WHEN AND HOW DOES THE CREATIVE STAR PROMOTE TEAM CREATIVITY? A MODERATED MEDIATION MODEL

(1)

CREATIVITY?

A MODERATED MEDIATION MODEL

Master Thesis

MSc Human Resource Management

University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business

July 1, 2018 KRISTÍNA NOVÁKOVÁ Student number: 3084612 Supervisor Dr. Yingjie Yuan Co-supervisor Dr. Thom A. de Vries

(2)

WHEN AND HOW DOES THE CREATIVE STAR PROMOTE TEAM CREATIVITY?

A MODERATED MEDIATION MODEL ABSTRACT

Prioritizing creativity is one of the ways in which companies can increase their performance. Further many companies are using teams to produce their services and products due to the complexity of work. This research examines how a star employee who shows the highest individual creativity within teams positively impacts the creativity of the team. This positive impact has been evidenced in previous research, yet how this effect occurs remained undefined. Therefore, this study´s main aim is the explanation of how the star´s creativity promotes team creativity by providing a reading on this effect and testing this relationship when mediated by the star´s creative collaboration. Further, the present study investigates this relationship with the moderators of the star´s network centrality and narcissism to explore to what extend they predict this relationship. Considering that narcissism helps the star to present their own ideas within the team environment and network centrality helps them to reach and influence a wider amount of members. 48 teams from five countries (The Netherlands, Germany, Slovakia, Australia and Sweden) provided data samples for this research, and altogether consisted of 236 team members and 48 team leaders. The study supported previous studies that found that individual creativity have an influence on team creativity. However, other significant relationships were not found, thus, no evidence which supports the proposed moderated-mediation was found. Furthermore, implications and limitations of the study are discussed.

(3)

INTRODUCTION

In today’s turbulent and uncertain business environment, the importance of creativity for organizations’ capability to adapt to changing environments is widely recognized

(Amabile, 1996). The utilization of creativity allows an organization to adjust to changing market conditions, respond to opportunities (Shalley, Zhou & Oldham, 2004), and thereby sustain its growth and competitiveness (Amabile, 1998). Due to the complexity of work environments, creative work is frequently carried out in teams (Hoever, Knippenberg, van Ginkel & Barkema, 2012). Developing team creativity is therefore vital to companies (Shalley & Gilson, 2004).

There are a number of studies on developing the creative performance of teams. These studies have mainly focused on how collective inputs and collective processes (e.g., Gilson & Shalley, 2004; Somech & Drach-Zahavy, 2011) promote team creativity. It is also important to study and look at the independent input of individuals as they augment and contribute to team creativity (Pirola-Merlo & Mann, 2004). The input of star team members as employees who are able to deliver disproportionally larger amounts of creative outputs relative to other team members, is receiving an increasing amount of practical and academic interest. Some past research provides supportive evidence of this positive effect (e.g. Taggar, 2001), however the literature has only tested the relationship, and not the effects to reveal the mechanism of how individuals actually contribute to team creativity.

(4)

creative knowledge and experiences which are implemented in team creative processes. This can be seen as a vital part in generating team creative outcomes. Therefore, in pursuance of proving the star´s significant influence it is important to look at what and how the star employees actually affect creative outcomes and how their positive effect manifests within team processes.

The group outcomes are influenced by how information and ideas are shared. This leads to group interaction where these are exchanged and transferred in a way that creates processes that are unique. (Hinz, Tindale & Vollrath, 1997). The key for developing team creativity is the synergistic process of integrating ideas and perspectives which are combined into team creative output. The synergy of team creativity facilitates the development of ideas to improve team creativity rather than using single creative outputs (Harvey, 2014).

Such a concept that integrates individual inputs into team ones is creative collaboration. Moran and John-Steiner (2004) stated creative collaboration is a process when

“a shared vision of something new and useful” is formed. Hence, in this research I tested that

(5)

The influence of the creative stars collaboration on other members depends on their motivation and recognition as these individual differences that can predict to what extend stars will show collaborative behavior. In this study I suggest that the impact of the creative collaboration of the creative star on team creativity can be influenced by their narcissism which fuels their desire to collaborate and consequently improve team creativity (de Vries, 2012). Narcissism also exhibits self-oriented behaviors which expose the desire to share opinions and creative ideas in front of teams. The star´s narcissism may impact the motivation to collaborate because of the urge to compete with other members and exhibit themselves and their ideas (Raskin & Terry, 1988) to receive credit and more opportunities (Call et al., 2015). Further, narcissism is associated with the confidence to speak, share ideas, provide feedback and express opinion on others´ work which can increase their collaborative tendencies. Thus, in this study I am proposing that narcissism can increase the extent of the star´s creative collaboration with the rest of their team members.

(6)

centrality on their creative collaboration as facilitated by their heightened potential for influencing other team members and therefore their ability to impact team creativity.

Subsequently, these two moderators and the mediator might have an influence on the relationship between the teams’ creativity via the presence of a creative star. Therefore, the

main research question is as follows: When and how does the creative star promote team

creativity?

(7)

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

Team creativity and creative stars

Team creativity is defined as novel and useful ideas developed by team members (Hoever et al., 2012) about processes, products and procedures (Shalley & Gibson, 2004). This suggests that team creativity can range from creative suggestions to breakthrough ideas. Past studies on team creativity typically focused on team idea generation (Paulus, 2000), team processes (Nemiro, 2002), creative processes and team tasks (Gilson & Shalley, 2004).

The relationship between team creativity and individual creativity, or individual differences, has been researched in a number of studies (e.g.van Kleef, Anastasopoulou & Nijstad, 2010). At the team level, based on Amabile (1997), the fundamental origin of team creativity is the creativity of individual team members. Further Anderson, Potočnik & Zhou (2014) saw team creativity as a consequence of each individual’s creative behaviors. Thus, team creativity is seen as the average or the sum of each member´s individual creativity (Taggar, 2001). However, not all members have the same creativity. Studies discovered that individuals with high creativity have a bigger impact on team creativity than others and are able to promote team creativity (Taggar, 2001). Therefore, research needs to pay attention to the fact that team creativity is determined by the best ideas from a member and the adoption of those ideas by the team (Steiner, 1972). In this case, this is determined by the best member – the creative star. Therefore, as Steiner (1972) suggested, the level of team creativity can be

predicted by determining the creativity of the star member. This suggestion was also used in the increasing research on star employees that predict team performance (O´Boyle & Aguinis, 2012; Call, Nyberg & Thatcher, 2015).

