Master Thesis Human Resource Management
THE MODERATING ROLE OF TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP ON THE RELATION BETWEEN TIME PRESSURE AND TEAM CREATIVITY
June 5th, 2016
Anieta A.G. Ketelaar s2813823 !
! !
University of Groningen
THE MODERATING ROLE OF TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP ON THE RELATION BETWEEN TIME PRESSURE AND TEAM CREATIVITY
ABSTRACT
This study examined the role of time pressure for creativity of teams, and assumes that under certain conditions, time pressure can lead to higher team creativity. Previous (experimental) research has found negative effects between time pressure and team creativity (e.g., Nijstad, 2015; Bechtoldt, De Dreu, Nijstad, & Choi, 2010; Chirumbolo, Livi, Mannetti, Pierro, & Kriuglanski, 2004; Kelly & Karau, 1993). However, they have not considered the possibility of curvilinear effects, and have not looked at moderators, such as transformational leadership. We tested our hypotheses among 55 team leaders and 235 team members from profit and non-profit companies. Unlike previous research, our results showed that there was no effect of time pressure on team creativity, and that this relation was not moderated by transformational leadership. Possible explanations are that time pressure has contradictory effects, and that it is unknown what ideal levels of time pressure may be.
THE MODERATING ROLE OF TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP ON THE RELATION BETWEEN TIME PRESSURE AND TEAM CREATIVITY
Nowadays, organizations need creativity. Creativity is the production of useful and novel ideas, products, services or organizational processes and is the basis of innovative companies (Gutnick, Walter, Nijstad & De Dreu, 2012). Employees often work in teams, which makes the issue of team creativity relevant. Team creativity means cases in which the creative products cannot be clearly attributed to individual members of a group (Nijstad, 2015).
Furthermore, creative teams are needed in order to remain competitive, innovative (Anderson, De Dreu & Nijstad, 2004), and to survive (Baer & Oldham, 2006).
Lately, the effects of time pressure on individual and team creativity has received substantial research attention. Time pressure means individuals' sense of exigency in accomplishing a task within the allotted time (Zhang, Zhang & Song, 2015). Previous
and multi-level studies of group creativity (Nijstad, 2015). In this research we will examine if time pressure can have positive effects on team creativity. According to Nijstad (2015), many studies show adverse effects of time pressure (e.g., Bechtoldt et al., 2010; Chirumbolo et al., 2004; Kelly & Karau, 1993). Nijstad (2015) mentioned that time pressure leads to a high need for closure (a desire for a definitive and firm answer to a question, rather than ambiguity, uncertainty, or confusion; Nijstad, 2015; Kruglanski, 1989; Webster & Kruglanski, 1994) and reduces group creativity (e.g., Bechtoldt et al., 2010; Chirumbolo et al., 2004; Kelly & Karau, 1993). Moreover, time pressure is one of the factors that makes groups unwilling to think about a problem, which is related to reduced group creativity (Nijstad, 2015). Still, little empirical research exists on time pressure that has positive effects on team creativity (Nijstad, 2015).
One key factor that is important for team creativity is the moderating role of
transformational leadership. According to Yukl (2013) transformational leadership consists of the three types: intellectual stimulation, individualized consideration and idealized influence. Nijstad (2015) appointed that some studies suggest positive effects if transformational leadership moderates team creativity, since it stimulates collective efficacy (Shin & Zhou, 2007), support for information sharing (Zhang, Tsui, & Wang, 2011) and innovation
(Eisenbeiß, Van Knippenberg, & Boerner, 2008). Transformational leadership will moderate the effects of time pressure, because it mitigates the effects that time pressure has on
conformity. Conformity is reduced, since transformational leadership includes individualized consideration and intellectual stimulation (Gumusluoglu & Isev, 2009; Sosik, Kahai, & Avolio, 1998). These two types of transformational leadership are aimed at assuring that individual team members still propose their divergent ideas (Chirumbolo et al., 2004; Nijstad, 2015).
team creativity, provided that time pressure is not too high or too low. Furthermore, we will investigate how the presence of transformational leadership improves team creativity. By doing so, we will, contribute to the limited research on the relationship between time pressure and team creativity. We will offer an explanation why time pressure is good to a certain degree (curvilinear relation). Additionally, by empirically examining the involvement of transformational leadership, we examine the issue of when time pressure may stimulate team creativity, and when not.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
The effect of Time Pressure on Team Creativity
Recently, researchers have shown an increased interest in team creativity (Gilson & Shalley, 2003). Gilson and Shalley (2003) conceptualize team creativity as members of a team working together in such a way that they seek out novel ways of performing a task, link ideas from multiple sources, or delve into unknown situations to find unique or better
approaches to a problem. In addition, teams have the choice to take part in creative processes, which have long been suggested as vital importance for team creativity (Gilson & Shalley, 2003). Miron, Erez and Naveh (2004) mentioned that innovation is the successful
implementation of creative ideas. Furthermore, they indicate that for creativity, one also has to demonstrate a high level of initiative to bring ideas to the implementation stage (Miron et al., 2004). According to Amabile, Schatzel, Moneta and Kramer (2004) team creativity stems not only from overall firm strategy and access to resources but also from the minds of the employees who, with others, carry out the daily work of the organization. The degree to which they produce team creativity -- novel and useful ideas -- during their daily work depends on individual characteristics, and the perceived work environment (Amabile et al., 2004). The research of Gilson and Shalley (2003) found that creative teams were those that perceived that their tasks required high levels of creativity, were high on shared goals, had a climate supportive of creativity, were working on jobs with high task interdependence and valued participative problem-solving.
