1
TEAM MEMBERSHIP CHANGE, CONFLICT, AND CREATIVITY: HRM PRACTICES
AS A MODERATOR
Master thesis, Msc HRM
University of Groningen, Faculty Economics and Business
February 25, 2020
EMIEL VELDMAN Student number: 2872811 Nieuwe Kijk in het Jatstraat 3-12
9712SB Groningen
e-mail: e.j.veldman.2@student.rug.nl
2
TEAM MEMBERSHIP CHANGE, CONFLICT, AND CREATIVITY: HRM PRACTICES
AS A MODERATOR
ABSTRACT
This thesis expands on the literature on team creativity and innovation by examining the relationship between team membership change, conflict, and human resource management (HRM). Previous research suggests a complex relationship between newcomers and innovation. On the one hand, newcomers can cause undesired interpersonal conflict that puts a strain on team resources,
cooperation, cohesion, and therefore creative performance. On the other hand, newcomers can bring new knowledge and perspectives to the team, potentially increasing performance. HRM practices can be used to manage the conflict arising from membership change, although different types of conflict affect the team in different ways, and should be managed accordingly. Thus, particular attention was paid to the distinction between social and task conflict and knowledge and collaborative HRM. Although significant effects were found on the moderating relationship of membership change and conflict, only in the case of task conflict was the path found to continue to creativity. Thus,
explorative research is also presented which shows a stronger significance when substituting social conflict for cohesion, suggesting a change of scope for future research.
3
INTRODUCTION
Teamwork is important, as it bridges the gap between the individual and the organisation. As technology has become more advanced and job tasks more complex, teamwork has seen a large increase, to the point where teamwork is now widely used in organisations (Weiss & Hoegl, 2015) Teams are used to allow goals beyond the scope of a single individual to be achieved, this is especially true for innovative tasks and through the introduction of virtual teams (Dineen & Noe, 2003; Weiss & Hoegl, 2015). By developing new ideas, products, and technologies, creativity and innovation move society forward and contribute to organisational success in modern, dynamic environments (Vanhala & Ritala, 2016; Zhou & Hoever, 2014).
Creativity can be defined multiple ways. Criteria for creative ideas are novelty and usefulness. Innovation is the implementation of these ideas (Amabile, 1983; Nijstad, 2013). Idea quality can further be described as a combination of originality (relative infrequency) and feasibility. Individual creativity makes up a large part of group level creativity outcomes (Nijstad, 2013).
However, team effectiveness in creative tasks is not self-evident. Creativity can be reduced due to conflict, to the point of being detrimental to performance (Jehn, Northcraft & Neale, 1999). While it can also lead to increased performance and creativity (Farh, Lee & Farh, 2010; Jehn & Mannix, 2001). There is an important distinction here between different types of conflict, namely social and task conflict (Jehn & Mannix, 2001). These are defined as “an awareness of interpersonal incompatibilities, includes affective components such as feeling tension and friction.” and “an awareness of differences in viewpoints and opinions pertaining to a group task.” (Jehn & Mannix, 2001: 238).
4 (Dineen & Noe, 2003) is generally defined as (the measure of) new members entering and existing members leaving the team (Choi & Thompson, 2005; Dineen & Noe, 2003).
The introduction of newcomers can contribute to social conflict when they are viewed as outgroup members, thus having trouble integrating into the team and being taken less seriously by existing group members. Newcomers can contribute to task conflict by bringing their new and often unique expertise and perspective into the team, creating a mix of positive and negative conflict (Jehn et al., 1999; Rink, Kane, Ellemers & van der Vegt, 2013; Ziller, Nemeth & Ormiston, 2007).
In order to manage this conflict, HRM practices such as Knowledge-based and Collaborative HRM can be utilised. Knowledge-based HRM is defined as “those HRM practices purposefully designed to enhance knowledge processes within an organization.” and can encompass aspects of selection, training, development, appraisal, and compensation (Kianto, Sáenz & Aramburu, 2017: 12; Lopez-Cabrales, Pérez-Luño & Cabrera, 2009). Collaborative HRM is defined as HR practices designed to increase sharing of information, teamwork and developing connectedness of employees (Lepak & Snell, 2002; Lopez-Cabrales et al., 2009). Collaborative HRM is mostly manifested through selection, training, evaluation, compensation, appraisal, and teambuilding activities being focused around teams, such as compensation being team-based (Lopez-Cabrales et al., 2009).
The complex relationship between membership change, conflict, and creativity could be the reason previous literature has found contradictory evidence on the relationship between conflict and creativity (Choi & Thompson, 2005; De Dreu, 2006; Farh, Lee & Farh, 2010; Hülsheger, Anderson and Salgado, 2009; Jehn & Mannix, 2001). By expanding the knowledge on this relationship and discovering practices and processes that influence creativity outcomes, innovation and organisational performance can be increased.
5
THEORY
Choi and Thompson (2005) find support for a relationship between team membership change and group creativity, although noting managers might have concerns about conflict that arises from altering the team composition. Managing this conflict could help reduce the adverse effect of social conflict while stimulating the beneficial effect of task conflict. Other authors have also emphasised the importance of managing conflict to organisational success and team creativity (Fairchild & Hunter, 2014; Janssen, 2003; Paulus & Yang, 2000). Particularly, HRM practices such as collaborative HRM and knowledge-based HRM could be used to manage conflict based on these practices’ effect on connectedness, information elaboration, and task interdependence. Thus, creativity can be stimulated through HRM in practice.