(8)

others (Call et al., 2015). Therefore this research, defines the creative star as an employee who is able to deliver a disproportionally larger amount of creative outputs compared to other team members through their greater creative resources, knowledge and experiences. Their positions within teams are indispensable for them because it gives them support in revealing their differences relative to other team members. They hold the ability of divergent thinking, expertise that helps them to link knowledge and abilities to contribute to the creative processes (Amabile, 1996) allowing them to produce a high level of creative outputs. Further, they have a higher tolerance for ambiguity, are self-reliant (Amabile, 1996) and assertive (Helson, Agronick & Roberts, 1995). These attributes help creative stars to be determined and confident in trying these novel or unfamiliar ideas, thereby demonstrating more creativity to other team members. The star employee therefore holds a bigger pool of creative resources that helps them to generate better ideas and improve team performance. Therefore I hypothesized:

Hypothesis 1: There is a positive relationship between the creativity level of the

creative star and team creativity.

Star member´s creative collaboration as a mediator

(9)

better engage in creative processes (Drazin et al., 1999). This concern is particularly relevant to the impact of creative stars, because of the amount of creativity they hold. Despite the star member within a team possessing outstanding ideas that can significantly drive team creativity, the star member’s novel ideas remain individual unless properly integrated. The

notion of creative collaboration captures the process of integrating an individual’s creative outputs into team processes.

Based on Elsbach & Flynn (2013) and their research on toy designers, collaborative behaviors involve an idea giving and an idea taking. All behaviors of creative collaboration can be seen as the formation of unique ideas (Elsbach & Flynn, 2013). If creative stars exhibit idea-giving behaviors, they offer original concepts and promote specific ideas that are useful. This means that the behavior of idea giving includes effort in the presentation of one’s own ideas between members, but also supporting someone else’s ideas. On the other hand, if stars exhibit idea-taking behaviors, they seek ideas from others, consider them and incorporate them, thereby engaging other team members in the creative process. The last behavior of co-creating ideas is visible in both idea taking and idea giving behavior. Stars are spending time discussing other’s perspectives and showing interest in ideas developed by other members

(Hoever et al., 2012). Co-creating involves the joint interactions between members which improves the development of new ideas or the adoption of new ways of doing things that are ultimately the product of mutual effort (Hülsheger, Anderson & Salgado et al., 2009).

(10)

suggestions to other team members as well as assisting them to contribute more creative inputs to the team. On the other hand, by taking ideas, the creative stars are helping to develop and improve others´ ideas through their interest in collective generation (Elsbach & Flynn, 2013). The star employee needs to be open to new ideas, challenge other members´ approaches, be ready to assist, be committed (Amabile, 1998) and involved in sharing their opinions (Taggar, 2002). Creative stars, by bringing these into their teams and their collective work, effectively transfer their creativity to their teams (Bish & Kabanoff, 2014). Thus, the star´s creative collaboration can be seen as a mechanism through which they can impact and influence the creativity and performance of the team. Therefore I hypothesized:

Hypothesis 2: The positive impact of star creativity on team creativity is enabled through the star’s creative collaboration, and the higher the star’s creativity, the more likely the star will engage in creative collaboration and consequently increase team creativity. The moderating role of Narcissism

Team members usually contribute to collective processes with their abilities (Drazin et al., 1999). The research also shows that team members vary in their levels of motivation and tend to express their capabilities and creativity to different extents (Amabile, 1983). Individual differences in their personality influence their motivation to bring their knowledge to team processes. The trait of narcissism has traditionally been connected with undesirable behaviors (Paulhus, 1998) that can hinder collaboration. In contrast, some studies also demonstrated a connection to positive behaviors, such as extraversion (Bradlee & Emmons, 1992), courage (Emmons, 1984) and lower social anxiety (Watson & Birderman, 1993). Therefore, narcissism can be seen as an important personality trait that assists team members to reveal themselves and their ideas to the rest of the team.

(11)

personality with behavior oriented towards others confirming their position. Ackerman, Witt, Donnellan, Trzesniewski, Robins and Kasahy (2011) defined narcissism as characterized by leadership/authority, entitlement/exploitativeness and grandiose exhibition. Narcissistic entitlement/exploitativeness tends to lead to low self-esteem, low empathy, less concern about others and a lower level of stability in mood. On the other hand, narcissists with an inclination towards leadership/authority tend to have higher awareness, lower self-discrepancy, higher self-esteem and emotional stability. Further, narcissists inclining towards grandiose exhibition tend to exhibit a higher sense of superiority, exhibition and pride connected with higher levels of extraversion and lower levels of agreeableness (Ackerman et al., 2011).

The narcissistic trait is related to higher creativity (Raskin, 1980). The presence of self-importance and the desire for admiration (Wink, 1991), results in the motivation to create new ideas to excel ahead of other team members. Moreover, it is also supported by a need for attention, self-worship of their own ideas and themselves (Raskin, 1980), self-love and dramatic self-presentation and is connected with a higher level of extraversion. (Ackerman et al., 2011). Their exhibition and extraversion help them to interact more effectively with other people allowing them to talk more in a group (Holtzman et al., 2010) and express themselves more confidently (Judge, LePine & Rich, 2006; Brunell et al., 2008). Their high self-worth and self-esteem assists them in knowing their limits, their advantages and disadvantages, and when to assert themselves and their opinions in front of others (de Vries, 2012).

(12)

position and receive the attention they desire, they more readily share their ideas with their team (Raskin, 1980). Moreover, this urges them to remark on other´s ideas and performance.

In summary, the narcissistic exhibition drive fuels the motivation of creative stars to collaborate. Their desire to collaborate is further boosted by their confidence, their desire to assert themselves, their need for attention and their need to gain exposure for their opinions, ideas and knowledge. The need to exhibit themselves in front of other team members is an important factor that drives them to share and engage others in creative processes. Therefore, if star members are missing this narcissistic exhibition drive it can decrease collaboration. Thus, I hypothesized:

Hypothesis 3: A creative star´s narcissism trait moderates the indirect effect of the star’s individual creativity on team creativity via creative collaboration, given that creative stars with a higher level of narcissism are more likely to exhibit creative collaborative behaviors and thus promote team creativity.

The moderating role of Network centrality

In order to integrate collaborative behaviors and ideas from the creative star into team creativity, they need to be accessible for the other team members. If the link between other team members and the creative star is missing, the star´s contributions will not be integrated with team performance. Therefore, the position of the creative star within the team network and the possibilities this position gives them are vital for the transformation of their individual creativity into team creativity.

(13)

both opportunities and constraints on participants’ actions (Uzzi 1997) and enhances access to valued resources (Jen, 2014). Further, it increases the possibilities for employees to identify and acquire knowledge and information (Mom, van Bosh & Volberda, 2009). This study looks at the network position of the creative star in a team because it influences the accessibility of the star´s contributions. When they command a relatively central position, the star´s influence on team creativity is far more tangible. Other team members can easily reach the star and obtain their advice and ideas (Reinholt et al., 2011). Consequently, the creative star influences a wider amount of team members thereby increasing the creative performance of the team.

One of the most strategic positions for individual members to impact others is the central position of a given network. Network centrality refers to the centrality of actors, or the identification of which actors have more central positions (Borgatti, Carley & Krackhardt, 2006). So, a network consists of actors that are linked by the ties between them. The pattern of linked ties between actors in this network provides a network structure (Burgatti & Halgin, 2011). Their degree of centrality corresponds with the number of ties and links that the actor has (Borgatti, Mehra, Brass & Labianca, 2009).

