The effect of openness to experience and team tenure
diversity on team creativity
by Niels Bos
Studentnumber: 1896245
Rijksuniversiteit Groningen Faculty Economie en Bedrijfskunde MSc Human Resource Management
2 ABSTRACT
3 INTRODUCTION
Nowadays people tend to switch jobs more often. By the age of 38 most employees have had between the ten or fourteen jobs on average (Gilson, Lim, Luciano & Choi, 2013) But there are still a lot of people employed who stay at the same company for the bigger part of their lives and have therefore a higher tenure at some organizations. Up till now tenure diversity has received little attention in research(Gilson et al. 2013; Chi Huang & Lin, 2009).
Almost no team or group is the same in an organization. These groups can differ in size, composition or in frequency in which they meet during a given time. Within a team there are also differences, those differences can be cognitive or demographical. Examples of demographical diversity can be: age, social background or tenure.
Gilson et al. (2013) studied the influence of tenure diversity on team innovation using the categorization-elaboration model(henceforth CEM) by Van Knippenberg, De Dreu and Homan(2004) and found a positive relationship when tenure diversity is lower than the mean and a negative relationship when the diversity is higher than the mean. Heterogeneous groups in terms of tenure can increase the skills, abilities, information and knowledge due to different perspectives and views of the group members(Gilson et al., 2013; Chi et al., 2009). Furthermore it is also stated that a more diverse group composition leads to more group creativity output and therefore to better decision making (Williams, O’Reilly,1996).
A belief has developed among management scholars and social scientists that diversity in teams will lead to opportunities for synergistic knowledge and information sharing, and hence to greater creativity(Mannix & Neale, 2005). Knowledge sharing in teams leads to a better performance for a couple of reasons. One of these reasons, studied by Nonaka and Takeuchi in 1995, is the enhancement of creativity. Although it is not a necessary factor, it is a sufficient predictor of team creativity(Gilson et al.,2013; Park, Song, Lim & Kim, 2014) and a relevant variable when concerning differences in teams like tenure diversity.
4 This could mean there is an non-linear relationship between job-related diversity and team outcomes, for example a curvilinear relationship. Van der Vegt and Bunderson (2005), Dahlin et al.(2005) and Chi et al.(2009) did in fact found a curvilinear relationship between different kinds of job-related diversity(for example tenure diversity) and team creativity.
So tenure is a demographical aspect of team diversity relevant to examine when looking at team creativity. But there are also cognitive factors of diversity that can be of great influence regarding team creativity
The Five Factor Model of Costa & McCrae(1992) presents openness to experience as one of the big five personality dimensions. This dimension is the most likely to influence creativity in a positive way (Cabrera, Collins & Selgado, 2006) and could moderate the effect of tenure diversity on creativity indirectly via an enhanced knowledge sharing process because people are more willing to cooperate together (Gilson et al., 2013).
When we are able to predict which employees are more likely to share information in tenure-diverse teams, organizations can use these predictions to compose their teams in the most productive way when considering team creativity as an output.
5
LITERATURE
Team creativity
Creativity can be seen as innovative complex work behavior consisting out of three steps: idea generation, idea promotion and idea realization(Van der Vegt & Janssen, 2003). Idea generation is the process in which the initial novel ideas are generated by individuals. The idea promotion is the next step in which the individual who generated the idea shares his new concepts with team members. At last the potential solution is realized. This paper focuses on the first to steps of creativity as an innovative behavior, so the idea generation and sharing/promoting. Williams and O’Reilly (1998) compare idea generation with team creativity and acknowledge that in the little empirical research there was, the distinction between performance and idea generation often failed.