A recent meta-analysis by Hülsheger et al. (2009) found neither task nor social conflict to be significantly related to innovation. However, other research has found evidence that certain levels of conflict can increase team performance (Farh, Lee & Farh, 2010; Jehn & Mannix, 2001), as well as creativity (Choi & Thompson, 2005; De Dreu, 2006). Furthermore, the analysis by Hülsheger et al. (2009) is limited to main effects, and the authors recommend more research to be done regarding the relationship between task conflict and innovation and the possibility of an inverted U-shape
relationship as suggested by other research (Anderson, De Dreu & Nijstad, 2004; De Dreu, 2006). While the contradictory evidence on these topics has spurred additional research (Anderson, Potočnik & Zhou, 2014; Fairchild & Hunter, 2014; Rink et al., 2013; de Wit et al., 2012; Zhou & Hoever, 2014), membership change, conflict, HRM, and team creativity have not, to my knowledge, been investigated in the same manner as the research presented in this thesis.
6
FIGURE 1
Conceptual model with expected relationships between variables
7 as newcomers (Tajfel, 1982). In turn, this type of disparaging treatment is met with opposition, stirring up counterproductive emotional conflict (Pelled et al., 1999). Lastly, social conflict can stem from value structures that are not (yet) aligned (Jehn et al., 1999). Values in this context are team members’ ideas of the team’s real task, goal, target, and mission (Jehn et al., 1999). Ambiguity or disagreements on these core topics may lead to deteriorating interpersonal relationships between team members.
Empirically, O’Connor, Gruenfeld and McGrath (1993) in fact find evidence of reduced conflict shortly after membership change, which the authors attribute to false cohesiveness that can be prevalent at the start of collaboration, due to members being cautious around newcomers. However, the authors did not distinguish between social and task conflict in their research, nor did the teams perform creative tasks.
Hornsey et al. (2007) investigated the influence of newcomers on established group members, and found criticism from newcomers to elicit more resistance, a result that is in line with Gruenfeld, Martorana & Fan’s (2000) findings that members who temporarily changed teams and returned, although being more argumentative, had less influence over the team. Thus supporting the notion of disparaging treatment toward team members perceived as part of the ‘outgroup’ (Tajfel, 1982).
Workers’ habits and preferences are hard to break, leading to social conflict when
newcomers, who have an outside perspective, try to elicit change. This is especially true for creative workers (Janssen, 2003; Miron-Spektor, Erez & Naveh, 2011).
H1: There is a positive relationship between team membership change and social conflict.
Collaborative HRM motivates team members to apply collaborative decision-making, encourages communication between team members, and enhances interpersonal relationships (Hong, Zhao & Snell, 2019; Lepak & Snell, 1999). Which promotes information sharing and cooperation (Hong et al., 2019).
8 rational approach towards knowledge sharing, and lead to a more open-minded approach to novel practices (Diaz-Fernandez et al., 2017; Kraiger et al., 1993; Lepak & Snell, 1999; Oliver, 1990). Thus, training in teamwork skills could reduce resistance to the introduction of new members and increase receptivity to newcomers’ ideas and procedures that could otherwise lead to disagreements which can devolve into social conflict.
Secondly, team-based appraisals and rewards provide teams with incentive to form interdependent and collaborative relations (Andreeva, Vanhala, Ritala & Kianto, 2017; Camelo-Ordaz, Fernández-Alles & Valle-Cabrera, 2008) and motivate collective behaviours (De Winne & Sels, 2010). Such prosocial motivation can act as a driving force for harmony and cooperative problem solving within the group (De Dreu, Nijstad & Van Knippenberg, 2008), reducing social conflict.
H1a: The relationship between team membership change and social conflict is moderated negatively by collaborative HRM.
Social conflict uses up team resources by diverting the time and attention of team members away from the task at hand and towards counterproductive interpersonal conflict. Furthermore, social conflict can increase hostility between group members when disagreements threaten members’ ego, and reduces collaborative problem solving by exchanging information not relevant to the task (De Dreu, 2006; De Wit, Greer & Jehn, 2012). Lastly, social conflict makes teams more dysfunctional as not listening to newcomer ideas leads to less potential ideas used (Gruenfeld et al., 2000). Several previous articles have provided evidence for a negative relationship between social conflict and group performance (Janssen, 2003; Jehn et al., 1999).
H2: There is a negative relationship between social conflict and creativity.
9 members of a team have a history of working together, their ideas about a task will be more closely aligned, yet this agreement may hinder the adoption of positive change (Okhuysen, 2001) and lead to a bias towards discussing common information (Choi & Thompson, 2005). When new members are introduced to the team, this adoption may be more successful.
H3: There is a positive relationship between team membership change and task conflict.
Newcomer quality is increased by knowledge-based HRM, as this practice leads to the hiring of applicants with higher expertise, as well as more likely acceptance of their ideas. Because these newcomers are more knowledgeable, they are more likely to have a different perspective and disagree with oldtimers (Choi & Thompson, 2005).