(14)

to their work, ultimately sharing this with other employees (Sparrowe, Liden & Kraimer, 2001).

Network centrality therefore means, that creative stars will be able to transmit information and influence more effectively than other team members. The creative stars´ central position enhances the idea giving dimension of creative collaboration by increasing the possibility for their creativity to be heard by their team members. This central position also enables them to better affect team creative processes by campaigning for ideas that these star employees themselves found useful and novel. On the other hand, the creative stars´ central position also provides an accessible base for idea taking by allowing them to hear other`s ideas, to consider and discuss these ideas. The central position grants the star the option to enlist the assistance of other members in problem solving and idea generation. Therefore, the central position will also increase the chance for the creative star to inspire other members to be integrated and involved in creative processes.

The research by Anderson (2008) demonstrated that a central position is related to the amount of information that can be acquired and seeked out by an employee but also to the amount of information that is shared with other team members (Tsai, 2001). Thus, network centrality positively influences the relationship between the star´s individual creativity and creative collaboration. Moreover, the star´s central position helps the collaborative intentions of a star to be transformed into team creativity. Therefore I hypothesized:

Hypothesis 4: A creative star´s network centrality moderates the indirect effect of their individual creativity on team creativity via creative collaboration, such that the creative star with a higher level of network centrality has more opportunities to influence a wider number of team members thereby promoting team creativity.

(15)

Figure 1

Conceptual model

METHODS

Data collection procedures

The aim of this research is to examine the relationship between the star´s creativity and team creativity using the proposed moderated-mediation model. In order to conduct this research, online questionnaires were used to gather the relevant data. The personal network of the researcher was used to accumulate the participating teams. To test the above mentioned hypotheses, two online questionnaires were distributed among team supervisors and team members.

(16)

Both of the questionnaires used in the research were translated from English to Dutch, German and Slovak. The decision for having questionnaires in multiple languages was made due to the fact that participating teams were from different countries and spoke different languages. Translated questionnaires were checked by other native speakers who hold knowledge in this field of research, in order to avoid incorrect translations and ensure that the meaning of the items was not compromised. Further, the confidentiality of all participants was maintained and the participation of teams and their supervisors was voluntary.

Sample

Data was collected in a sample of 82 teams with at least 3 members and their direct supervisors. Of these, 48 teams were ultimately used in this study. I had to exclude teams with response rates below 80% to ensure that the network centrality analysis results would not be compromised (Borgatti, 2013). Teams were also excluded from this study if they had refused to answer some of the questions. Team members found some questions, especially network centrality questions, too personal and contravened their right to privacy. In one case, a team had to be excluded even though the response rate was above 80%, due to the fact that one of the missing respondents was the most creative member identified through the leader`s answers.

(17)

age among team members ranged between 17 and 64 and the average age was 39.10 (SD=13.14). The average organizational tenure was 9.92 (SD=10.83) and it ranged from less than a year to 49 years, the average team tenure was 5.24 (SD=6.64) and it ranged from less than a year to 38 years. In the presented sample, 35.2% of team members have secondary education, 30.9% obtained Master´s degrees, 24.2% obtained Bachelor´s degrees, 0.8% obtained Doctoral degrees, 5.9% obtained MBO and 3% obtained other types of education.

The number of team leaders that participated in this study is equal to the number of teams used, thus the study consists of data from 48 team leaders. There were more female leaders (54.2%) and less male leaders (45.8%) (M=1.53, SD=0.50). The average age of team leaders was 41.55 years (SD= 11.50) and ranged from 21 to 60 years old. Their average organizational tenure was 10.38 years (SD=7.49) and ranged from 1 to 30 years. The leader´s average tenure as team leader was 5.14 years (SD=4.98) and it ranged from less than a year to 20 years. The leaders education was mostly Master´s degrees with 45.8%, followed by Secondary education at 18.8%, Bachelor´s degrees also at 18.8%, Doctoral degrees at 4.2% and 12.5% of team leaders obtained a different type of education, such as MBO.

Measurements

Team Creativity. Creativity in this research will be measured on an individual and team basis, in both cases creativity will be assessed by the team leader and not by team members themselves in order to minimize biases. Team creativity will be measured with four items (Shin & Zhou, 2007). The leader will be asked to identify to what extent the team is being creative on a 7-point scale ranging from extremely bad (1) to extremely good (7). Sample items are “How well does your team produce new ideas?” and “How useful are

those ideas?” The reliability was tested with satisfactory Cronbach’s alpha at .84.

(18)

leaders. The leaders´ ratings will be used due to the possibility that team members will be tempted to give themselves a higher score. This scale that measures the degree of individual creativity consists of 4 items and will be used by the leaders who are familiar with each team member to indicate to what extent these 4 items apply to each team member. This scale will be rated on 7-point scale, from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7). A higher overall score indicates a higher level of creativity. Some specific items are: “Tries new ideas or

methods first“ or „Is a good role model for creativity“. Cronbach’s alpha is .91.

Star member’s creativity. To identify a creative star, each team members´ individual creativity will be assessed by the team leader. The average score for the measure of individual creativity developed by Farmer, Tierney & Kung-McIntyre (2003) for each team member will be calculated. The team member who will be evaluated by the team leader and score the highest score on this individual creativity measure will be considered the team´s creative star. In the event that two or more members achieved an identical score on individual creativity, the creative star will be chosen randomly.1

Creative collaboration. To measure the effect of the creative star on team creativity, an established measure of creative collaboration based on the quantitative research of Elsbach & Flynn (2013) will be used. The 12 items tap into the flow of information with people inside one’s team within the company and also into idea generation and the consideration of ideas

created in one´s team. These items will be rated on the 7- point scale from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7). Some specific items are “In the team creative process, I make

suggestions for original concepts” or “In the team creative process, I seriously think about ideas offered by team members“. Creative collaboration will be rated by each team member

in order to get a score for each participant. Cronbach’s alpha for creative collaboration is .91. For items that measure the extent of idea taking, Cronbach’s alpha was found to be 0.86 and

(19)

for items that measure the extent of idea giving, Cronbach’s alpha was found to be 0.85 and therefore the measure is reliable.

Network centrality. Network centrality will be measured through the individual responses of each team member and a measure devised by Tortoriello & Krackhardt (2010) will be used. This measurement will be rated for each team member by each of the other team members. This method will allow the collection of data relevant for determining the network connection between members. The item for this measure is: “Please indicate how often you

generally go to this person for information, knowledge, or advice on work-related topics?”.

In the questionnaire, the list of names of each team member was provided, and participants were asked to mark how often they go to each person. Participants were asked to answer this item on a 6-point scale from never (1) to very often (5) for every team member, further each member will need to identify themselves (6) thereby eliminating the possibility for any self-reported data. To calculate the value of network in-degree centrality of the creative star I used network software Ucinet, this approach was used among all the teams.