2015).
Previous research relating time pressure and creativity at the individual level has found different effects. A number of studies have confirmed the existence of an inverted U-shaped relation between measures of overall time pressure and creativity (Baer & Oldham, 2006). Madjar and Oldham (2006) indicated that if employees perceive high time pressure,
employees may be less likely to take time to understand an issue deeply or to fully prepare to solve the problem through contemplation before they delve into response generation. By contrast, employees who perceive less time pressure have the ability and energy available to think creatively about an issue (Madjar & Oldham, 2006). Furthermore, they can explore different perspectives, allowing them to see more connections among stimuli and to play with ideas (Madjar & Oldham, 2006). Moreover, Baer and Oldham (2006) suggested that time pressure stifles creativity because it reduces employees exploratory thinking and instead leads individuals to reliance on familiar algorithms when approaching an issue.
Not only high time pressure, but also low time pressure can be detrimental for individual creativity. Baer and Oldham (2006) assume that both high and low levels of time pressure restrict creativity, resulting in lower engagement and suboptimal stimulation, while intermediate pressure improves it (Singh, 1998; Zivnuska, Kiewitz, Hochwater, Perrewe, & Zellars, 2002). For example, Durham, Locke, Poon and McLeod (2000) have suggested that high time pressure can accelerate information processing, which makes decision making more efficient. However, if there is too much time pressure, it is possible that the decision maker is becoming more selective in the information processing (Durham et al., 2000). Because of this, the amount of information can be reduced and/or the decision maker can change the
time pressure and creativity at the individual level. Indeed, some studies have shown the existence of inverted U-shaped relations between measures of time pressure and a range of employee responses (Baer and Oldham, 2006). Nevertheless, Gutnick et al. (2012) have documented positive effects of time pressure. They found that if employees experience a sufficient amount of time to solve potential issues, a high-pressure situation is perceived as more challenging (assuming one feels competent to meet task requirement) rather than threatening (because ultimate success remains uncertain). Furthermore, Gutnick et al (2012) argued that challenges can lead to higher cognitive flexibility and behavioural adaptability and that triggering challenge increased the creativity of an organization (Gutnick et al., 2012). As the authors have shown this connection allow us to conclude that time pressure causes individuals to perform creative at certain heights.
However, the possibility of a curvilinear relation between time pressure and team creativity relation has not directly been investigated, and this relationship has primarily been studied at the individual level of analysis. According to Nijstad (2015), at the team level time pressure is likely to lead to a high need for closure (i.e., a desire for a definitive and firm answer to a question, rather than uncertainty, confusion, or ambiguity; Kruglanski, 1989; Webster & Kruglanski, 1994), which makes groups unwilling to think thoroughly about an issue. This is because it induces to stop generating ideas quickly and leads to the rejection of deviant members (Chirumbolo, Mannetti, Pierro, Areni, & Kruglanski, 2005). Other
people to behave independently, contributes to creative ideas and is positively related to team creativity. Furthermore, Bechtoldt and colleagues (2010) have shown that time pressure reduces epistemic motivation (i.e., involves the willingness to put in cognitive effort to reach a thorough, rich, and accurate understanding of some issue; Nijstad, 2015). Moreover, Nijstad (2015) assumes that independent and willingness to be unique are beneficial for team
creativity (Bechtoldt et al., 2010). Ultimately, these findings suggest that a high degree of time pressure results in decreased team creativity, partly mediated by conformity pressure. The team literature has not examined moderate levels of time pressure, and leave open the question what happens then.
Singh (1998) argues that, according to activation theory, creativity is undermined under low time pressure, by a lack of alertness or activation. Moreover, creativity is undermined by high time pressure, by over-activation (Singh, 1998). Furthermore, Singh (1998) describes that both low and high time pressure are characterized by passive coping, driven by a low level of resource activation and motivation, or because insufficient resources are available, due to overwhelming role demands (Schaubroeck and Ganster, 1993). We assume that intermediate time pressure leads to active motivation to seek out the unfamiliar and new, which results in elevated creativity (Baer and Oldham, 2006). Nevertheless, moderate time pressure may be beneficial, because it creates challenge, activation, and alertness, also at the team level (Singh, 1998). Together, these studies have led us to the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1. There will be an inverted U-shaped relation between time pressure and team creativity.
Transformational Leadership and Team Creativity
team members experience during their work performance (Herrmann & Felfe, 2014).
According to Pieterse, Knippenberg, Schippers, and Stam (2009), transformational leadership can be defined as a style of leadership that transforms followers to rise above their
self-interest by altering their morale, ideals, values, and self-interests motivating them to improve their performance more than initially expected. According to Yukl (2013) the original formulation of the theory included three types of transformational behaviour, namely intellectual
stimulation, individualized consideration and idealized influence (Avolio, Bass and Jung, 1999).