Diversity and Creativity
In this research the concept of diversity according to Tsui and Gutek (1999) is kept where diversity as a group-level variable that refers to the degree to which there are differences between individuals on any number of visible, work related, or deep-level characteristics. This heterogeneity can improve performance due to the diversity of perceptions and information and boundary spanning(Williams & O’Reilly, 1998) Boundary spanning is the understanding that people from different backgrounds own different perspectives and cognitive structures based on their job-related experience(Chi et al., 2009). Also creativity as a form of performance can be improved due to the access to a broader range of networks, resources and knowledge(Gilson et al., 2013)
According to Van der Vegt and Janssen(2003) there are two types of approaches in group diversity literature: the demographic and the cognitive approach. The demographic approach encompass demographic attributes which are directly measureable like, age, gender and tenure. The cognitive approach on the other hand emphasizes the perceived differences in knowledge, skills and values of the team members. This thesis will focus on the demographic approach of diversity, namely the tenure diversity in organizations.
Tenure Diversity
6 & O’Reilly, 1992). While employees with a high tenure are also older relatively, old employees do not necessary have a high tenure within the organization.
7
Hypothesis 1: The relationship between team tenure diversity and team creativity is curvilinear
meaning that the relationship is positive as diversity is below the average but becomes negative when the diversity comes above the average.
Knowledge Sharing
Knowledge management remains a hot topic in resent studies.(Grant, 2015). It is seen as an important intangible asset which can improve an organizations competitive advantage. The objective of knowledge management systems is among others to support the sharing of information and knowledge within the organizations and teams(Alavi & Leidner, 2001). Knowledge sharing is defined as in Cummings(2004): ‘the provision receipt of task information, know-how and feedback regarding a product or procedure’. So it is part of the process of creating creative products or solutions Gilson et al.(2013), and therefore seem positively related to each other. Even more, there is a growing realization that knowledge sharing is central to organizational creativity(Park et al., 2014;Bartol & Srivastava, 2002) Looking at some effects that could hinder the knowledge sharing process we find tenure diversity. When teams have a high diversity when looking at tenure, more conflicts could arise and stock the knowledge sharing process (Cheng, Zhang & Vogel, 2011 Van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007) Also Grant(2015) found that relationship conflicts are indirectly negative related to knowledge sharing. On the other hand, when there is too little diversity there aren’t any knowledge or skills to be shared.
Hypothesis 2: The relationship between team tenure diversity and team creativity is mediated
by the amount of knowledge shared by teams.
But still, even if there is information or knowledge to be shared the process is delicate because it involves individuals with different interests and there might be some unwillingness to share knowledge due to social factors for example(Grant, 2015). Therefore this research searches for a variable that influences individuals in respect to these hindering attitudes.
Openness to Experience
8 dimension to creativity is however openness to experience(Feist, 1998; Shalley, Zhou & Oldham, 2004). Openness to experience considers the approach in which members openly listen to the information provided by others and value and recognize the knowledge of others.(Tjosvold & Poon, 1998; Mitchell & Nicholas, 2006) People who are more open to experience differ in their approach to the views and beliefs of others and are more willing to incorporate those views and beliefs (Mitchell & Nicholas, 2006). Furthermore, individuals with high levels of openness display more creativity and flexible thinking and tend to accept unconventional values faster than individuals who score low on openness (Coasta & McCrae, 1992)
When there is a high diversity present openness to experience is the most critical personality to increase levels of creativity(Baer, 2010). In 2006 Baer and Oldham created a model in which the moderated effect of openness to experience on the relationship between time pressure and creativity. This model is shown below and exist also of a curvilinear relationship between the variables.
Figure 1.
Effect of time pressure on employee creativity with openness to experience as a moderator. (Baer & Oldham, 2006)
9
Also during Effect openness to experience on diversity : high diversity may be regulated by the
degree to which team members are able to integrate and reconcile different perspectives and approaches (Mumford & Gustafason, 1988).
In this research it is supposed that individuals who score low on openness to experience are less likely to share information when no matter if the tenure diversity is low or high in comparison to individuals who score high on openness. So when a team is highly diverse conflicts may arise but this is less likely to occur when people are more willing and more open for suggestions and views of others.
Hypothesis 3: Openness to experience will moderate the curvilinear relationship between team
tenure diversity and team creativity via an improved knowledge sharing in the team. Teams who score high on openness to experience are more willing to share information with the team than those who score low on openness to experience.
