and individual level factors. It is the environment in the form of the organization that plays the biggest role in the processes of creativity and innovation (Puccio 1999).
While organizations potentially have many tools to affect their workforce, literature lacks specific focus on organizational policies that would support creativity and innovation. To
Cognitive diversity
(knowledge and skills) Creativity Innovation
Conflict avoidance Positive conflict resolution Knowledge sharing Knowledge sharing
Early stages of team longevity
Further stages f team longevity Team level moderators
Supportive/participative Leadership style
Combined Supportive and Directive leadership style
the best of my knowledge, only West focuses on organizational factors, talking about external demands as opposed to autonomy, though he gives a very broad overview with no specific recommendations. Subsequently he also mentions the role of incentives for team performance, in opposition to their role in creativity and innovation. In this part, therefore, it is argued that organizational factors should vary depending on whether a team is focused on creativity or on innovation. The aim of this part is to show that organizations need to involve independent mechanisms for creativity and innovation, therefore, this part will only give an overview of external demands and the relevant appraisal system. Additionally, it will attempt to indicate the way in which the organizational level can influence individual and team level moderators.
Autonomy vs. External demands
Autonomy and encouragement to the exchange of knowledge and skills as moderator in the link between cognitive diversity and creativity, and its influence on team and individual level moderators
West (2002, et al. 2004) argues that creativity requires an undemanding environment while implementation, on the other hand, claims that there is not a simple linear but an
‘inverted U’ relationship between organizational demands and innovation. Similarly, Amabile et al. (1996) state that, in order for the team to be creative, it should have relatively high autonomy, and only some degree of pressures, which are not coming from the organization, but from the challenge of a task itself. However, most probably some degree of demands should be focused on securing exchange of knowledge and skills within a team. Rank et al. (2004) suggest that moderate-level external demands are a predictor of creativity, which could be a case for the use of cognitive diversity. On the other hand, apart from securing the use of cognitive diversity, it is argued that creative ideas are developed in a safe environment, free from pressure and criticism. Also absence of hierarchy and bureaucracy in organizational design supports autonomy and, therefore, creativity (Thompson 2003). As was mentioned before (See: conflict), environmental and organizational autonomy should be characterised by the lack of criticism, and by encouragement for exchange of information and ideas. In West’s approach to external demands it can be seen that it both affects organizational role as well as leadership style (team level moderator), therefore, increased autonomy can be associated with empowering leadership (team level moderator) (Srivatstava, Bartol, & Locke 2006), or even with self-managing teams (Stoker, Looise, Fisscher & de Jong 2001; Paulus 1999).
Additionally, autonomy can be reflected in supervision, while supportive supervision increases creativity, controlling supervision inhibits it (Oldham, Cummings 1996) and developmental feedback increases creativity (Zhou 2003) as opposed to criticism.
Therefore, organizations need to find a way in which to encourage team members to exchange knowledge and transfer it into creativity and at the same time not to inhibit their autonomy, if organizations do not succeed in that the opposite effect can be achieved in form of hostile environment.
External demands as moderators in the link between creativity and innovation, and their influence on team and individual level moderators
As to the opposite continuum of autonomy and low pressures, West (2004, 2002) suggests that high external demands are the moderator for innovation. Pressures and a certain degree of criticism are inevitable in the implementation phase, where critical judgment is crucial (Paulus 2002). Additionally, external demands put pressure on the outcome, while during the creativity phase performance was mostly valued, except for the information sharing outcome of this. During innovation, supervisors monitor the process (Zhou 2003), and as was mentioned earlier, the innovation phase involves also the need for other stakeholders’ agreement on the product of innovation. Therefore, there is a greater level of external demands expected during innovation, but also in line with greater leadership support, and participation from the management (Axtell et al. 2000).
Proposition 12. Moderate level of organizational autonomy positively moderates the relationship between cognitive diversity and creativity, while high level of external demands positively moderate relationship between creativity and innovation
Appraisal system
Appraisal system as moderator in the link between cognitive diversity and creativity, and its influence on team and individual level moderators
It is important to stimulate and reward curiosity and exploration, encouraging confidence to take risks (Nickerson 1990), but to the author’s knowledge no author recommends neither any appraisal system for creativity, nor securing the use of a team’s knowledge and skills. Lazear (1999), in the general in case of teamwork, suggests rewarding them as a whole. Literature on creativity lacks reference to a recommended appraisal system, focusing on the need for intrinsic motivation, also in case of innovation. West et al (2004) suggest that rewards both for creativity and innovation should be designed carefully, not to inhibit intrinsic motivation. West (2004) wants to reward attempts for innovation and not only results. These kind of environments should support divergent thinking and also encourage more generation of ideas. Additionally, supervisory style can moderate a creative personality (Zhou 2003), and a certain degree of flexibility is needed for creativity.