Narcissism. Narcissistic features will be measured using the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI) unidimensional measure by Ames, Rose & Anderson (2006) that is shortened and adapted from Raskin & Terry, (1988). It consists of 16 pairs of items, sample items include: “I like having authority over people” or “I really like to be the center of

attention”. Narcissism will be self-rated by team members because the data for personality

traits are the most accurate and provide more valid information when they come from the individuals themselves and not by other team members (McDonald, 2008). The reliability of this scale was tested and its Cronbach’s alpha was found to be 0.58.

(20)

company you are working for located?”. Gender will be measured by one-item: “What is your gender?” and coded such that 1 is male and 2 is female. Gender will be used as one of

the control variables as previous research suggested that there is a positive relationship between creativity and being a female (da Costa, Páez, Sánchez, Garaigordobil & Gondim, 2015). Age will be measured by one item in years: “What is your age?”. Age will be used as a control variable due to the fact that older team members are likely to be less creative than younger team members (Amabile, Barsade, Mueller & Staw, 2005; Zhou, 2003). Furthermore, in this research I will control organizational and team tenure. Tenure can affect knowledge that is needed for creativity (Shalley & Gibson, 2004; Tierney, Farmer & Graen, 1999). Organizational tenure will be measured by one-item “How long, in years, have you

been working with your current employer?“, and team tenure was measured also by

one-item: “How long, in years, have you been working in the team you are currently part of?”. Education can also have an effect on the knowledge necessary for generating creative ideas (Tierney, Farmer & Graen, 1999), therefore education will be measured in this research by one item: „What is your highest level of education attained?”. Further, team size will be controlled because it can influence team creativity as team performance is known to worsen with increasing numbers of team members (Thompson, 2013). As a last control I will use the other team member´s creativity, measured by the same 4 items as individual creativity. The average creativity of each team will be calculated based on data from individual creativity measurements, but the creativity of a star member will be excluded from this average. The creative star in this study is the most creative person in a team relative to other team members´ and therefore it will be used as a control variable.

Analytic strategy

(21)

dependent variable were standardized. To test my presented model and hypotheses I used linear regression to test my first hypothesis. To test my second hypothesis, which includes mediation, I used the model PROCESS 4 developed by Andrew Hayes. To test my third hypothesis, I used model PROCESS 7 and for my last hypothesis I used model PROCESS 59 in SPSS with a bootstrap of 5000 samples (Hayes, 2013).

RESULTS

Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations

Table 1 shows the means (M), standard deviations (SD) and correlations for all variables and control variables in my conceptual model.

--- Insert Table 1 about here ---

Hypothesis testing

Hypothesis 1 predicted a positive relationship between the star employee`s creativity and team creativity. By conducting a linear regression analysis, as can be seen in Table 2, I found a positive direct effect of a star`s creativity on team creativity. (B=.40, SE=.14, p=.01, R = 69, R2 _=.47).

(22)

by star´s creative collaboration (B =-.01, CI [-.11 .04]). Moreover, to explore the effect of this mediator I tested the dimensions of creative collaboration separately. However, none of them were found to have a significant indirect effect, star´s idea taking (B =-.00, CI [-.08 .05]) and star´s idea giving (B =-.01, CI [-.11 .05]).

Hypothesis 3 postulates that the narcissism of a creative star moderates the indirect effect of the star`s creativity on team creativity through the star`s creative collaboration. Table 4 shows Hypothesis 3 is rejected, because there is no significant indirect effect at low moderation (Star´s narcissism= -1SD, 95%, CI: [-.16, .05,]), neither for moderate moderation (Star´s centrality= 0 SD, 95% CI: [-.11, .04,]) or high moderation effect (Star´s centrality= + 1SD, 95%, CI: [-.14, .10,]) in this tested hypothesis. Despite the absence of the mediating effect, a direct effect of the independent variable, star`s creativity, on the dependent variable, team creativity, was found (B=41, t(44)=2.79, p=.01). To further explore this indirect effect, I examined the mediating role of two dimensions of creative collaboration separately. However, there were no significant indirect effects found.

(23)

CI: [-.08, .08,]) or high moderation (Star´s centrality= +1SD, 95%, CI: [-.41, .13,]) . As in previous analysis, I also tested both dimensions of creative collaboration separately and none of the relationships and indirect effects were found to be significant.

The closer examination of the conditional direct effects show that the network centrality of a star member is significant for stars who are high on centrality (Star´s centrality= +1SD, 95% CI: [.14, .87,], p= .01) and who are average on centrality (Star´s centrality= 0SD, 95% CI: [.08, .69,], p= .01). The low centrality was found to be insignificant. The same situation holds for the dimensions of idea taking and idea giving.

Additional analysis

As there was not significant mediation effect in my proposed model, I conducted an additional analysis to test if other members´ idea giving might mediate the relation between the star´s creativity and team creativity. And furthermore, I tested the effect of the star´s creative collaboration on team creativity when mediated by other members´ idea giving. The following mediation models were tested with Process Model 4 with bootstrap of 5000 (Hayes, 2013) and the 90% confidence level was used.

In the first mediation analysis, I found a positive indirect effect of star´s individual creativity on team creativity when other members idea giving was used as a mediator (B =.04, CI [.00, .13]). Also the indirect effect of other members´ idea giving was found in the relationship between star´s creative collaboration and team creativity (B =.09, CI [.01 .23]).

(24)

DISCUSSION

The main aim of this study was to reveal relationships between a creative star´s creativity and team creativity within existing teams. The present study investigated the mediating role of the star´s creative collaboration on the relationships between their creativity and team creativity. This study also examined the moderating role of narcissism on the relationship between individual creativity and creative collaboration. Further, the moderating role of the star´s network centrality is considered in reference to the relationship between individual creativity and creative collaboration, but also on the relationship between creative collaboration and team creativity.

With Hypothesis 1, I expected that the star´s individual creativity would positively correlate with team creativity. Indeed, the results demonstrated a significant positive correlation between the two. Previous research was in line with the results of this study, similarly demonstrating this positive relationship (Gong, Kim, Lee, & Zhu, 2013). Thus, this hypothesis has proven previous research findings.

Hypothesis 2 expected that this relationship between the star´s creativity and team creativity would be mediated by the creative star´s level of creative collaboration. This mediation effect was not shown to be significant. I argued that the star´s creative collaboration through the sharing and proposing of their own ideas and by discussing and developing ideas of other team members, team creative outputs would be enhanced. Previous studies have herein demonstrated a positive correlation (Paulus & Nijstad, 2003), therefore our findings contradict this research. Despite this, further analysis of the data demonstrated a mediating effect resulting from the creative collaboration of other team members.