If you would put the three hypotheses stated together into one conceptual model it would something like figure 2.
Figure 2.
Conceptual model of the three integrated hypotheses
11
METHODOLOGY
Sample and procedure
For this research Dutch companies from different industries were approached to participate. They were asked to deliver a team with at least 3 and no more than 15 members with a direct superior and some kind of internal interdependence to come up with creativity output. Each of these members and superiors filled in an online anonymous survey with statements concerning the variables and demographical questions. Team leaders and team members received different surveys. The team leader survey captured the variables team size and team creativity. The variables measured in the team member survey were knowledge sharing, openness to experience, team tenure and interdependence. Because all the respondents were Dutch items were translated into Dutch.
To acquire enough respondents for this research different methods were used. Mostly using personal ties team leaders or team members were approached with initial information about the research. Depending of the approached person(leader or not), the person was asked to provide email-addresses of their superior or subordinates to which the link for the survey could be send. In a few cases the team leader or team member distributed the survey among their colleagues themselves.
In total 55 teams participated with a team size ranging from three to twelve members(M=4 and
SD=1.75). 55 direct superiors(team leaders) between the age of 22 and 65 years participated
with an average age of 42.8 and SD=12.98. 46.4% of the managers was female and 53.6% was male. On average the education level of the team leaders was higher vocational education. Team leaders worked twelve years and ten months on average at the same organization and three years and eleven months operational in their current team. So for organizational tenure the M=12.87 with a SD=11.64 and for team tenure the M=3.93 and SD=5.81. The team leaders answered questions about the functioning, composition and additional information of their team. In total, 65.5% of the approached team leaders completed the questionnaire.
235 employees completed the survey of witch seven were incomplete. The average education level for the team members was higher vocational education and a slight majority of the employee respondents was male(54.4% versus 45.6%). The age varied from 16 to 65 years with a M=36.78 and a SD=14.69. The organizational tenure of the employees was M=10.04 with a
SD=9.29 and their average team tenure was M=4.34 with a SD=3.22. In total, 69.9% of the
12
Measurements
The statistics of the measurements are shown in the result section. First the origin of the items used in the survey is explained for each of the four variables along with their possible Cronbach’s alphas. Because the employees are nested within teams the data of the individual employees is not independent. Therefore the intra-class correlations(ICCs) were noted for the variables measured among employees(knowledge sharing, openness to experience and interdependence), which is a measure of agreement between the team members on a specific variable. Because no single regression was possible a multilevel analysis was conducted.
Tenure diversity (Independent Variable)
Tenure diversity was measured asking the respondents how many years and months they had been working for their current team and calculating the mean and variance for each team.
Knowledge sharing (Mediator)
Knowledge sharing was measured through three items rated by employees on a 7 point Likert scale that ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) based on Chen et al. 2011 and Gilson et al.(2013). Examples of items are ‘Knowledge and skills in my group are substantially shared in problem solving,’ and ‘There is exchange of information, and sharing of knowledge among my group members.’ The average of the teams score on knowledge sharing is measured by adding up each employees score on knowledge sharing items and dividing it by the number of group members. The internal consistency of knowledge sharing was high (Cronbach’s α =.88). The measurements
were aggregated to team level. The ICC of knowledge sharing was .21
Team Creativity (Dependent Variable)
The level of team creativity was assessed by the surveys conducted among the leaders of the teams. Three items which can depict a group’s overall creativity level were based on questionnaires from Oldham and Cummings (1996) also using a 7 point Likert scale that ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Example items were: ‘This team’s output demonstrates that the team is capable of using existing information and resources creatively.’ and ‘This team’s output is original and practical.’ The internal consistency of team creativity was high (Cronbach’s α =.78).