H3a: The relationship between team membership change and task conflict is moderated positively by knowledge-based HRM.
De Wit, Greer & Jehn (2012) argue both positive and negative influences of task conflict on team creativity as a result of resources used and cognitive load decreasing creativity outcomes, whereas a better understanding of the task and higher task commitment leads to an increase in creativity. Thus, a curvilinear relationship between task conflict and creativity has been suggested by Choi and Thompson (2005), who also argue simply reflecting on a task critically can stimulate creative thinking. The curvilinear relationship between task conflict and creativity was found empirically by de Dreu (2006) and Farh, Lee and Farh (2010).
10
METHOD
Data management
In compliance with GDPR regulations (European Commission, 2018) participants have consented to the specific use of data gathered in the survey through a data processing agreement.
Throughout the entire thesis process, the research data remained on a secure, encrypted drive managed by the RUG. Credentials to enable access to the data were provided at the official start of the thesis in September, and were revoked once the thesis had been completed. These credentials were not saved to third party services. Furthermore, access to the data did not allow permission to alter,
download, or copy the data, thus ensuring its integrity and security.
Data and participants
Data collectionThis thesis utilised a growing dataset focused around creativity and innovation in teams provided by the Rijksuniversiteit Groningen (RUG). Data was collected through online surveys delivered by e-mail.
At the time of writing this dataset contained data surveying roughly 2000 participants of 25 firms. Of these 25 firms, the average firm size was 176 employees (SD = 236). 17 HR representatives were asked to participate, 15 of whom responded (response rate = 88%), though one response lacked useful data. Of the 14 firms used in the final sample, the average firm size was 586 employees (SD = 1281), indicating a bias towards larger firms, presumably because larger firms were more likely to have an HR representative. The firms in the sample stem from different industries, with firms from engineering and building, pharmaceutical and biotech, ICT, media, and logistics.
After aggregating the participants’ data to the team level and taking into account the combination of variables required to utilise the data, with a large number of cases not being
11 among others. More details regarding the items including the scales of measurement can be found in appendix A.
Descriptive statistics participants
Data was obtained through three separate surveys, targeting employees, supervisors, and HR professionals, respectively. Each employee, team, supervisor, firm, and HR professional was assigned an identifier on the basis of which data was combined for analysis.
Team members
The total sample surveyed consisted of 1940 employees from 25 different firms forming 449 teams. However, the final sample after taking into account missing variables consisted of 426
employees from 14 firms forming 85 teams. Team members’ mean age was 42.2 years old (SD = 11.4, range = 19 to 71), mean organisational tenure was 11.3 years (SD = 10.6) and job tenure 9.2 years (SD = 9.2). Regarding gender, 64.3% of the 426 team members answered male, 19.2% female, and 16.4% failed to answer this question. As for education, 3.1% answered no degree, 36.2% middle or high school degree, 25.6% HBO Bachelor degree, 19.5% University Bachelor or Master degree, 1.4% PhD, and 14.3% failed to answer.
Supervisors
12 HR managers
17 HR professionals were requested to provide data on HRM practices, of which 15
responded, and 14 responses contained useful data. The HRM managers’ mean age was 41.6 years old (SD = 12, range = 24 to 58), mean organisational tenure was 9.5 years (SD = 9.4) and job tenure 6.2 years (SD = 5.4). Of the 14 HR managers, 14.3% answered male, and 64.3% female. 57.1% held a HBO Bachelor degree, and 21.4% a University Bachelor or Master degree. In both cases, 21.4% failed to answer.
Measures
Membership change
Membership change was measured as the number of team members leaving in the past year,
as well as the number of team members joining in the past year.
Three variables were calculated based on membership change. The first being newcomer
proportion, created by dividing newcomers by team size. Second, newcomers absolute growth was
calculated by subtracting the number of leavers from the number of newcomers, and lastly
newcomers relative growth, which is the absolute growth number divided by team size.
Gender diversity
Gender diversity was operationalized as gender variety using the Blau index method, also
13 Education (proportion of higher education)
Regarding the Education variable, a distinction was made between relatively low and high levels of education. Participants’ choices for highest degree were no degree, middle- or high school, HBO Bachelor degree, University-level Bachelor degree or Master degree, or PhD level. Respectfully, the line was drawn between the “middle- or high school” level and “HBO Bachelor”, as the HBO Bachelor represents higher education beyond secondary, leading to a meaningful difference in skills that could affect team dynamics (Kearney, Gebert & Voelpel, 2009; Pelled, 1996). Furthermore, the split between low/high levels of team members’ education was close to equal at 45.8%/54.2%. To represent the difference or similarity of education in teams, the variable proportion of higher
education measures the proportion of team members with a degree of HBO Bachelor level or higher.
Conflict (Social and Task)
Two conflict variables were measured by three questions per variable on a 5-point scale, and separated into Social Conflict and Task Conflict variables (Jehn & Mannix, 2001) after observing Cronbach’s Alphas of 0.83 and 0.739. Questions on Social Conflict enquired about interpersonal tensions and friction, for example “How often is there relationship tension in your work group?”. Whereas questions on Task Conflict referred to differences in opinions about tasks such as “How
often are there conflicts of ideas in your work group?”.