According to Barbuto (1997) intellectual stimulation is leaders encouraging team members to approach old and familiar issues in new ways. The leader teaches his team members to creatively solve issues by stimulating thinking patterns and encouraging
employees to question values, expectations and beliefs, which may be out-dated or unsuited for current issues (Barbuto, 1997). Finally, the leader encourages thinking independently, obtaining personal and professional developmental goals and meeting challenges (Barbuto, 1997).
According to Barbuto (1997), individual consideration involves managers acting in the role of employee mentors. Additionally, this leads to principles that guide the leader to do what is best for the group (Avolio & Bass, 1995). Furthermore, individualized consideration includes both negative and positive feedback and is focused on changing and developing employees (Avolio & Bass, 1995). The leader does this by showing general support,
encouraging autonomy and empowering employees to take on more responsibility (Avolio & Bass, 1995).
the theory added another transformational behaviour called inspirational motivation. Inspirational motivation means leaders who motivate their employees with a strong vision based on ideals and values (Bono & Judge, 2004). The behaviour of the leader should be enthusiastic and stimulating, inspiring employees by using symbolic actions and convincing language, and building confidence (Bono & Judge, 2004). Yukl (2013) also mentions that the distinction between idealized influence behaviour and attributions of charisma is confusing (Bass & Avolio, 1997). Examples of idealized influence are employees being proud for being associated with the leader, inducing employees to go beyond self-interest for the good of the group, promotion of confidence in achievement and execution of targets and work,
reassurance that problems will be overcome, providing an exciting image of organizational change and an optimistic view and talk about the future (Dionne, Yammarino, Atwater, & Spangler, 2004).
We propose that transformational leadership should be related to team creativity. According to Eisenbeiß and Boerner (2011) intellectual stimulation is especially important for stimulating team creativity. Whenever leaders apply this, they motivate employees to
challenge the status quo and to think unconventionally. In the meantime Eisenbeiß and Boerner (2011) mentioned that because of charisma and narcissistic tendencies, employees can be more dependent, which in turn have negative consequences on team creativity.
formally:
Hypothesis 2. There will be a positive relation between transformational leadership and team creativity.
Moderating effect of Transformational Leadership
The expectation is that the above-mentioned effects of transformational leadership will have an important implication for the relationship between time pressure and team creativity. Because transformational leadership is a broad term and is composed of the three types, intellectual stimulation, individualized consideration and idealized influence, we go deeper into each element to draw a conclusion about what this means for each type as moderating effect on the aforementioned relationship (Avolio et al., 1999; Yukl, 2013).
According to Lowe, Kroeck and Sivasubramaniam (1996) intellectual stimulation arouses employees to think about new ideas, emphasizes issue solving and uses reasoning before taking action. From this we can conclude that reasoning takes a certain amount of time. This means if there is an excessive time pressure, there is not enough time for reasoning, which can have a negative impact on team creativity (Lowe et al., 1996). However, Bakker and Demerouti (2007) point out that the negative effect of pressure is reduced when team members understand the reasons for the existence of the pressure (Syrek et al., 2013). Here lies an important task for the leader to respond to the expectations and beliefs of the
creativity.
According to Avolio and Bass (1995) individual consideration can be applied by the leader by showing general support for the efforts of employees, encouraging their autonomy and empowering them to take on more responsibility (Avolio & Bass, 1995). Ramamritham (1993) suggests that finishing the task on time can be an example of a responsibility. If leaders empower their team members by giving them the responsibility for the time pressure, it can have a positive effect on team creativity, because individualized consideration helps the teams to deal with time pressure (Herrmann & Felfe, 2014). According to Syrek et al. (2013), providing constructive feedback and fostering a climate for individual growth (features of individualized considerations (Avolio & Bass, 1995)), ensures that employees perceive time pressure as less threatening and can better cope with this demand. However, time pressure will have negative effects when transformational leadership is low, because teams are quickly stressed under high pressures. Conversely, if the leader sets the right transformational
leadership capabilities this can be the challenge of responding positively to time constraints. According to Syrek et al. (2013) time pressure can influence the work motivation of employees. Due to leader support through inspirational motivation and idealized influence, team members are more likely to expect that the orientation on goals and increased effort ensure that they can work with time pressure. Because of this, team members are confident that successfully handling time pressure will lead to desired outcomes like team creativity (Syrek et al., 2013).
Furthermore, Bass and Steidlmeier (1999) reported that inspirational motivation provides employees with challenges and meaning for engaging in shared goals and
intrinsically motivating and energizing, which contributes to team creativity (Hermann & Felfe, 2014).
Furthermore, Oreg and Berson (2011) suggest that employees see leaders as saviors who can reduce uncertainty in the context of change and crisis. According to Gutnick et al. (2012) leaders are able to widen employees behavioural horizons. Therefore we expect that team creativity can be increased through idealized influence, because leaders can encourage employees, despite high time pressure, to perform well. This will lead to the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 3. Transformational leadership moderates the relationship between time pressure and team creativity to such a degree that when transformational leadership is high, there will be an inverted U-shaped relation between time pressure and team creativity. Furthermore, when transformational leadership is low, there will be a negative relation between time pressure and team creativity.
The aforementioned hypotheses can be visualized in a conceptual model (see FIGURE 1).