13 Openness to experience was measured with 12 items from (Costa & McCrae, 1992) and 2 items from Baer(2010) for example ‘I love to read challenging material.’ and ‘I avoid philosophical discussions.’(reverse scored). Items were rated by the employees on a 7 point Likert scale that ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The internal consistency of openness to experience was sufficient (Cronbach’s α =.72). The following two items were deleted to make the internal consistency sufficient: ‘I don’t like wasting my time with daydreaming’ and ‘I think that students merely get confused by letting them listen to speakers with divergent ideas’. The measurements were aggregated to team level. The ICC of openness to experience was .17.
Controle Variable
To rule out the possible effect of other variables on team creativity team size and interdependence were used in this research as control variables. Team size: It is often argued that team creativity decreases with team size(Leenders, Van Engelen & Kratzer, 2003). Team size was measured by asking the team leader the number of employees in their team.
14 Results
SPSS was used as a tool to analyze the data including the PROCESS function developed by Andrew Hayes(Hayes & Preacher, 2014). Means, standard deviations and the correlations for this research are shown in Table 1. It seems that only interdependence correlates significantly with team creativity (r = .36, p < .01). Furthermore has interdependence an positive significant relationship with knowledge sharing (r = .42, p < .01). Openness to experience is not significantly related to knowledge sharing nor team creativity, but it does have a significant relation with team tenure diversity and team tenure mean(both r = -.03, p < .05). Lastly, what stands out is that team tenure mean and team tenure diversity correlate significantly with each other (r = .78, p < .01) and knowledge sharing does not correlate with team creativity but it comes relatively close (r = .09).
Descriptive statistics
Table 1.
Means, Standard Deviations, and correlations (Team-level variables)
Variables Mean S.D. 1 2 3 4 5 6 1. Team Creativity 5.42 .96
2. Team Tenure Diversity 4.34 3.92 .78 3. Team Tenure Mean 8.43 4.34 .08 .78**
4. Team size 12.87 9.30 -.18 -.06 -.06
5. Knowledge Sharing 5.71 .86 .09 -.05 -.05 -.18 6. Openness to experience 4.50 .47 -.05 -.03* -.03* -.07 -.14
7. Interdependence 4.48 .53 .36** -.09 -.09 -.10 .42** .18
Note. N = 55 *p < .05, **p < .01 (two tailed significance)
Hypotheses testing
To test our hypotheses a multiple regression was conducted at the team level. A conceptual model of the three hypotheses tested is shown in figure 3.
Hypothesis 1
15 As shown in table 2 (model 2) the relationship between tenure div² and team creativity is not significant(p=.68). That means that there is no significant squared relationship of team tenure diversity in team creativity, so hypothesis 1 is rejected.
Hypothesis 2
The second hypothesis was to find that the curvilinear relationship between our independent variable team tenure diversity and our dependent variable team creativity is mediated by knowledge sharing(see figure 3). There are three checks to be made to establish this mediating relationship.
First of all, there must be a significant effect of the independent variable (tenure div²) and the mediator(knowledge sharing), which has to be treated as the independent variable in this case. This relationship is not significant(p=.69, see also table 2, model 1).
Secondly, knowledge sharing must have an significant effect on team creativity, which is not the case (p=.69, see also table 2, model3).
Since there is no effect of the independent variable on the mediator and no effect of the mediator on the independent variable, hypothesis 2 can be rejected and the third check is redundant. The third check would entail the direct effect of the independent variable on the independent variable, which in this case is also not significant(p=.55, see also table 2, model 3)
To test this hypothesis three relations are to be taken into consideration. First of all the direct effect of knowledge sharing on team creativity(model 3, table 2) which is not significant(p=.55). Secondly the effect of tenure div² on knowledge sharing to see if there is an significant effect(model 1, table 2), which is not the case(p=.69). And lastly the mediated relation of tenure div² on team creativity through knowledge sharing(model 3, table 2), also not significant(p=.69). Therefore the second hypothesis is rejected.