HRM (Knowledge and Collaborative)
As for the HRM variables, Knowledge HRM consisted of 13 items on a 5-point scale, such as “We offer training that provides employees with up-to-date knowledge” and “When recruiting, we pay
special attention to learning and development ability” which were combined, with a Cronbach’s
Alpha of 0.797. Collaborative HRM, however, yielded a much lower reliability on combining all items (0.485). As such, an explorative factor analysis utilising the varimax rotation method was carried out to identify subscales that could be combined. This approach resulted in three subscales. Firstly, the job subscale encompassing two items (“Employees perform jobs that require them to
14
rotation”), Cronbach’s Alpha 0.548 (correlation = .377, p = .183). Second, the selection and training
subscale consisting of two items (“Selection process assesses the ability to collaborate and work in a
team”, “Training activities focus on team building and interpersonal relations”), Cronbach’s Alpha
0.847 (correlation = .736, p = .003). Last, the appraisal and compensation subscale, which included three items (“Appraisals are based on team performance”, “Appraisals focus on employees’ ability to
work with others”, “Compensation/rewards have a group-based incentive”), Cronbach’s Alpha
0.584. Although the reliability values of the ‘job’ and the ‘appraisal and compensation’ subscales are still below desired levels, a case can be made for the items in these subscales to be considered part of one construct on the basis that these practices are connected in function and goal within collaborative HRM (Youndt & Snell, 2004). Reliability analyses including as few as two or three items typically have lower alphas (Cortina, 1993), paired with the low number of observations (14 HR managers), the alphas are more reasonable. Correlation values are also given to provide further insight.
Creativity
Team creativity, the dependent variable, was measured as supervisor rated team innovation,
as innovation is considered the implementation of creative ideas (Amabile, 1983; Nijstad, 2013). Team supervisors answered four questions such as “This team often implements new ideas to improve
the quality of our products and services” and “This team often produces new services, methods, or procedures” on a 5-point scale.
Additional variables
Cohesion and information elaboration variables were each measured using four questions
on a 5-point scale. Cohesion with a Cronbach’s Alpha of .815 and questions such as “We are ready to
defend each other from criticism from outsiders.”, and information elaboration with an alpha of .847
and questions such as “The members of this team complement each other by openly sharing their
15 Information elaboration was included in explorative research because it was a variable present in the dataset that was identified as an important contributor to creativity by previous research
(Hoever, van Knippenberg, van Ginkel & Barkema, 2012).
Cohesion was also included in the aforementioned explorative analysis on account of previous research (Beal, Cohen, Burke & Mclendon, 2003). Furthermore, as seen in table 1, it was the only variable to significantly correlate to creativity.
Data analysis
In order to test the hypotheses, the data was analysed using a moderated mediation model of regression.
The hypothesised model presented in figure 1 was split up into top and bottom paths to make analysis of the model possible using IBM SPSS 26. The PROCESS macro by Andrew F. Hayes (model 7) was used.
To test the relationships presented in figure 1, twelve analyses were carried out as the product of newcomer variables (three total) and collaborative HRM (three total) on the upper path through social conflict and the newcomer variables again in the lower path through task conflict moderated by knowledge HRM.
After completing these main analyses, additional relationships were explored by repeating this process using the information elaboration in place of task conflict, and cohesion in place of social conflict.
16
RESULTS
Descriptive statistics and correlations
Table 1 provides descriptive statistics and correlations between variables used in this study. As shown in the table, the average team size was 8.82 with a relatively high standard deviation of 7.15, demonstrating the size variety of teams (range = 2 to 36, Q1 = 3, median = 6, Q3 = 12). Furthermore, the average proportion of higher education was 0.5, which would indicate a 50/50 split when applied to a single team. However, the standard deviation of proportion of higher education illustrates the large differences between teams, likely due to the various types of firms included in the sample, at .42.
Notably, table 1 shows the only variable that correlates with Team Creativity is Cohesion.
Selection of control variables
Control variables were chosen based primarily on their correlation with the mediator variables (social and task conflict), moderator variables (collaborative and knowledge-based HRM), as well as the dependent variable (team creativity). Table 2 provides an overview of Pearson’s r correlations between relevant variables. To maintain conciseness not all variables initially considered in the selection process are included, only those that could be considered relevant after assessment. Such variables included autonomy, task and outcome interdependence, supervisor’s creative expectations, and supervisor’s workload.
Although some control variable candidates proved to correlate more strongly with the aforementioned variables, namely cohesion and information elaboration, than the chosen control variables, these variables were not included in the model as they may be influenced by HR policies as well as conflict, not representing exogenous variables, and are therefore not suitable for inclusion in the model as control variables. However, cohesion and information elaboration were used in
17 The following variables were included as controls: team size, which correlated only with collaborative HRM selection and training, job tenure, which correlated with task conflict and collaborative HRM selection and training, organisational tenure, which correlated with newcomer proportion and all HRM variables, age, which correlated with newcomer proportion, task conflict and all HRM variables except for collaborative HRM selection and training, Blau index, which didn’t correlate to any variables but nevertheless represents the important facet of gender diversity (Hoever et al., 2012), and proportion higher education which correlated with newcomers proportion and relative, and task conflict.