METHOD Sample and procedure
The study examined Hypothesis 1-3 among teams in a broad range of sectors such as industrial goods, (durable) consumer goods, health, finance, information technology, education and government. All the teams were based in the Netherlands.
Three students from the University of Groningen gathered the data by using two online surveys on Qualtrics, one for team leaders and one for team members. Participants were asked to take part in this research by contacting them personally, or through email or telephone. After all team leaders were approached by mail, and received background information about the content of the investigation. Next, all team leaders were invited to participate in the survey via a link that was send to them personally. Team members were invited in several ways to participate in the survey. 1) Team leaders were asked to send the email addresses of the team members to one of the students. So they could send them a personal invitation (and reminder) with the link. 2) Team leaders were asked whether they wanted to send the link for the team member surveys to the team members. Furthermore, one team physically completed all questionnaires, as they did not have Internet at their work location. Eventually, one team completed all the surveys on one laptop from one of the students on their work location, because there was no suitable computer available.
Participation was voluntary and confidentiality was assured, and the surveys were completely anonymous.
The size from the different participating teams, including the leader, ranged from three to twelve employees, the mean is a team of four employees including the leader (SD = 1.75). The responses for the surveys included 55 (65.5% response) team leaders and 235 (69.9% response) team members.
12.98 ) years, 53.6% of them were male. Furthermore, the mean education level of the team leaders was higher vocational education. The highest level of education was university. The team leaders were 100% from Dutch nationality. Furthermore, the mean team leaders organizational tenure was 12 year and 10 months (SD = 11.64) and their average tenure as team leader was 3 year and 11 months (SD = 5.81).
The team members were aged between 16 and 65 years, the average age was 36.8 (SD = 14.68) years, 54.4% of them were male. Furthermore, the mean education level of the team members is also higher vocational education. The highest level of education was dr. (PhD). Finally, the mean team member organizational tenure was 10 years (SD = 9.29) and the mean team tenure was 4 years and 4 months (SD = 3.22).
Measurements
The most important measurements for this study were time pressure, transformational leadership and team creativity. Furthermore, we measured the control variables team size, interdependence and time pressure at individual level. For variables measured among
Time pressure
The variable time pressure was measured among team members with four items adapted from Maruping et al (2015). The four selected statements were:“We are often under a lot of
pressure to complete our tasks on time”, “We are not afforded much time to complete our tasks”, “The amount of time provided to complete our tasks is short” and “Task durations are often short” (Maruping et al., 2015). The internal consistency was high (Cronbach’s α = .88). The measurements of time pressure was aggregated to the team level.
Transformational leadership
Transformational leadership was measured among team members with the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire by Avolio et al., 1999. These items were similar to previous research (Mittal & Dhar, 2015; Bass & Avolio, 1995; Gumusluoglu & Ilsev, 2009). Among the 20 selected statements were for example: “I am proud of my leader”, “My leader goes beyond self-interest”, “My leader has my respect” and “My leader displays power and confidence” (Avolio et al., 1999). The internal consistency was high (Cronbach’s α = .95). The measurement of transformational leadership were aggregated to the team level.
Team creativity
Team creativity was measured among team leaders with scale developed by Farh, Lee, and Farh (2011). These items were adapted from Oldham and Cummings (1996). The three items were: “Team output is creative”, “Team output is original and practical” and “Team output demonstrates that the team is capable of using existing information and resources
creatively”. The internal consistency was high (Cronbach’s α = .78).
Control variables
control variables were team size, interdependence and time pressure at the individual level. Team size
The first control variable we included was team size, or a count of team members, as big teams tend to suffer more from coordination costs, which could affect the ability to manage time pressure (Maruping et al., 2015). Team size was measured among team leaders, by the number of participants.
Interdependence
The control variable interdependence was elected, because it is a characteristic of the team that may affect creativity (Van der Vegt & Van de Vliert, 1998). Interdependence was measured among team members with seven items adapted from Van der Vegt and Van de Vliert, (1998). Some of the seven selected items were: “I have to obtain information and advice from my colleagues in order to complete my work”, “I depend on my colleagues for the completion of my work”, “ I have a one-person job; I rarely have to check or work with others” and “I have to work closely with my colleagues to do my work properly”. The internal consistency was sufficient (Cronbach’s α = .70). We dropped one of the seven items of interdependence (“I have a one-person job; I rarely have to check or work with others”), because it substantially reduced internal consistency of the scale. It seems possible that the team members have interpreted this item differently, since it was the only contra-indicative item. Finally, the measurement of interdependence was aggregated to the team level. Time pressure
complete my tasks is short” and “The duration of my task is often short” (Maruping et al., 2015). The internal consistency was high (Cronbach’s α = .81). Finally, the measurement of time pressure at individual level was aggregated to the team level.