Hypothesis 3
16 Figure 3.
Conceptual model of the three hypotheses tests
Note. Hypothesis 1 excludes the mediator and moderator variable
Statistics
Three models are shown in table 2. In each model the independent variable is the team tenure diversity squared(tenure div²), the moderator is openness to experience(openness) and the control variables are team size, interdependence, team tenure mean(tenure mean) and the interaction between team tenure diversity(tenure div) and openness. The main difference between the models is the dependent variables and the presence of a mediator in model 3. In model 2 and 3 the dependent variable is team creativity and in model 1 knowledge sharing. Model 3 has the addition of the mediator knowledge sharing.
Table 2.
Models of predictors
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Predictor Knowledge Sharing
17 Constant 5.68(38.99) 5.69(22.37) .33(1.33) Team Size -.01(-1.14) -.02(-1.14) -.02(-1.14) Interdependence .24(3.05)* .42(3.05)* .42(3.05)* Tenure mean .11(.57) .14(.45) .11(.66) Tenure div -.04(-.98) .01(.07) -.07(-.98) Tenure div² .04(.41) -.07(-.42) .06(.41) Openness -.13(-1.54) -.15(-1.01) -.23(-1.54)
Tenure div x openness .02(.12) -.37(-1.57) .03(.12)
Tenure div² x openness .01(.16) .03(.27) .017(.16)
Knowledge Sharing - - -.09(-.60)
Note. N= 55, * p<.05 Model 1: R2= .28*, Model 2: R2= .23*, Model 3: R2= .28*
Additional analysis
18 DISCUSSION
This research aimed to examine 1) the relationship between team tenure diversity and team creativity has an inverted U-shaped pattern, 2) this relationship is mediated by the amount of knowledge that is shared within a team and 3) is moderated by the average level of openness to experience in a team. None of the hypotheses was supported.
1. Although this research suggested in the literature section that teams who have more tenure diversity would have an increase of skills, abilities, information and knowledge at hand, it is also noted before that too much diversity can lead to disruptions of team processes and dissatisfaction among team members. But it is not clear what the maximum level of tenure diversity is. In resent literature it is still indistinct what the proper mix is of employees who are high or low in tenure. Furthermore, it can well be that in the samples collected in this research we find mostly teams with an average tenure. This could explain why we can’t distinguish a curvilinear effect on knowledge sharing or team creativity, because we only have samples belonging to the top of the inverted U-shaped pattern.
19 However, the control variable interdependence showed a positive relationship with creativity. Although Goncalo and Staw (2006) argued that collectivism, with the emphasis on independence can counteract the creativity process in teams, Van der Vegt and Janssen (2003) found that task interdependence in teams can benefit the creativity when certain forms of diversity is present. Furthermore, it can increase knowledge sharing because independence forces a form of working together. Even the perceived interdependencies can already influence the amount of knowledge shared in groups.(Pee, Kankanhalli & Kim, 2010)
Implications
Knowledge sharing appears to be not significantly related with creativity, which contradicts a lot of research that has been done. Perhaps there is more to it than the literature currently suggests and that in-team processes are more complex and includes more factors to take in to account than we first thought. This study examined mostly the relationship of one demographic diversity(team tenure) aspect, but perhaps these demographic aspects of teams can’t be taken out of context of the other demographic variables that easily. Furthermore, knowledge shared by an dominant team member or even team leader can affect the thinking process of individual team members and eventually the creativity output of their team.
Also it is shown that interdependence has a significant role in team creativity. This variable not only has a significant effect on team creativity but also on knowledge sharing. What exactly the role of interdependence is in relation to team creativity and knowledge sharing is still yet to be explored, but it is clearly an variable which can influence team performance. Perhaps high interdependent team members need to share more knowledge and become therefore more creative. Or there might even be an explanation that a high level of interdependence leads to more conflict due to increased level of frustrations(Van Knippenberg, De Dreu & Homan, 2004; chi et al., 2009).
For now it seems that companies don’t have to consider the average level of openness to experience in their team when facing either a low, medium or a high level of tenure diversity. However as shown in the literature section, team leaders still must regard tenure diversity as an important, yet complex variable. Especially when the amount of certain forms of diversity can influence the benefit interdependence can have on knowledge sharing or team creativity.