A number of control variable candidates could have been included but were not due to limited degrees of freedom with the sample size of 85. For example, standard deviation of team age was not included, as mean age was a more prominent choice based its higher correlations.
Model 1
In order to test hypothesis 3 and 3a, which predicted a positive relationship between team membership change and task conflict, and a positive moderating effect of knowledge-based HRM on the relationship between team membership change and task conflict, a moderated mediation
regression analysis was performed using the three operationalisations of membership change (newcomer proportion, newcomers absolute growth, newcomers relative growth) as the independent variable(s), task conflict as the mediator, team creativity as the dependent variable, and knowledge-based HRM as the moderator. This analysis also tested the linear effect of task conflict on team creativity, which was predicted to have a curvilinear effect by hypothesis 4. The curvilinear effect is tested in model 4.
As the relationship between absolute newcomers and task conflict in model 3 was not significant, I did not find support for hypothesis 3.
18 Furthermore, the linear effect of task conflict on team creativity was found to be significant and negative at the 10% level in model 1 (b = 0.165, p = 0.067), as shown in table 2.
Model 2
In order to test hypothesis 1, 1a, and 2, which predicted a positive relationship between team membership and social conflict, a negative moderating effect of collaborative HRM on the
relationship between team membership change and social conflict, and a negative relationship between social conflict and team creativity, a moderated mediation analysis was carried out using the three operationalisations of membership change (newcomer proportion, newcomers absolute growth, newcomers relative growth) as the independent variable, social conflict as the mediator, team creativity as the dependent variable, and the three subscales of collaborative HRM as the moderator(s).
As the relationship between newcomer proportion and social conflict was not significant, I did not find support for hypotheses 1.
The relationship between social conflict and team creativity was also not significant, providing no support for hypothesis 2.
As shown in table 2, I found support for hypothesis 1a at the 10% significance level for the negative moderating relationship of the appraisal and compensation subscale of collaborative HRM on the relationship between proportion of newcomers and social conflict, as the interaction term was significant at this level (b = -0.202, p = 0.058).
Model 3
As mentioned at the beginning of this section, the information elaboration and cohesion variables were not considered exogenous variables, as conflict and HR likely influenced these variables. Furthermore, as shown in table 2, cohesion was the only variable to correlate with the dependent variable team creativity (r = 0.23, p < 0.05).
19 HRM on the relationship between team membership change (using absolute newcomers as the
operationalisation) and cohesion at the 5% significance level as the interaction term was significant at that level (b = -0.420, p = 0.012) despite expecting a positive moderating effect. Furthermore, a positive relationship between cohesion and team creativity was found at the 5% significance level (b = 0.180, p = 0.020).
Model 4
To test hypothesis 4, which predicted a curvilinear effect of task conflict on team creativity, a one-way ANOVA was carried out using the squared value of task conflict as the independent variable, team creativity as the dependent variable, and task conflict in addition to the control variables. As shown in table 3, the effect of the squared task conflict variable was not significant, thus no support for hypothesis 4 was found.
Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1. Team Creativity 3.64 .68 -2. Newcomers Absolute .20 3.92 .02 -3. Newcomer Proportion .22 .25 .17 .37** -4. Newcomers Relative .05 .35 .05 .82** .58** -5. Task Conflict 1.96 .56 -.11 .01 .17 .11 -6. Social Conflict 1.72 .56 .08 -.07 .05 .06 .63** -7. Cohesion 4.05 .47 .23* -.04 .01 -.15 -.39** -.44** -8. Information Elaboration 3.61 .58 .00 -.15 -.03 -.17 -.34** -.30** .46** -9. Knowledge HRM 3.40 .44 .01 .13 .19 .07 .23* .06 -.05 -.15 -10. Collaborative HRM Job 3.03 .64 .06 .10 .21 .09 .29** .03 -.02 -.16 .73** -11. Collaborative HRM ST 2.73 .91 -.09 .01 .20 .09 .17 .03 -.06 -.12 .41** .28** -12. Collaborative HRM AC 2.39 .52 .00 .08 .04 -.02 -.05 -.09 .07 .11 .14 -.08 -.06 -13. Team Size 8.82 7.15 .14 -.03 -.10 -.09 .02 .06 -.06 -.09 .06 .10 -.30** .09 -14. Job Tenure 8.14 5.40 -.09 -.02 -.20 -.07 -.23* .05 -.12 -.09 -.15 -.15 -.26* -.09 .13 -15. Organisational Tenure 12.27 8.8 -.20 -.05 -.28** -.03 -.18 -.07 .01 -.16 -.38** -.29** -.27* -.33** .04 .37** -16. Age 42.51 9.43 -.15 .03 -.23* .01 -.44** -.19 -.01 -.12 -.31** -.34** -.21 -.25* .05 .38** .70** -17. Blau Index .17 .22 -.03 .19 .10 .11 -.04 -.08 .15 .17 .05 .04 -.14 -.02 .17 .02 .03 .03 -18. Prop. Higher Education .50 .42 .06 .17 .30** .23* .31** .12 -.01 -.19 .04 .10 -.03 -.09 .17 -.23* -.04 -.16 .27*
*p<.05, **p<.01 N=50 to 239
TABLE 1
21
Regression Analysis Model 4.
b SE
22
DISCUSSION
The main purpose of this research was to test whether HR practices moderated the
relationship of team membership change and team creativity through conflict, in order to expand on the current literature on team processes and creativity, as well as to provide practical contributions regarding the use of HR to take advantage of the disrupting effects often created by newcomers, which regularly lead to lower performance.