Possibly to achieve use of diversity of knowledge and creativity, rewards should be focused on performance. As Van Yperen (2003) claims, there are possible positive outcomes, especially in the organizations where failures are not punished, and a high level of performance encouraged. Similarly, in case of creativity, autonomy provides support for quantity and making mistakes is acceptable. Therefore, possibly, information exchange and creativity should be rewarded by performance-based pay, while, of course, performance-based pay should still be normatively evaluated. Therefore, it could be one way of securing a high level of intrinsic motivation for creativity. As was indicated, teams should be autonomous or self-directed (Paulus 1999), which increases intrinsic motivation, and that is crucial for creativity (Oldham, Cummings 1996). Therefore, an organization can affect and moderate individual characteristics in order that they make use of a wide range of information for the generation of ideas. Additionally, autonomy and lack of pressure from the organization similarly has the effect of lower levels of personal pressures. But at the same time there is a need for moderate supervision to
assure exchange of information, while demands can possibly encourage convergent thinking at individual level.
Appraisal system as moderator in the link between creativity and innovation, and its influence on team and individual level moderators
As indicated, West (2004) wants to reward attempts for innovation and not only results.
These kind of environments should support convergent thinking and also encourage more generation of ideas, while goal orientation is the characteristic of innovation, with a low level of tolerance for mistakes and higher level of criticism. While Van Yperen (2003) links innovation with more job-based pay, at the same time innovation seems to be driven more externally through the appraisal system. Therefore, more job-based pay would provide additional external motivation for the innovation phase.
As to the appraisal system, rewards for performance will most probably moderate intrinsic motivation and divergent thinking, while inhibiting conflict. Finally, job-based pay for a team should affect teams’ effectiveness in decision-making and teamwork (Lazear 1998). Therefore, the organization has many potential mechanisms moderating the processes of creativity and innovation, as well as their moderators, and as Buijs (2007) claims, the leader during the whole process of innovation and creativity needs to behave in conflicting roles and take different attitudes at the same time. Also at the same time, the same challenges present themselves for the organization, which has to provide autonomy, support and some external pressures depending on needs. This requires a lot of flexibility and provides a challenge to implement at organizational level. One needs to be careful not to suppress intrinsic motivation (West et al. 2004).
Proposition 13. Appraisal system focused on performance positively moderates the relationship between cognitive diversity and creativity, while appraisal system focused on the outcomes positively moderates relationship between creativity and innovation.
Figure 6. Organizational level moderators of the relationship between a team’s cognitive diversity and between creativity and innovation, and effect of organizational level
moderators on team and individual level moderators DISCUSSION
Summary and discussion
The focus of this paper has been on the team’s cognitive diversity affecting the development and furthermore the implementation of creative ideas. As a result it was introduced that high level of cognitive diversity in the team supports development of creative ideas, and at the same time high level of creativity is prerequisite for an innovation in a team (Proposition 1 & 2). Subsequently, moderators securing those processes vary widely, this derives from the differences in between the nature of creativity and innovation itself. To illustrate the difference between the processes, these different moderators can be summarized as existing on the individual, team and organizational levels (Proposition 3 & 4). The selected moderators within these levels were next compared with reference to the relationship between cognitive diversity and creativity, and that between creativity and innovation. This resulted in the conclusion that those conditions must vary depending on which relationship they will support.
(Proposition 5-13). Those differences in between moderators, were nextly examined, starting with the individual level moderating factors.
Within individual level moderators, I have discussed the role of personality traits, thinking style and task motivation. As for the relationship between team’s cognitive diversity and its creativity it seems that rather asocial personality traits, divergent thinking and intrinsic motivation. On the other hand social personality traits, convergent
Cognitive diversity
(knowledge and skills) Creativity Innovation
Appraisal system focused on performance
Appraisal system focused on the outcomes External demands Moderate autonomy
Organizational level moderators
Team level moderators
Individual level moderators Individual level moderators Team level moderators
thinking and combined extrinsic and intrinsic motivation seem to moderate the relationship between creativity and innovation in the team (Propositions 5, 6 & 7).
Subsequently, discussing team level moderators. were being discussed: knowledge sharing, team longevity, conflict and leadership. At that point I came to the conclusion that only moderate level of knowledge sharing is positive for both securing creativity and innovation within cognitively diverse teams. Therefore it remains a challenge to monitor the process of knowledge sharing as against to the process of the team becoming homogenic, which can offset team’s performance (Proposition 8). Additionally I argue that team transforms cognitive diversity into creativity easier during the early stages of team’s longevity, while in order for the team to move from creativity to innovation it is more efficient if occurs during later stages of team’s longevity (Proposition 9).