(25)

the attention they desired but also give their opinions on ideas proposed by others. Therefore I saw narcissism as a driver behind the star´s creative collaboration. However, I did not find support for this relationship. An explanation for the missing interaction effect might be that the individuals with the narcissistic trait might be more engaging in behaviors that orient on them (Campbell, Rudich, & Sekidides, 2002) and they do not try to increase team performance, but rather they seek the attention and admiration of their other team members. Also this finding contradicts previous research carried out by Raskin (1980) whose study concluded that narcissistic individuals show higher levels of creativity. On the other hand, narcissism has also been demonstrated as not influencing creativity or collaboration and narcissistic individuals only appear to be more creative than others by the way they present themselves in front of other team members (Goncalo et al., 2010).

Hypothesis 4 predicted that the star´s network centrality moderated the relationship between the star´s creativity and creative collaboration but also the relationship between creative collaboration and team creativity. Previous research found that the central position within a network grants individuals better access to resources and knowledge (Jen, 2014) and further, research by Jiang & Chen (2015) found that network centrality is important for creative individuals to achieve collaboration. The finding in my study contradicts this research because none of the interactions were significant.

(26)

star´s creativity and team creativity. Therefore, as previous research suggested, team creativity is not just influenced by the individual creativity of its members but other aspects also have influence on a team’s creative output (Taggar, 2002). I further tested another model, the results of which also demonstrated a full mediation relationship. Thus, it appears that the idea giving of other team members stimulates the relationship of star´s creative collaboration on team creativity. As stated in previous research, the most creative employees hold more creative knowledge (Tierney, Farmer & Graen, 1999), and these are transferred to team creativity through ideas offered by other members. Therefore the star employee´s collaboration is able to increase team creativity if the star member receives ideas from other team members.

Implications for theory and practice

Although this study did not find any significant results in line with the stated hypotheses, the direction of seeking to explain the underlying relationship between individual creativity and team creativity was found. First, this study confirmed the results of other studies (Pirola-Merlo & Mann, 2004; Taggar, 2001) that individual creativity has an influence on team creativity and further that the most creative person increases team creativity.

(27)

more influenced by the synergy of its members´ collective input and not just the input of one member or a simplistic sum of its individual members´ creativity (Taggar, 2002).

In recent years creativity has become an important part of teams and organizational effectiveness and of importance if companies want to survive (Shalley et al., 2004). This research confirmed that the most creative individuals within teams have influence on team creativity. Thus, leaders should pay attention to these employees. In addition, supplementary analysis showed that for enhancing team creativity, other member’s inputs are also important. Therefore, leaders should not only focus on the most creative members but they should focus on creating an environment where star members can stimulate other members to contribute their ideas to the team creative processes. These kinds of environments that provide support for creativity in teams was demonstrated in multiple studies as being positively correlated with team creative performance (e.g. Chen et al., 2013).

Limitations and future research

Despite the contribution of this research, several limitations occurred while evaluating the results; these limitations need to be taken into account. Directions for future research will also be presented in this part.

The first limitation regards the type of data used in my study. A part of the data was based on the self- reporting of team members, and it is well known that people can respond in socially desirable ways rather than truthfully. Participants might want to cover their behaviors or are ashamed of inappropriate tendencies in their behavior. This could lower the reliability of this measurement that was found to be .58 in this research. On the other hand, the team and individual creativity was evaluated by the team leader, so the data is more reliable than the self-reported data by team members.

(28)

personality trait has more dimensions and each of them can provide a different effect. Therefore, it would be more appropriate to use different measure such as NPI-40 by Raskin & Terry (1988) with seven different dimensions or NPI-13 by Gentile and colleagues (2013) with three different factors and analyze their influence on the star´s creative collaboration separately.

Further, the sample size was small and this study was only conducted on team data with at least an 80% response rate. This resulted in a smaller chance for finding relationships between variables that are significant (Stone & Rosopa, 2017). With larger samples of teams, my predicted hypotheses could be better supported and the findings in the additional analysis could be supported on a confidence level of 95%, instead of 90%. Further, the missing data might have influenced the network centrality measure.

The teams used in this study were from different organizations representing multiple industries and countries. Initially, this can be seen as an advantage for the generalizability of results, but on the other hand it is clear that some organizations and sectors are more creative or creativity has a different level of importance in their team work (Curral, Forrester,

Dawson, & West, 2001). Although creativity is seen as an important factor for all

organizations operating in a business environment (Gu, Tang & Jiang, 2015), there is a possibility that the significance of creativity between organizations differs and also depends on the type of work. In this study, countries in which the companies operate was included as a control variable. However, there was no significant effect. Future research could explore this and take into account the fact that the level of and expectation for creativity differs based on the industry or based on the need for creativity within company.

(29)

provide research with individual creativity data over time allowing the prediction and identification of the team´s creative star.

Building on the conceptual model presented in this study and additional analysis, future research should focus on providing further explanation of how the individual creativity of star members can be translated into team creativity. As the additional mediation analysis demonstrated, the indirect effect on the relationship between individual and team creativity is explained by the creative collaboration of other members. Therefore, future research should include different independent variables on other members´ behaviors, such as their motivation to learn, perform tasks or their personality traits as it appears that not only the star´s behavior is important for interpreting this transformation but the behavior of the other team members as well.

CONCLUSION

(30)

REFRENCES

Ackerman, R. A., Witt, E.A., Donnellan, M.B., Trzesniewski, K.H., Robins, R.W., & Kashy, D.A. (2011). What Does the Narcissistic Personality Inventory Really Measure? Assessment 18, 67–87.

Amabile, T. M. (1997). Motivating creativity in organizations: On doing what you love and loving what you do. California Management Review, 40(1), 39-58.

Amabile, T. M. (1998). How to kill creativity. Harvard Business Review, 76(5), 76-88. Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: Westview.

Amabile , T. M. ( 1983 ). The social psychology of creativity . New York : Springer Verlag Amabile, T.M., Barsade, S.G., Mueller, J.S. & Staw, B.M. (2005). Affect and creativity at

work. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(3), 367-403.

Ames, D.R., Rose, P. & Anderson, C.P. (2006). The NPI-16 as a short measure of narcissism. Journal of Research in Personality, 40(4), 440-450.

Anderson, M. H. (2008). Social networks and the cognitive motivation to realize network opportunities: a study of managers' information gathering behaviors. Journal of organizational behavior, 29(1), 51-78.

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(5), 1297–1333.

Bish, A., & Kabanoff, B. (2014). Star performers: Task and contextual performance are components, but are they enough? Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 52(1), 110-127.

(31)

Borgatti, S.P. & Halgin, D.S. (2011). On Network Theory. Organization Science, 22 (5), 1168-1181.

Borgatti, S.P., Mehra, A., Brass, D.J. & Labianca, G. (2009). Network analysis in the social sciences. Science, 323, 892-895.

Bradlee, P. M., & Emmons, R. A. (1992). Locating narcissism within the interpersonal circumplex and the five-factor model. Personality and Individual Differences, 13(7), 821-830.