While significant effects were scarce within the data and diminished by the use of multiple analyses employing varying operationalisations of membership change, moderately significant effects (p < .10) were found in both the interaction term where the membership change variable was
multiplied by the collaborative HRM variable on social conflict, and the interaction of membership change and knowledge HRM on task conflict. As such, the effects of collaborative and knowledge HRM on the relationship between membership change and conflict were not convincingly supported but likely do play a part under more specific circumstances or through other variables, as the main effect of neither variable is significant, but the interaction is.
Regarding the relationships between conflict and creativity performance, a negative effect was found for task conflict where a curvilinear effect was expected, as opposed to findings of previous research. Which may be attributed to a lack of consideration for team phase (Farh, Lee & Farh, 2010). Furthermore, the expected negative effect of social conflict was not found.
23 Regarding limitations, the sample size of 85 teams was relatively small compared to the number of variables in the model and the complexity thereof. Likewise, the number of HR managers who represented these teams was 14, also rather low, which caused a low variety of answers on the 5-point scale. This problem is illustrated in table 2, model 2, where low and medium levels of
collaborative HRM are the same. Another issue is the similarity between task and social conflict, although theoretically two distinct concepts, researchers have expressed these two types of conflict to often correlate and accompany each other (Ilgen et al., 2005; Pelled et al., 1999), as opposed to Jehn’s (1994) findings. This issue is illustrated in table 1 by the significant correlation between social and task conflict of 0.63 at the 1% significance level. Considering both types of conflict in relation to each other and how to manage them may lead to interesting findings. Lastly, the large number of analyses carried out caused the validity of significant results to decline sharply, as random chance would mean a greater likelihood of significant effects being found the more analysis are carried out.
24
CONCLUSION
25
REFERENCES
Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 45(2), 357–376. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.2.357
Anderson, N., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Nijstad, B. A. (2004). The routinization of innovation research: A constructively critical review of the state-of-the-science. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 147–173. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.236
Anderson, N., Potočnik, K., & Zhou, J. (2014). Innovation and Creativity in Organizations: A State-of-the-Science Review, Prospective Commentary, and Guiding Framework. Journal of Management, 40, 1297–1333. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314527128
Andreeva, T., Vanhala, M., Ritala, P., & Kianto, A. (2017). When the fit between HR practices backfires: Exploring the interaction effects between rewards for and appraisal of knowledge behaviours on innovation. Human Resource Management Journal, 27(2), 209–227. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12133
Argote, L., Insko, C. A., Yovetich, N., & Romero, A. A. (1995). Group Learning Curves: The Effects of Turnover and Task Complexity on Group Performance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25(6), 512–529. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1995.tb01765.x
Beal, D. J., Cohen, R. R., Burke, M. J., & Mclendon, C. L. (2003). Cohesion and Performance in Groups: A Meta-Analytic Clarification of Construct Relations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(6), 989–1004. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.6.989
Camelo-Ordaz, C., Fernández-Alles, M., & Valle-Cabrera, R. (2008). Top management team’s vision and human resources management practices in innovative Spanish companies. International Journal of
Human Resource Management, 19, 620–638. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190801953665
Campion, M. A., Cheraskin, L., & Stevens, M. J. (1994). Career-Related Antecedents and Outcomes of Job Rotation. Academy of Management Journal, 37(6), 1518–1542. https://doi.org/10.2307/256797 Choi, H.-S., & Thompson, L. (2005). Old wine in a new bottle: Impact of membership change on group
26 Chow, I. H., Huang, J. C., & Liu, S. (2008). Strategic HRM in China: Configurations and competitive
advantage. Human Resource Management, 47(4), 687–706. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.20240 Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is Coefficient Alpha? Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 98–104.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.1.98
Diaz-Fernandez, M., Bornay-Barrachina, M., & Lopez-Cabrales, A. (2017). HRM practices and innovation performance: a panel-data approach. International Journal of Manpower, 38(3), 354–372.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJM-02-2015-0028
Dineen, B. R., & Noe, R. A. (2003). The Impact of Team Fluidity and Its Implications For Human Resource Management Research and Practice. In J. J. Martocchio & G. R. Ferris (Eds.), Research in
Personnel and Human Resources Management, 22, 1–37
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-7301(03)22001-6
De Dreu, C. K. (2006). When too little or too much hurts: Evidence for a curvilinear relationship between task conflict and innovation in teams. Journal of Management, 32(1), 83–107.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206305277795
De Dreu, C. K. W., Nijstad, B. A., & Van Knippenberg, D. (2008). Motivated information processing in group judgment and decision making. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12(1), 22–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868307304092
De Dreu, C. K. W., & West, M. A. (2001). Minority dissent and team innovation: The importance of participation in decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(6), 1191–1201.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.6.1191
2018 reform of EU data protection rules. (2019). Retrieved from
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/priorities/justice-and-fundamental-rights/data-protection/2018-reform-eu-data-protection-rules_en
Fairchild, J., & Hunter, S. T. (2014). “We’ve got creative differences”: The effects of task conflict and participative safety on team creative performance. Journal of Creative Behavior, 48(1), 64-87. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.41