Subsequently, as to the team’s conflict role, I believe that in for the creativity of the team, conflict at any form should be avoided, while for the innovation process team should focus on positive resolution of the task conflicts, which will lead to extensive evaluation and better cooperation within the team (Proposition 10). Finally, I argue that supportive and participative leadership support the creative process in the team, while combination of supportive and directive style is needed for the innovation stage (Proposition 11).
As to the organizational level moderators I argue that it is autonomy that supports creativity in the team, while external demands play a supporting role in case of innovation process (Proposition 12). Finally, I have discussed the organizational level moderators, concluding that in order to support the creativity in teams organizations should rather focus on appraisal system focused on performance as the opposite to appraisal system focused on outcomes that should positively moderate the relationship between creativity and innovation (Proposition 13)
As indicated earlier in this work, the key moderators are individual and team level ones, while individual level for creativity, and team level for innovation, nevertheless they are embedded in wider organizational context that can play key role in supporting the processes of creativity and innovation as well as other individual and team level moderators.(“top-down” approach). At the same time that is possible that pressures from the individuals and team’s can lead to the change in organizational practices needed to support the above discussed processes (bottom-up).
Limitations to the model
The first and most obvious limitation to this study is the lack of direct research, and the fact that the model of relationships between cognitive diversity, creativity and innovation was elaborated based on a variety of external studies. It is felt that the causation of the phases needs further studies. Second, a potential limitation to the model is lack of focus on the nature of a task itself. It is possible that, depending on complexity, the stages of implementation of a creative product vary e.g. in case of simple tasks the processes of creativity and innovation are less distinguishable; while it can be exactly the opposite in case of complex tasks, resulting in a long duration of every phase. Possibly it would have been valuable to conduct research in this area.
Third, the model does not discuss interrelations between the level of moderators and moderators within the levels themselves. While only superiority of the organizational level was indicated, surely there is interrelation between individual and team level moderators. Within team level moderators it is definitely hard to separate certain processes e.g. team longevity affects the level of knowledge transfer and conflict.
Therefore, the model introduced in this study will need further elaboration depending on the focus of study.
Fourth, this study examines only selected moderators within each of the levels, in order to illustrate the general complexity of the processes occurring and, therefore, the list of moderators cannot be treated as closed. There is certainly the need for future elaboration on each of the levels of moderators.
Finally, the relationship between organizational level moderators and other moderators, as well as between organizational level moderators and processes of creativity and innovation was introduced as clearly top-down relationship. This approach does not exclude the influence that can come from the bottom of the organizational structure (individuals and teams), resulting in changes on the organizational level.
Theoretical implications
There are practical and theoretical implications of the results. Theoretically, the key implication is that the relationship between a team’s cognitive diversity and creativity, and the relationship between a team’s creativity and innovation are pointed out. Previous studies did not pay sufficient attention to differentiating between creativity and innovation processes (e.g. West 2002, 2004), which was in principle the starting point for this model. Subsequently, it seems essential to notice the fact that in order to achieve a final result, practical implementation in the innovation process depends on the outcomes of transferring cognitive diversity into creativity. Therefore, I argue that there is a causal relationship between cognitive diversity, creativity and innovation.
Additionally, this paper, basing on the distinction between the concepts of ‘creativity’
and ‘innovation’, consistently with the study of Rank et al. (2004), recognizes different moderators needed for creativity and innovation. The current study discusses this in the context of a team’s cognitive diversity. Therefore, the factors affecting the two discussed relationships vary in nature, resulting from differences as such between creativity and innovation. Furthermore, as discussed, differences in moderators can be recognized on individual, team and organizational levels, therefore, there is more research needed on the moderating factors within each level. That especially refers to the organizational level moderators and its interrelations with other factors.
Finally, as the paper focuses on the nature of a team’s creativity and innovation, it goes beyond the previous studies on individual creativity (especially Amabile), where the team factor was not elaborated as a moderator of the process. Additionally, innovation was mainly discussed on the team and organizational levels. In this paper it was attempted to go one step further and examine the process of idea generation in the cognitively diverse team and organizational contexts, while the moderators of innovation were also discussed on the individual level of a team.
Practical implications
With regard to practice, the paper examines the role that organizations play in supporting the use of a team’s cognitive diversity for generating ideas (creativity), and afterwards transferring those ideas into practice (innovation). It is essential that organizations recognize these distinctive processes, as it secures achieving outcomes at the end of creativity process, and subsequently innovation. In conclusion, the processes of creativity and innovation are highly complex and dependent on a wide range of factors. It becomes clear how challenging it is to support these two different processes, which require