Brunell, A. B., Gentry, W. A., Campbell, W. K., Hoffman, B. J., Kuhnert, K. W., & DeMarree, K. G. (2008). Leader emergence: The case of the narcissistic leader. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1663-1676.

Call, M.L., Nyberg, A.J., & Thatcher, S.M.B. (2015). Stargazing: An Integrative Conceptual Review, Theoretical Reconciliation, and Extension for Star Employee Research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100 (3), 623–640.

Campbell, W. K., Rudich, E. A., & Sedikides, C. (2002). Narcissism, self-esteem, and the positivity of self-views: Two portraits of self-love. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 358–368.

Chen, G. F. J., Campbell-Bush, E. M., Wu, Z., & Wu, X. (2013). Teams as Innovative Systems: Multilevel Motivational Antecedents of Innovation in R&D Teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(6), 1018–1027.

Curral, L. A., Forrester, R. H., Dawson, J. F., & West, M. A. (2001). It’s what you do and the way that you do it: Team task, team size, and innovation-related group processes. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10(2), 187–204.

(32)

Dunning, D., Johnson, K., Ehrlinger, J., & Kruger, J. (2003). Why people fail to recognize their own incompetence. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12(3), 83–87. Elsbach, K. & Flynn, F. J. (2013). Creative Collaboration and the Self‐ Concept: A Study of

Toy Designers. Journal of Management Studies, 50(4), 515-544.

Emmons, R. A. (1984). Factor analysis and construct validity of the narcissistic personality inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48(3), 291-300.

Ernst, H., Leptien, C. & Vitt, J.(2000). Inventors are not alike: The distribution of patenting output among industrial R&D personnel. IEEE Trans. Engrg. Management, 47(2), 184–199.

Everett, M. G., Borgatti, S. P., & Johnson, J. C. (2013). Analyzing social networks. (1 ed.) London: Sage.

Farmer, S. M., Tierney, P., & Kung-Mcintyre, K. (2003). Employee Creativity in Taiwan: An Application of Role Identity Theory. Academy of Management Journal, 46(5), 618-630.

Gentile, B., Miller, J. D., Hoffman, B. J., Reidy, D. E., Zeichner, A., & Campbell, W. K. (2013). A test of two brief measures of grandiose narcissism: The Narcissistic Personality Inventory–13 and the Narcissistic Personality Inventory-16. Psychological Assessment, 25(4), 1120-1136.

Glynn, M. A. (1996). Innovative genius: A framework for relating individual and organizational intelligences to innovation. Academy of Management Review, 21(4), 1081-1111.

(33)

Gong, Y., Kim, T. Y., Zhu, J., & Lee, D. R. (2013). A Multilevel Model of Team Goal Orientation, Information Exchange, and Creativity. Academy of Management Journal. Vol. 56, No. 3, 827–851.

Groysberg, B., Lee L.E, and Nanda, A. (2008). Can They Take It with Them? The Portability of Star Knowledge Workers' Performance: Myth or Reality. Management Science 54(7), 1213 – 1230.

Gu, Q., Tang, T.L.P. and Jiang, W. (2015). Does moral leadership enhance employee creativity? Employee identification with leader and leader–member exchange (LMX) in the Chinese context. Journal of Business Ethics, 126(3), 513-529

Harvey, S. (2014). Creative Synthesis: Exploring the process of extraordinary group creativity. The Academy of Management Review, 39(3), 324-343.

Hayes, A. F. 2013. Introduction of mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression based approach. New York: Guilford Press.

Helson, R., Agronick, G. & Roberts, B. (1995). Enduringness and change in creative personality and the prediction of occupational creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(6), 1173-1183.

Hinz, Tindale & Vollrath (1997). The emerging conceptualization of groups as information processors. Psychological Bulletin,121, 43-64.

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.

(34)

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.

Inkpen, A. C. & Tsang, E. W. K. (2005). Social capital, networks, and knowledge transfer. Academy Management Review, 30(1), 146–165.

Jackson, L. A., Ervin, K. S., & Hodge, C. N. (1992). Narcissism and body image. Journal of Research in Personality, 26(4), 357-370.

Jen, C.T. (2014). Social Ties, Knowledge Diversity and Individual Creativity. Journal of Business Studies Quarterly, 6(2), 110-124.

Jiang Y. & Chen, L.. (2015). Creativity, Network Centrality, and Performance in Knowledge-Intensive Teamwork. Academy of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings, 2015 (1), 14517-14517.

Judge, T. A., LePine, J. A., & Rich, B. L. (2006). Loving Yourself Abundantly: Relationship of the Narcissistic Personality to Self and Other Perceptions of Workplace Deviance, Leadership, and Task and Contextual Performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 762−776.

Kets de Vries, M.F.R. (2012). Star Performers: Paradoxes wrapped up in enigmas. Organizational Dynamics, 41(3), 173—182.

Kijkuit, B., & van den Ende, J. (2007). The organizational life of an idea: integrating Social network, creativity and decision-making Perspectives. Journal of management studies, 44(6), 863-882.

(35)

McDonald, J.D. (2008). Measuring Personality Constructs: The Advantages and Disadvantages of Self-Reports, Informant Reports and Behavioural Assessments. Enquire, 1(1): 75-94.

Mom, T. J. M., van den Bosch, F. A. J. & Volberda, H. W. (2009). Understanding variation in managers’ ambidexterity: Investigating direct and interaction effects of formal

structural and personal coordination mechanisms. Organization Science, 20(4), 812-828.

Moran, S., & John-Steiner, V. (2003). Creativity in the making: Vygotsky´s contemporary contribution to the dialectic of development and creativity. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Creativity and development. New York: Oxford University Press.

Mors, M. L. (2010). Innovation in a global consulting firm: when the problem is too much diversity. Strategic Management Journal, 31(8), 841–872.

Mumford, M. D., Zaccaro, S. J., Harding, F. D., Jacobs, T. O., & Fleishman, E. A. (2000). Leadership skills for a changing world: Solving complex social problems. The Leadership Quarterly, 11(1), 11-35.

Nemiro, J. E. (2002). The creative process in virtual teams. Creativity Research Journal, 14(1) 69–83.

Nijstad, B. & Paulus, P. B. (2003). Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration. New York: Oxford University Press.

O’Boyle E.H. & Aguinis H. (2012). The best and the rest: Revisiting the norm of normality

of individual performance. Personnel Psychology, 65, 79–119.

Paulhus, D. L. (1998). Interpersonal and intrapsychic adaptiveness of trait self-enhancement: A mixed blessing? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(5), 1197-1208. Paulus, P. B. (2000). Groups, teams, and creativity: The creative potential of idea-generating

(36)

Pirola-Merlo, A. & Mann, L. (2004). The Relationship between Individual Creativity and Team Creativity: Aggregating across People and Time. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(2), 235-257.

Podsakoff, P. M., McKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879.