20 First of all this research was cross sectional so it is not possible to establish causality between the variables measured. To make sure research findings are more valid, the study must be taking multiple samples in time.
Also our dependent variable team creativity was measured by letting team leaders rate items considering their teams’ creativity, which is essentially a one-man’s opinion. If someone is to conduct a research like this, it is advised to find a more accurate way to assess team creativity by for example also questioning more superiors about team creativity performances.
Moreover, and probably a bigger limitation is the fact that the team sizes were rather smaller than the team leader suggested, due to the amount of team members that responded. There were team members who didn’t respond, which influences the outcomes. This may leave the results rather unrealistic and not representative, due to variance in variables. This can lead to more errors and can make relations weaker. Conducting such an research with a bigger sample size will lead to more valid data and results.
As a last suggestion for further research is that it may be better to look at organizational tenure instead of team tenure diversity. Team tenure diversity may not quite explain all the differences of knowledge amongst members (Kearney, Gebert & Voelpel, 2009). For instance the level of education may be another explanation. Amabile (1983) has argued that the resources for tasks that require creativity are domain-relevant knowledge (you can’t be creative in a domain you know nothing about), however domain-relevant knowledge extends just one organization in that branch. That’s why industry knowledge can be important as well and so industry tenure is a variable to study in future research.
So different industries can lead to different circumstances and specifications for teams. That is why it probably leads to invalid data because now the results are taken from multiple industries at the same time. The data of such a specific research is probably more valid and accurate if one looks at one sector at a time.
21 CONCLUSION
22
REFERENCELIST
Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (2001). Review: Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS quarterly, 107-136. Amason, A. C., & Schweiger, D. M. (1994). Resolving the paradox of conflict, strategic decision making, and organizational performance. International Journal of Conflict
Management, 5(3), 239-253.
Baer, M. (2010). The strength-of-weak-ties perspective on creativity: a comprehensive examination and extension. Journal of applied psychology,95(3), 592.
Baer, M., & Oldham, G. R. (2006). The curvilinear relation between experienced creative time pressure and creativity: moderating effects of openness to experience and support for creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4), 963.
Cabrera, A´ ., Collins, W. C., & Selgado, J. F. (2006). Determinants of individual engagement in knowledge sharing. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 17(2), 245–264. Chen, Z. J., Zhang, X., & Vogel, D. (2011). Exploring the Underlying Processes Between Conflict and Knowledge Sharing: A Work‐Engagement Perspective1. Journal of applied social
psychology, 41(5), 1005-1033.
Chi, N. W., Huang, Y. M., & Lin, S. C. (2009). A double-edged sword? Exploring the curvilinear relationship between organizational tenure diversity and team innovation: The moderating role of team-oriented HR practices. Group & Organization Management, 34(6), 698-726.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Neo Personality Inventory-Revised (NEO PI-R). Psychological Assessment Resources.
Cummings, J. N. (2004). Work groups, structural diversity, and knowledge sharing in a global organization. Management science, 50(3), 352-364.
Feist, G. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity. Personality and social psychology review, 2(4), 290-309.
Gilson, L. L., Lim, H. S., Luciano, M. M., & Choi, J. N. (2013). Unpacking the cross‐level effects of tenure diversity, explicit knowledge, and knowledge sharing on individual creativity. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 86(2), 203-222.
Goncalo, J. A. & Staw, B. M. (2006). Individualism-collectivism and group creativity.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 100, 96-109.
Grant, K. (2015). Knowledge Management: An Enduring but Confusing Fashion. Leading
Issues in Knowledge Management, Volume Two, 2, 1.
Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of management review, 9(2), 193-206.
23 Hayes, A.F.,& Preacher, K.J. 2014. Statistical mediation analysis with a multicategorical independent variable. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 67, 451-470 Horwitz, S. K., & Horwitz, I. B. (2007). The effects of team diversity on team outcomes: A meta-analytic review of team demography. Journal of management, 33(6), 987-1015.