27 Gruenfeld, D. H., Martorana, P. V, & Fan, E. T. (2000). What do groups learn from their worldliest
members? Direct and indirect influence in dynamic teams. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 82(1), 45–59. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2000.2886
Hoever, I. J., van Knippenberg, D., van Ginkel, W. P., & Barkema, H. G. (2012). Fostering team creativity: Perspective Taking as Key to Unlocking Diversity’s Potential. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(5), 982–996. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029159
Hong, J. F. L., Zhao, X., & Stanley Snell, R. (2019). Collaborative-based HRM practices and open innovation: a conceptual review. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 30(1), 31– 62. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2018.1511616
Hornsey, M. J., Grice, T., Jetten, J., Paulsen, N., & Callan, V. (2007). Group-directed criticisms and recommendations for change: Why newcomers arouse more resistance than old-timers. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(7), 1036–1048. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167207301029 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. Journal of Applied Psychology,
94(5), 1128–1145. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015978
Ilgen, D. R., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M., & Jundt, D. (2005). Teams in Organizations: From Input-Process-Output Models to IMOI Models. Annual Review of Psychology, 56(1), 517–543. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070250
Jansen, J. J. P., Kostopoulos, K. C., Mihalache, O. R., & Papalexandris, A. (2016). A Socio-Psychological Perspective on Team Ambidexterity: The Contingency Role of Supportive Leadership Behaviours.
Journal of Management Studies, 53(6), 939–965. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12183
Janssen, O. (2003). Innovative behaviour and job involvement at the price of conflict and less satisfactory relations with co-workers. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 76, 347–364. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317903769647210
28 Jehn, K. A., Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. (1999). Why Differences Make a Difference: A Field Study
of Diversity, Conflict, and Performance in Workgroups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(4), 741. https://doi.org/10.2307/2667054
Jehn, K. A., & Mannix, E. A. (2001). The dynamic nature of conflict: A longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and group performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 238–251.
https://doi.org/10.2307/3069453
Kearney, E., Gebert, D., & Voelpel, S. (2009). When and how diversity benefits teams: The importance of team members’ need for cognition. Academy of Management Journal, 52(3), 581–598.
https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2009.41331431
Kianto, A., Sáenz, J., & Aramburu, N. (2017). Knowledge-based human resource management practices, intellectual capital and innovation. Journal of Business Research, 81, 11–20.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.07.018
Kraiger, K., Ford, J. K., & Salas, E. (1993). Application of cognitive, skill-based, and affective theories of learning outcomes to new methods of training evaluation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(2), 311– 328. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.2.311
Lepak, D. P., & Snell, S. A. (1999). The human resource architecture: Toward a theory of human capital allocation and development. Academy of Management Review, 24(1), 31–48.
https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1999.1580439
Lepak, D. P., & Snell, S. A. (2002). Examining the human resource architecture: The relationships among human capital, employment, and human resource configurations. Journal of Management, 28(4), 517– 543. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-2063(02)00142-3
Lopez-Cabrales, A., Pérez-Luño, A., & Cabrera, R. V. (2009). Knowledge as a mediator between HRM practices and innovative activity. Human Resource Management, 48(4), 485–503.
https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.20295
Miron-Spektor, E., Erez, M., & Naveh, E. (2011). The Effect of Conformist and Attentive-To-Detail Members on Team Innovation : Reconciling the Innovation Paradox. Academy of Management
29 Nemeth, C. J., & Ormiston, M. (2007). Creative idea generation: Harmony versus stimulation. European
Journal of Social Psychology, 37(3), 524–535. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.373
Nijstad, B. A. (2013). Creativity in groups. In APA Handbook of Personality and Social Psychology:
Volume 2. Interpersonal Relations and Group Processes.
O’Connor, K. M., Gruenfeld, D. H., & McGrath, J. E. (1993). The experience and effects of conflict in continuing work groups. Small Group Research, 24(3), 362–382.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496493243005
Okhuysen, G. A. (2001). Structuring change: Familiarity and formal interventions in problem-solving groups. Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 794-808. https://doi.org/10.5465/3069416 Oliver, C. (1990). Determinants of Interorganizational Relationships: Integration and Future Directions.
Academy of Management Review, 15(2), 241–265. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1990.4308156
Özbağ, G. K., Esen, M., & Esen, D. (2013). The Impact of HRM Capabilities on Innovation Mediated by Knowledge Management Capability. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 99, 784–793. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.10.550
Paulus, P. B., & Yang, H. C. (2000). Idea generation in groups: A basis for creativity in organizations.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 76–87.
https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2000.2888
Pelled, L. H. (1996). Demographic Diversity, Conflict, and Work Group Outcomes: An Intervening Process Theory. Organization Science, 7(6), 615–631. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.7.6.615
Pelled, L. H., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Xin, K. R. (1999). Exploring the Black Box: An Analysis of Work Group Diversity, Conflict, and Performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.2307/2667029
Rink, F., Kane, A. A., Ellemers, N., & van der Vegt, G. S. (2013). Team receptivity to newcomers: Five decades of evidence and future research themes. The Academy of Management Annals, 7(1), 245–291. https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2013.766405
Seeck, H., & Diehl, M. R. (2017). A literature review on HRM and innovation–taking stock and future directions. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 28(6), 913–944.