Raskin, R. (1980). Narcissism and creativity: Are they related? Psychological Reports, 46(1), 55- 60.

Raskin, R., & Terry, H. (1988). A principal components analysis of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory and further evidence of its construct validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 890 – 902.

Reinholt, M., Pedersen, T., & Foss, N.J. (2011). Why a central network position isn't enough: the role of motivation and ability for knowledge sharing in employee networks. The academy of management journal, 54(6), 1277-1297.

Shalley, C. E., & Gilson, L. L. (2004). What leaders need to know: A review of social and contextual factors that can foster or hinder creativity. Leadership Quarterly, 15(1), 33– 53.

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.

(37)

Sparrowe, R. T., Liden, R. C., & Kraimer, M. L. (2001). Social networks and the performance of individuals and groups. Academy of management journal, 44(2), 316-325.

Steiner, I. D. (1972). Group process and productivity. New York: Academic Press

Stone, D.L. & Rosopa, P. (2017). Using Meta-analysis to Enhance our Understanding of Human Resource Management. Human reource Management review, 27 (1), 1-7. Taggar, S. (2001). Group Composition, Creative Synergy, and Group Performance. Journal

of Creative Behavior, 35, 261-286.

Taggar, S. (2002). Individual creativity and group ability to utilize individual creative resources: A multilevel model. Academy of Management Journal, 45(2), 315-330. Thompson, L. (2013). Creative conspiracy, the new rules of breakthough collaboration.

Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing.

Tierney, P., Farmer, S. M., & Graen, G. B. (1999). An examination of leadership and employee creativity: The relevance of traits and relationships. Personnel psychology,

52(3), 591-620.

Tortoriello, M. & Krackhardt, D. (2010). Activating cross-boundary knowledge: The role of simmelian ties in the generation of innovations. Academy of Management Journal, 53(1), 167–181.

Tsai, W. (2001). Knowledge transfer in intraorganizational networks: Effects of network position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44(5), 996- 1004.

(38)

van Kleef, G. A., Anastasopoulou, C., & Nijstad, B. A. (2010). Can expressions of anger enhance creativity? A test of the emotions as social information (EASI) model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(6), 1042–1048.

Warren, D. (1968). Power, visibility, and conformity in formal organizations. American Sociological Review, 33(6), 951–970.

Watson, P., & Biderman, M. D. (1993). Narcissistic personality inventory factors, splitting, and self-consciousness. Journal of Personality Assessment, 61(1), 41-57.

Watson, P.J., Grisham, S.O., Trotter, M.V. & Biderman, M.D. (1984) Narcissism and Empathy: Validity Evidence for the Narcissistic Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48(3), 301-305.

Wink, P. (1991). Two Faces of Narcissism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 590-597.

Young, G. J., Charns, M. P. & Shortell, S. M. (2001). Top manager and network effects on the adoption of innovative management practices: A study of TQM in a public hospital system. Strategic Management Journal, 22, 935-951.

(39)

Table 1

Descriptive Statistics and intercorrelations

Notes. N = 48. a _{In years.}+_{p < .10,}*_{p < .05,}**_{p < .01. Gender: 0 = female 1= male. Country: 1= The Netherlands, 2= Germany, 3= Slovakia, 4= Australia, 5= Sweden}

(40)

Table 2

Linear Regression (Hypothesis 1)

Notes. N = 48. +_{p < .10,}*_{p < .05,}**_{p < .01.}

Dependent Variable Team creativity

β t Constant Control variables 5.39 15.68 Country .10 .90 Team size .01 .14 Star`s age -.18 -1.34 Star`s education .04 .40

Star`s organ. tenure .19 .91

Star`s team tenure -.15 -.86

Star`s gender

Creativity of other members

(41)

Table 3

Regression Analysis (Hypothesis 2)

Mediator Star`s Creative Collaboration Star`s Idea Taking Star`s Idea Giving

B t CI [LL,UL]a _B _t _{CI [LL,UL]} a _B _t _{CI [LL,UL]} a

Constant Control variables .12 .25 [-.89, 1.14] .37 .75 [-.63, 1.37] -.11 -.23 [-1.13, .90] Country .22 1.41 [-.10, .53] .21 1.37 [-.10, .52] .21 1.41 [-.09, .52] Team size -.11 -1.46 [-.26, .04] -.15* -2.09 1.17 .01 [-.30, -.00] -.06 -.80 [-.21, .09] Star`s age .13 .67 [-.25, .52] .22 [-.16, .60] .04 .21 [-.34, .42] Star`s education -.08 -.54 [-.38, .22] .00 [-.30, .29] -.15 -1.05 [-.44, .14]

Star`s organ. tenure -.17 -.56 [-.78, .44] -.07 -.23

.75 -1.44

.17

[-.72, .53] -.25 -.80 [-.75, .32]

Star`s team tenure .18 .75 [-.31, .68] .18 [-.31, .67] .17 .65 [-.31, .61]

Star`s gender

Creativity of other members

-.20 -.01 -1.35 -.06 [-.49, .10] [-.49, .46] -.21 .04 [-.50, .08] [-.43, .51] -.17 -.06 -1.16 -.26 [-.46, .12] [-.54, .41] IV Star`s creativity R2 .18 .24 .83 [-.25, .60] .05 .27 .23 [-.37, .47] .28 .25 1.33 [-.15, .70]

Dependent variable Team creativity Team creativity Team creativity

B t CI [LL,UL] a _B _t _{CI [LL,UL]} a _B _t _{CI [LL,UL]} a

Constant Control variables 5.40** _15.49 _{[4.69, 6.10]} _5.40** _15.39 _{[4.67, 6.11]} _4.39** _15.48 _{[4.68, .6.09]} Country .10 0.93 [-.12, .33] .10 0.90 [-.13, .31] .10 .95 [-.13, .31] Team size .00 .07 [-.10, .11] .00 .08 [-.11, .12] .01 .09 [-.10, .11] Star`s age -.17 -1.29 [-.44, .10] -.17 -1.27 [-.45, .09] -.18 -1.32 [-.45, .09] Star`s education .04 .37 [-.17, .25] .04 .40 [-.15, .26] .03 .33 [-.16, .25]

Star`s organ. tenure .18 .87 [-.24, .61] .19 .89 [-.26, .49] .18 .84 [-.27, .49]

Star`s team tenure -.14 -.81 [-.48, .21] -.14 -.83 [-.43, .23] -.14 -.81 [-.42, .23]

Star`s gender -.03 -.26 [-.24, .18] -.03 -.24 [-.24, .18] -.03 -.27 [-.24, .17]

Creativity of other members .13 .78 [-.20, .46] .13 .79 [-.20, .46] .13 .77 [-.21, .46]

IV

Star`s creative collaboration Star´s idea taking

Star´s idea giving R2 -.03 - - .47 -.28 - - [-.26, .20] - - - -.02 - .47 - -.18 - - [-.25, .21] - - - -.04 .47 - - -.36 - - [-.27, .19]