Data analysis
The variables that had to be aggregated from individual to team level were time pressure and transformational leadership, for the control variables these were time pressure at the
individual level and interdependence. We analysed the data using a regression analysis in SPSS. We tested the moderation effect of transformational leadership by using Process macro for SPSS (Hayes & Preacher, 2014). Prior to testing the hypotheses, the variables were
automatically standardized by Process. To clarify this relationship, we first tested the main curvilinear effect of time pressure on team creativity. Secondly, we tested the main effect of transformational leadership on team creativity. Furthermore, we tested how time pressure and team creativity were related under different levels of the moderator, transformational
RESULTS
Descriptive Statistics
Means, standard deviations and the correlations for this research are shown in Table 1. With regard to the control variable, interdependence, there is a significant positive relationship with team creativity (r = .36, p < .01). In addition, for the other control variables, team size and time pressure on individual level, no significant relationships are observed with the variables in our model (i.e., team creativity; r = -.18, and r = -.06, p > .05). As can been seen, there is a negative relation between time pressure and team creativity, but n.s. (r = -.08, p > .05). An additional finding is that, interdependence also correlates with transformational leadership (r = .37, p < .01). Finally, time pressure correlates with the control variable individual time pressure (r = .88, p < .01). Because this correlation is so strong, we decided not to use individual time pressure as a control variable.
Table 1.
Means, Standard Deviations, and correlations (Team-level variables)
Variables Mean S.D. 1 2 3 4 5
1. Team creativity 5.42 .96
2. Individual time pressure 3.39 .88 -.06
3. Team time pressure 3.75 .97 -.08 .88**
4. Transformational leadership 5.28 .58 .12 -.21 -.17
5. Team size 12.87 9.30 -.18 .09 .15 -.31*
6. Interdependence 4.48 .53 .36** .0 .08 .37** -.10
Note. N = 55 *p < .05, **p < .01 (two tailed significance) Hypotheses Testing
we performed an analyses using Process macro for SPSS (Hayes & Preacher, 2014). Results are shown in Table 2.
Hypothesis 1 postulated that there will be an inverted U-shaped relation between time pressure and team creativity. We do not find support for our first hypothesis, because the relation between time pressure and team creativity was not significant (B = .016, n.s.),
whereby hypothesis 1 is rejected.1
Hypothesis 2 suggested a positive relation between transformational leadership and team creativity. However, the relation between transformational leadership and team
creativity, was negative and not significant, see Table 2 (B = -.024, n.s.). We conclude that the hypothesis is not accepted.
TABLE 2.
Linear model of predictors of Team Creativity 4
b t p Constant 5.61 22.43 0*** Control variable: Interdependence .38 2.65 .01** Team size -.01 -.84 .41 Predictor:
Team time pressure -.16 -1.02 .31
Time pressure squared .02 .14 .89
Moderator: Transformational leadership -.02 -.11 .91 Interaction Time pressure x Transformational leadership .16 1.03 .31 Time pressure ² x Transformational leadership -.08 -.43 .67 R2= .0033, F(7, 47)= 0.1873, p= .667 Conditional effect of Time
pressure on Team creativity
Effect LLCI ULCI
TFL Low b .0942 -.3390 .5274
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
TFL Average b .0162 -.2227 .2550 TFL High b -.0618 -.4973 .3737 Note. N = 55. *p < .05, **p < .01, p ***< .001
DISCUSSION
This study suggested that there will be an inverted U-shaped relation between time pressure and team creativity (Singh, 1998). Furthermore, we had expected that transformational leadership would have a positive influence on the relation between time pressure and team creativity. This is because intellectual stimulation may reduce or mitigate the effects of time pressure on conformity (Barbuto, 1997). Furthermore, individualized considerations ensure that employees perceive time pressure as a challenge and stimulate individual growth, which can enhance team creativity (Avolio & Bass, 1995). Finally, team members’ confidence that successfully handling time pressure will lead to desired outcomes, like team creativity, will result from leaders their support through inspirational motivation and idealized influence (Syrek et al., 2013). Our hypotheses were tested in a sample of 55 team leaders and 235 team members.
The first result was that we found no significant relation between time pressure and team creativity, neither a linear nor a curvilinear relationship. Second, we found no significant relation between transformational leadership and team creativity. Finally, we did not find a moderating effect of transformational leadership on the relation between time pressure and team creativity.
high levels of time pressure are assumed to result in “suboptimal stimulation” and lower engagement. However, Zhang, Zhang and Song (2015) mentioned that time pressure has a significant negative effect on idea development. They assume, in contrast to our hypotheses, that no time pressure will lead to intrinsic motivation, which leads to higher idea generation and idea development, because of more effort. Furthermore, employees with intrinsic motivation assumed more responsibilities for the work and could spend more time on the work.
That we found no relation between time pressure and team creativity may have
methodological reasons. For example, teams from a wide variety of sectors participated in our research, and it is possible that time pressure has different effects depending on the sector in which a team works or the type of work that is involved. Additionally, our theory section shows that there is, at individual level, a curvilinear effect, while this is less researched at the team level. Thus, it is possible that the curvilinear relation between time pressure and
creativity does not generalize to the team level. Also no negative relation between time pressure and team creativity might be explained by a difference in analysis in lab versus field research. Previous work that has found a negative relation between time pressure and
creativity in teams only examined ad hoc laboratory groups, and effects may be different in real-life, on-going teams where the stakes are higher and team members work with each other for prolonged periods of time. Thus, previous laboratory results may not be easily generalized to the field.
example could be that, according to Kumuyi (2007), a vision provides direction, which ensures that cooperative work behaviours are better aligned. When leaders give the
impression that employees can achieve more goals and rewards, employees will understand and accept the need to follow a moral compass to get there (Kumuyi, 2007). Moore and Russ (2008) mentioned, that attempting to fit the moral compass into a logical structure
(organization) might inhibit mental flexibility and the generation of multiple associations (group creativity). Therefore is it possible that transformational leadership might provide docile employees, who follow the moral compass of their inspirational leaders. Ultimately, this blind trust, which stimulates a higher level of conformity, can result in a decreased creativity among teams.