30 Simpson, E. H. (1949). Measurement of diversity. Nature, 163(4148), 688-688.
https://doi.org/10.1038/163688a0
Tajfel, H. (2003). Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Annual Review of Psychology, 33(1), 1–39. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.33.020182.000245
Vanhala, M., & Ritala, P. (2016). HRM practices, impersonal trust and organizational innovativeness.
Journal of Managerial Psychology, 31(1), 95–109. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-03-2013-0084
Weiss, M., & Hoegl, M. (2015). The History of Teamwork’s Societal Diffusion: A Multi-Method Review.
Small Group Research, 46(6), 589–622. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496415602778
De Winne, S., & Sels, L. (2010). Interrelationships between human capital, HRM and innovation in Belgian start-ups aiming at an innovation strategy. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 21, 1863–1883. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2010.505088
De Wit, F. R. C., Greer, L. L., & Jehn, K. A. (2012). The Paradox of Intragroup Conflict: A Meta-Analysis.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(2), 360–390. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024844
Wong, S. S. (2004). Distal and Local Group Learning: Performance Trade-offs and Tensions. Organization
Science, 15(6), 645–656. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1040.0080
Youndt, M. A., & Snell, S. A. (2004). Human resource configurations, intellectual capital, and organizational performance. Journal of Managerial Issues, 337-360.
Zhou, J., & Hoever, I. J. (2014). Research on Workplace Creativity: A Review and Redirection. Annual
Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1, 333–359.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091226
Ziller, R. C., Behringer, R. D., & Goodchilds, J. D. (2010). The Minority Newcomer in Open and Closed Groups. In The Journal of Psychology (Vol. 50). https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1960.9916424 Zimbardo, P. G., & Leippe, M. R. (1991). The psychology of attitude change and social influence.
31
APPENDIX A
Items in scales
Team membership change
Scale: Number of members
● How many members have left your team in the past year?
● How many new members have joined your team in the past year?
Team conflicts; task & relationship (social) subscales
Jehn and Mannix (2001)
Scale: 1-5, Alomst never - Rarely - Sometimes - Often - All the time Social conflict
● How often is there relationship tension in your work group? ● How often do people get angry while working in your group? ● How often are there emotional conflicts in your work group?
Task conflict
● How often are there conflicts of ideas in your work group?
● How frequently do you have disagreements within your work group about the task you are working on?
● How often do people in your work group have conflicting opinions about the project you are working on?
Team information elaboration
Kearney, Gebert and Voelpel (2009)
Scale: 1-5, Completely disagree ---- Completely agree
“About how you collaborate with your colleagues”
32 ● The members of this team carefully consider all perspectives in an effort to generate optimal
solutions.
● The members of this team carefully consider the unique information provided by each individual team member.
● As a team, we generate ideas and solutions that are much better than those we could develop as individuals.
Team cohesion
Wong (2004); Jansen, Kostopoulos, Mihalache and Papalexandris (2016) Scale: 1-5, Completely disagree ---- Completely agree
“About yourself and the colleagues in your team”
● We are ready to defend each other from criticism from outsiders. ● We help each other on the job.
● We get along well with each other.
● The members in this team really stick together.
Knowledge-based HRM
Kianto, Sáenz and Aramburu (2017)
Scale: 1-5, Completely disagree ---- Completely agree
● When recruiting, we pay special attention to relevant expertise
● When recruiting, we pay special attention to learning and development ability
● When recruiting, we evaluate the candidate’s ability to collaborate and wok in various networks ● We offer our employees opportunities to deepen and expand their expertise
● We offer training that provides employees with up-to-date knowledge
● Our employees have an opportunity to develop their competence through training tailored to their specific needs
33 ● The sharing of knowledge is one of our criteria for work performance assessment
● The creation of new knowledge is one of our criteria for work performance assessment
● The ability to apply knowledge acquired from others is one of our criteria for work performance assessment
● Our company rewards employees for sharing knowledge ● Our company rewards employees for creating new knowledge ● Our company rewards employees for applying knowledge
Collaborative HRM
Lepak and Snell (2002); Lopez-Cabrales, Perez-Luño and Cabrera (2009) Scale: 1-5, Completely disagree ---- Completely agree
● Employees perform jobs that require them to participate in cross-functional teams and networks ● Employees perform jobs that involve job rotation
● Selection process assesses the ability to collaborate and work in a team ● Training activities focus on team building and interpersonal relations ● Appraisals are based on team performance
● Appraisals focus on employees’ ability to work with others ● Compensation/rewards have a group-based incentive
Supervisor rated Team innovation
De Dreu and West (2001)
Scale: 1-5, Completely disagree ---- Completely agree
Rated for every team by the top manager or middle manager that supervises it
● This team often implements new ideas to improve the quality of our products and services
● This team gives little consideration to new and alternative methods and procedures for doing their work (R)