(42)

Table 4

Constant Control variables 5.40** _15.49 _{[4.69, 6.10]} _5.40** _15.39 _{[4.72, 6.13]} _5.38** _15.47 _{[4.68, 6.09]} Country .10 0.93 [-.12, .33] .10 0.91 [-.12, .32] .10 0.94 [-.12, .33] Team size .00 .07 [-.10, .11] .00 .08 [-.11, .12] .01 .95 [-.10, .11] Star`s age -.17 -1.29 [-.44, .10] -.17 -1.27 [-.45, .10] -.18 -1.32 [-.45, .09] Star`s education .04 .37 [-.17, .25] .04 .40 [-.17, .25] .03 .33 [-.18, .25]

Star`s gender -.03 -.26 [-.24, .18] -.03 -.24 [-.24, .19] -.03 -.27 [-.24, .18]

IV

Star´s idea giving Star`s creativity R2 -.03 - - .41** .47 -.28 - - 2.79 [-.26, .20] - - [.11, .70] - -.02 - .41** .47 - -.18 - 2.78 - [-.25, .21] - [.11, .70] - - -.04 .42** .47 - - -.40 2.79 - - [-.27, .18] [.11, .72]

Mediator: Star`s Creative Collaboration Star`s Idea Taking Star`s Idea Giving

B t CI [LL,UL]a _B _t _{CI [LL,UL]} a _B _t _{CI [LL,UL]} a

Constant Control variables .24 .46 [-.82, 1.30] .39 .75 [-.66, 1.44] 0.08 .15 [-.95, 1.10] Country .17 1.00 [-.17, .52] .21 1.28 [-.12, .55] .11 .68 [-.22, .45] Team size -.11 -1.46 [-.27, .04] -.16* -2.09 [-.31, -.01] -.06 -.78 [-.21, .09] Star`s age .17 .77 [-.28, .62] .19 .85 [-.26, .63] .14 .65 [-.30, .58] Star`s education -.07 -.47 [-.38, .24] .01 .07 [-.29, .31] -.14 -.96 [-.44, .16]

Star`s organ. tenure -.14 -.44 [-.78, .50] -.03 -.10 [-.62, .52] -.23 -.75 [-.85, .39]

Star`s team tenure .16 .63 [-.35, .67] .19 .74 [-.28, .67] .12 .49 [-.37, .61]

Star`s gender -.20 -1.34 [-.50, .10] -.21 -1.44 [-.51, .08] -.17 -1.17 [-.46, .12]

Creativity of other members -.03 -.14 [-.52, .45] .03 .13 [-.45, .51] -.09 -.39 [-.56, .38]

IV

(43)

Conditional indirect effect

Effect moderation low (-1) -.01 [-.16, .05] -.00 [-.14, .05] -.02 [-.17, .05]

Effect moderation moderate (0)

Effect moderation high (+1)

-.00 -.00 [-.11, .05] [-.14, .10] -.00 .00 [-.10, .06] [-.10, .13] -.01 -.01 [-.13, .05] [-.15, .08]

(44)

Table 5

Mediator: Star`s Creative Collaboration Star`s Idea Taking Star`s Idea Giving

Constant Control variables .16 -.18 [-1.97, 1.65] -.14 -.16 [-1.92, 1.64] -.16 -.19 [-1.95, 1.62] Country .23 1.43 [-.09, .55] .21 1.36 [-.12, .53] .22 1.41 [-.10, .54] Team size -.06 -.34 [-.39, .27] -.05 -.34 [-.38, -.27] -.05 -.32 [-.38, .28] Star`s age .14 .73 [-.25, .54] .22 1.16 [-.17, .62] .06 .29 [-.34, .45] Star`s education -.08 -.56 [-.39, .22] -.01 -0.88 [-.32, .29] -.14 -.95 [-.45, .16]

Star`s organ. tenure -.22 -.67 [-.86, .43] -.06 -.20 [-.70, .57] -.34 -1.07 [-.98, .30]

Star`s team tenure .20 .81 [-.31, .71] .18 .73 [-.32, .68] .20 .82 [-.30, .71]

Star`s gender -.17 -1.06 [-.49, .16] -.22 -1.36 [-.54, .11] -.11 -.72 [-.44, .21]

Creativity of other members -.06 -.25 [-.57, .44] .03 .11 [-.47, .53] -.14 -.56 [-.64, .36]

IV

Star`s creativity Star`s centrality Star`s cretivity x Star`s centrality R2 .21 -.13 -.15 .26 .96 -.36 -.77 [-.23, .65] [-.84, .58] [-.55, .25] .06 -.24 -.06 .28 .30 -.70 -.31 [-.37, .50] [-.94, .46] [-.45, .33] .32 -.01 -.22 .27 1.51 -.04 -1.15 [-.11, .76] [-.71, .69] [-.61, .17]

Constant Control variables 5.40** _8.73 _{[4.69, 6.10]} _5.43** _8.70 _{[4.16, 6.70]} _5.39** _15.48 _{[4.68, 6.09]} Country .05 0.48 [-.12, .33] .06 .50 [-.17, .29] .10 .95 [-.12, .33] Team size .01 .12 [-.10, .11] .00 .02 [-.23, .23] .01 .09 [-.10, .11] Star`s age -.15 -1.08 [-.44, .10] -.14 -1.05 [-.42, .14] -.15 -1.11 [-.43, .13] Star`s education .03 .25 [-.17, .25] .03 .24 [-.19, .24] .03 .26 [-.19, .24]

Star`s gender -.05 -.48 [-.24, .18] -.05 -.44 [-.28, .18] -.06 -.52 [-.28, .17]

IV

Star´s idea giving Star`s creativity

Star´s creative collaboration x

(45)

Star´s centrality Star´s creativity x Star´s centrality

Star´s idea taking x Star´s centrality

Star´s idea giving x Star´s centrality R2 .12 - - .52 .87 - - [-16, .39] - - .09 -.23 - .51 .68 1.61 - [-.18, .36] [-.52, .06] - .14 - -.21 .52 .97 - -1.60 [-.15, .42] - [-.47, .06]

Conditional direct effect

Effect moderation low (-1) .27 1.22 [-18, .72] .30 1.39 [-14, .74] .25 1.09 [-22, .71]

.39 2.59 [.08, .69] .39 2.65 [.09, .69] .38 2.52 [.07, .96]

Effect moderation high (-1) .51 2.80 [.14, .87] .48 2.69 [.11, .85] .52 2.86 [.15, .89]

Conditional indirect effect

Effect moderation low (-1) .08 [-.04, .55] .02 [-.08, .45] .11 [-.04, .59]

-.00 [-.09, .08] -.00 [-.10, .07] -.00 [-.09, .12]

Effect moderation high (+1) -.01 [-.41, .13] -.00 [-.25, .18] -.02 [-.39, .10]