Theoretical Implications
As mentioned earlier, the first goal of this study was to investigate whether time pressure could lead to higher team creativity if time pressure is not too high or too low. Our findings, however, cannot confirm this. Multiple studies offered explanations for the different relations between time pressure and team creativity (e.g., positive, negative), but there was limited, if any, theoretical investigation that provided an integrative explanation of when and why these different effects appear. According to Mitchell and James (2001), it would be more
informative for theory to focus on explaining the circumstances under which time pressure has a positive or negative influence for team creativity (Maruping et al., 2015). Therefore, we conclude that the relation between time pressure and team creativity is not simple to define. Furthermore, there was no significant relation between transformational leadership and team creativity. Moreover, we did not found a moderating effect of transformational
while others focus on the group as a whole. According to To, Tse and Ashkanasy (2015), team creativity is multilevel in nature and depends on the level of conceptualization and the type of transformational leadership. Moreover, Rosing, Frese and Bausch (2011)
meta-analytically found that the relation between transformational leadership and creativity was not very strong and varied substantially across studies. This means that the relation between transformational leadership and creativity is still unclear, and more research is needed to clarify it. For example, research could investigate the different aspects of transformational leadership and find out when such leadership is important and for what kind of teams (Rosing et al., 2011).
Practical Implications
Even though it is difficult to say anything about it because all relationships are not significant, we cautiously try to give a practical implication. Previous research shows that high workloads and tight deadlines are substantially related to time pressure (Baer and Oldham, 2006). As a result, when leaders want to increase the creativity among teams, they first might identify the high workload and tight deadlines that produce the perception of time pressure. Secondly, leaders alter the high workload and tight deadlines so teams perceive intermediate pressure with regard to team creativity. Furthermore, according to Baer and Oldham (2006), when hiring new employees, management must select employees who are open to perceive high workload and like to work with tight deadlines. Moreover, management has to encourage co-workers and supervisors to support the creative effort of such teams (Baer & Oldham, 2006). Another practical implication might be to stimulate employees more on
Strengths and Limitations
Our research has several methodological strengths, such as all the participating teams are from the field. Furthermore, a strength is that our basis is formed by two separate
measurements, namely a leader and team member questionnaire. Team creativity and group size were measured among team leaders and the rest among team members. Thus, a variety of sources were used with different ways of measuring, which avoids common method bias (MacKenzie & Podsakoff, 2012).
However, there are some limitations to be mentioned. Firstly, it should be noted that not always complete teams have participated in this study. This means that if there was a team size of eight team members, sometimes only four people participated to the survey. For example, the leaders gave his/her opinion on the creativity of its entire team and the
questionnaire is connected with a few team members. Hereby, not everyone of the team filled in the questionnaires’, making the results incomplete. Furthermore, these results are less reliable and valid, since the more members participate, the more reliability and validity. Future research might benefit if the whole team participates on the study. This may contribute to improved team creativity for the overall picture of the data.
Secondly, a cross-sectional study was done, which involves an investigation in which each individual in a group once is measured and observed at the same time. As a result, the observations of individuals were not followed over the several years. Because of this, no causal relationships could be established and the effects of certain interventions could not be seen. Furthermore, nothing can be determined about the stability and continuity of certain characteristics of individuals (Tonry, Ohlin and Farrington, 1991). Another disadvantage by cross-sectional study is the use of retrospective data. These may be distorted by the memory capacity of respondents (Tonry et al., 1991).
Because of this, teams differed along a number of different dimensions, which may increase the amount of error variance. It might therefore be better to let more homogeneous teams participate in future research. Finally, our sample was not very large, namely 55 teams, which might be a restriction for the research.
Future Research
Besides tackling these limitations, future research could build on our findings in some ways. Firstly, our research further investigated the inverted U-shaped relation between time pressure and team creativity (Singh, 1998). A broader literature investigation will help to clarify this relation. Furthermore, a longitudinal study may be considered, in order to repetitive measure the same or similar individuals. Finally, future research might focus on other variables that moderates the effects of time pressure, such as interdependence.
Moreover, future research could expand the present model beyond team creativity. This can be done by adding a moderating factor in the relationship between time pressure and team creativity. The earlier mentioned factor of interdependence can be one of such
moderating factors (Van der Vegt & Van de Vliert, 1998). Such research may help to clarify not only “how” this former relation is established, but perhaps also “why” this is like it is. Empirical research that builds on these notions may provide new insights on why
transformational leadership is important for the relation between time pressure and team creativity (Avolio, et al., 1999).
Conclusion
REFERENCES
Amabile, T.A., Schatzel, E.A., Moneta, G.B., & Kramer, S.J. 2004. Leader behaviors and the work environment for creativity: Perceived leader support. The Leadership
Quarterly, 15: 5-32.
Anderson, N., De Dreu, C.K.W., & Nijstad, B.A. 2004. The routinization of
innovation research: a constructively critical review of the state-of-the-science. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25: 147-173.