Huang, X., Hsieh, J. J., & He, W. (2014). Expertise dissimilarity and creativity: The contingent roles of tacit and explicit knowledge sharing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99, 816.
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), 741-763.
Kearney, E., Gebert, D., & Voelpel, S. C. (2009). When and how diversity benefits teams: The importance of team members' need for cognition. Academy of Management Journal, 52(3), 581-598.
Leenders, R. T. A., Van Engelen, J. M., & Kratzer, J. (2003). Virtuality, communication, and new product team creativity: a social network perspective.Journal of Engineering and
Technology Management, 20(1), 69-92.
Mannix, E., & Neale, M. A. (2005). What differences make a difference? The promise and reality of diverse teams in organizations. Psychological science in the public interest, 6(2), 31-55.
Maruping, L. M., Venkatesh, V., Thatcher, S. M., & Patel, P. C. (2015). Folding under pressure or rising to the occasion? Perceived time pressure and the moderating role of team temporal leadership. Academy of Management Journal, 58(5), 1313-1333.
Michel, J. G., & Hambrick, D. C. (1992). Diversification posture and top management team characteristics. Academy of Management Journal, 35(1), 9-37.
Mitchell, R., & Nicholas, S. (2006). Knowledge creation in groups: The value of cognitive diversity, transactive memory and open-mindedness norms. Electronic Journal of Knowledge
Management, 4(1), 67-74.
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese
companies create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford university press. O'Reilly III, C. A.,
Caldwell, D. F., & Barnett, W. P. (1989). Work group demography, social integration, and turnover. Administrative science quarterly, 21-37.
Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at work. Academy of management journal, 39(3), 607-634.
Park, C. H., Song, J. H., Lim, D. H., & Kim, J. W. (2014). The influences of openness to change, knowledge sharing intention and knowledge creation practice on employees’ creativity in the Korean public sector context. Human Resource Development International, 17(2), 203-221. Pee, L. G., Kankanhalli, A., & Kim, H. W. (2010). Knowledge sharing in information systems development: a social interdependence perspective. Journal of the Association for Information
24 Pelled, L. H. (1996). Demographic diversity, conflict, and work group outcomes: An intervening process theory. Organization science, 7(6), 615-631.
Shalley, C. E., Zhou, J., & Oldham, G. R. (2004). The effects of personal and contextual characteristics on creativity: Where should we go from here?. Journal of management, 30(6), 933-958.
Tjosvold, D., & Poon, M. (1998). Dealing with Scarce Resources Open-Minded Interaction for Resolving Budget Conflicts. Group & Organization Management,23(3), 237-255.
Tsui, A. S., Egan, T. D., & O'Reilly III, C. A. (1992). Being different: Relational demography and organizational attachment. Administrative science quarterly, 549-579.
Tsui, A. S., & Gutek, B. A. (1999). Demographic differences in organizations: Current
research and future directions. Lexington Books.
Van der Vegt, G. S., & Janssen, O. (2003). Joint impact of interdependence and group diversity on innovation. Journal of management, 29(5), 729-751.
Van der Vegt, G., & Van de Vliert,E., (1998). Motivating effects of task and outcome interdependence in work teams. Group & Organization Management, 23: 124-143.
Van Knippenberg, D., De Dreu, C. K., & Homan, A. C. (2004). Work group diversity and group performance: an integrative model and research agenda. Journal of applied psychology, 89(6), 1008.
Van Knippenberg, D., & Schippers, M. C. (2007). Work group diversity. Annu. Rev.
Psychol., 58, 515-541.
Williams, K. Y., & O'Reilly, C. A. (1998). Demography and diversity in organizations: A review of 40 years of research. Research in organizational behavior, 20, 77-140.
Zenger, T. R., & Lawrence, B. S. (1989). Organizational demography: The differential effects of age and tenure distributions on technical communication. Academy of Management