Avolio, B.J., & Bass, B.M. 1995. Individual consideration viewed at multiple levels of analysis: A multi-level framework for examining the diffusion of transformational leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 6: 199-218.
Avolio, B.J., Bass, B.M., & Jung, D.I. 1999. Re-examining the components of
transformational and transactional leadership using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72: 441-462.
Baer, M., & Oldham, G.R. 2006. The Curvilinear Relation Between Experienced Creative Time Pressure and Creativity: Moderating Effects of Openness to Experience Support for Creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91: 963-970.
Bakker, A.B., & Demerouti, E. 2007. The job demands-resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22: 309-328.
Barbuto, J.E. 1997. Taking the Charisma Out of Transformational Leadership. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 12: 689-697.
Bass, B.M., & Steidlmeier, P. 1999. Ethics, character, and authentic transformational leadership behavior. Leadership Quarterly, 10: 181-217.
Binnewies, C. & Wornlein, S.C. 2011. What makes a creative day? A dairly study on the interplay between affect, job stressors, and job control. Journal of organizational behavior, 32: 589-607.
Bono, J.E., & Judge, T.A. 2004. Personality and Transformational and Transactional Leadership: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89: 901-910.
Chirumbolo, A., Livi, S., Mannetti, L., Pierro, A., & Kriuglanski, A.W. 2004. Effects of need for closure on creativity in small group interactions. European Journal of
Personality, 18: 265-278.
Chirumbolo, A., Mannetti, L., Pierro, A., Areni, A., & Kruglanski, A.W. 2005. Motivated closed-mindedness and creativity in small groups. Small Group Research, 36: 59-82.
Dionne, S.D., Yammarino, F.J., Atwater, L.E., and Spangler, W.D. 2004.
Transformational leadership and team performance. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 17: 177-193.
Durham, C.C., Locke, E.A., Poon, J.M.L., & McLeod, P.L. 2000. Effects of Group Goals and Time Pressure on Group Efficacy, Information-Seeking Strategy, and Performance. Human Performance, 13: 115-138.
Eisenbeiß, S.A., & Boerner, S. 2011. A Double-edged Sword: Transformational Leadership and Individual Creativity. British Journal of Management, 24: 54-68. Eisenbeiß, S.A., Van Knippenberg, D., & Boerner, S. 2008. Transformational leadership and team innovation: Integrating team climate principles. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93: 1438-1446.
Farh, J-L., Lee, C., & Farh, C.I.C. 2011. Task conflict and team creativity: A question of how much and when. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95: 1173-1180.
Examination of Teams’ Engagement in Creative Processes. Journal of Management, 30: 453-470.
Gumusluoglu, L., & Ilsev, A. 2009. Transformational Leadership and Organizational Innovation: The Roles of Internal and External Support for Innovation. The Journal of Product Innovation management, 26: 264-277.
Gutnick, D., Walter, F., Nijstad, B.A., & De Dreu, C.K.W. 2012. Creative performance under pressure: An integrative conceptual framework. Organizational Psychology Review, 2: 189-207.
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.
Herrmann, D., & Felfe, J. 2014. Effects of Leadership Style, Creativity Technique and Personal Initiative on Employee Creativity. British Journal of Management, 25: 209-227. Kelly, J.R., & Karau, S.J. 1993. Entrainment of creativity in small groups. Small Group Research, 24: 179-198.
Kruglanski, A.W. 1989. The psychology of being “right”: The problem of accuracy in social perception and cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 106: 395-409.
Kumuyi, W.F. 2007. Dear leader, vision is it. New African, 24-25.
Lowe, K.B., Kroeck, K.G., and Sivasubramaniam, N. 1996. Effectiveness correlates of transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review of the MLQ literature. Leadership quarterly, 7: 385-425.
Maruping, L.M., Venkatesh, V., Thatcher, S.M.B, & 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: 1313-1333.
Miron, E., Erez, M., & Naveh, E. 2004. Do Personal Characteristics and Culture Values That Promote Innovation, Quality, and Efficiency Compete or Complement Each Other? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25: 175-199.
Mitchell, T. R., & James, L. R. 2001. Building better theory: Time and the specification of when things happen. Academy of Management Review, 26: 530–547. Mittal, S., & Dhar, R.L. 2015. Transformational leadership and employee creativity, Mediating role of creative self-efficacy and moderating role of knowledge sharing.
Management Decision, 53: 894-910.
Moore, M. & Russ, S.W. 2008. Follow-up of a pretend play intervention: Effects on play, creativity, and emotional processes in children. Creativity research journal, 20(4): 427-436.
Nijstad, B.A. (2015). Creativity in groups. In J. Dovidio & J. Simpson (Eds.), APA Handbook of personality and social psychology (pp. 34-51). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Oldham, G.R., & Cummings, A. 1996. Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at work. Academy of Management Journal, 39: 607-634.
Oreg, S., & Berson, Y. 2011. Leadership and employees’ reactions to change: the role of leaders’ personal attributes and transformational leadership style. Personnel Psychology, 64: 627-659.
Pieterse, A.N., Knippenberg, van D., Schippers, M., & Stam, D. 2009.
Ramamritham, K. 1993. Real-Time Databases. Department of Computer Science, 1: 199-226.
Rosing, K. Frese, M. and Bausch, A. 2011. Explaining the heterogeneity of the leadership-innovation relationship: Ambidextrous leadership, The Leadership Quarterly, 22: 956-974.
Schaubroeck, J., & Ganster, D. 1993. Chronic demands and responsivity to challenge. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78: 73-85.
Shin, S.J., & Zhou, J. 2007. When is educational specialization heterogeneity related to creativity in research and development teams? Transformational leadership as a moderator. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92: 1709-1721.
Singh, J. 1998. Striking a balance in boundary-spanning positions: An investigation of some unconventional influences of role stressors and job characteristics on job outcomes of salespeople. Journal of Marketing, 62: 69-86.
Sosik, J.J., Kahai, S.S., & Avolio, B.J. 1998. Transformational leadership and
dimensions of creativity: Motivating idea generation in computer-mediated groups. Creativity Research Journal, 11: 111-121.
Syrek, C.J., Apostel, E., & Antoni, C.H. 2013. Stress in Highly Demanding IT Jobs: Transformational Leadership Moderates the Impact of Time Pressure on Exhaustion and Work-Life Balance. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 18: 252-261.
To, M.L., Tse, H.M. & Ashkanasy, N.M. 2015, A multilevel model of
transformational leadership, affect, and creative process behaviour in work teams. The Leadership Quarterly, 26: 543-556.
Tonry, M., L.E. Ohlin, D.P. Farrington. Human development and criminal behavor New ways of advancing knowledge. New York, Springer-Verlag: 1991.
interdependence in work teams. Group & Organization Management, 23: 124-143.
Webster, D., & Kruglanski, A.W. 1994. Individual differences in need for cognitive closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67: 1049-1062.
Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in organizations, always learning (pp. 312-315). Harlow: Pearson education limited.
Zhang, A.Y., Tsui, A.S., & Wang, D.X. 2011. Leadership behaviors and group creativity in Chinese organizations: The role of group processes. The Leadership Quarterly, 22: 851-862.
APPENDIX A: MEASUREMENT ITEMS Time pressure (Maruping et al., 2015)
1. “We are often under a lot of pressure to complete our tasks on time” 2. “We are not afforded much time to complete our tasks”
3. “The amount of time provided to complete our tasks is short” 4. “Task durations are often short”
Tijdsdruk (Maruping et al., 2015)
1. “We staan vaak onder grote druk om onze taken op tijd uit te voeren” 2. “Wij krijgen niet veel tijd aangeboden om onze taken uit te voeren” 3. “De hoeveelheid tijd die wij krijgen om onze taken uit te voeren is kort” 4. “De taak duur is vaak kort”
Transformational leadership (Avolio et al., 1999) Idealized influence
1. “I am proud of my leader”
2. “My leader goes beyond self-interest” 3. “My leader has my respect”
4. “My leader displays power and confidence” 5. “My leader talks of values”
6. “My leader models ethical standards” 7. “My leader considers the moral/ ethical” 8. “My leader emphasizes the collective mission” 9. “My leader talks optimistically”
11. “My leader talks enthusiastically”
12. “My leader arouses awareness about important issues”
Intellectual Stimulation
13. “My leader re-examines assumptions” 14. “My leader seeks different views” 15. “My leader suggests new ways” 16. “My leader suggests different angles”
Individualized consideration
17. “My leader individualizes attention” 18. “My leader focuses your strengths” 19. “My leader teaches and coaches” 20. “My leader differentiates among us”
Transformationeel leiderschap (Avolio et al., 1999) Geïdealiseerde invloed
1. “Ik ben trots op mijn leidinggevende”
2. “Mijn leidinggevende gaat verder dan zijn/haar eigen interesse” 3. “Ik heb respect voor mijn leidinggevende”
4. “Mijn leidinggevende straalt macht en vertrouwen uit” 5. “Mijn leidinggevende praat over waarden”
9. “Mijn leidinggevende praat optimistisch” 10. “Mijn leidinggevende drukt vertrouwen uit” 11. “Mijn Leidinggevende praat enthousiast”
12. “Mijn Leidinggevende wekt het bewustzijn over belangrijke kwesties”
Intellectuele stimulatie
13. “Mijn Leidinggevende blijft kritisch op bestaande aannames” 14. “Mijn Leidinggevende zoekt naar verschillende inzichten” 15. “Mijn Leidinggevende stelt nieuwe procedures voor”
16. “Mijn Leidinggevende stelt verschillende gezichtspunten voor”
Individuele aandacht
17. “Mijn Leidinggevende geeft mij individuele aandacht” 18. “Mijn Leidinggevende richt zich op mijn sterke punten” 19. “Mijn Leidinggevende treedt op als docent en als coach”
20. “Mijn Leidinggevende maakt een onderscheid tussen mij en andere collega's”
Team Creativity (Farh, Lee, & Farh, JAP, 2011 (adapted from Oldham & Cummings, 1996, AMJ))
1. “Team output is creative”
2. “Team output is original and practical”
Team Creativiteit (Farh, Lee, & Farh, JAP, 2011 (aangepast van Oldham & Cummings, 1996, AMJ))
1. “Team uitkomsten zijn creatief”
2. “Team uitkomsten zijn origineel en praktisch”
