View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

A Multilevel Model of Team Cultural Diversity and Creativity: The Role of Climate for Inclusion

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: A Multilevel Model of Team Cultural Diversity and Creativity: The Role of Climate for Inclusion
Language: English
Authors: Li, Ci-Rong, Lin, Chen-Ju, Tien, Yun-Hsiang, Chen, Chien-Ming
Source: Journal of Creative Behavior. Jun 2017 51(2):163-179.
Availability: Wiley-Blackwell. 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148. Tel: 800-835-6770; Tel: 781-388-8598; Fax: 781-388-8232; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 17
Publication Date: 2017
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Hierarchical Linear Modeling, Teamwork, Cultural Pluralism, Ethnic Diversity, Creativity, Inclusion, Information Dissemination, Employees, Data Collection, Group Dynamics
DOI: 10.1002/jocb.93
ISSN: 0022-0175
Abstract: We developed a multi-level model to test how team cultural diversity may relate to team- and individual-level creativity, integrating team diversity research and information-exchange perspective. We proposed that the team climate for inclusion would moderate both the relationship between cultural diversity and team information sharing and between cultural diversity and employee information elaboration. We collected time-lagged data from 384 members and their leaders within 57 multicultural work teams. The results showed that team cultural diversity was positively related to both team creativity and individual creativity through team information sharing and employee information elaboration, respectively. We also found that the indirect positive relationship with team creativity and individual creativity was stronger for team cultural diversity when climate for inclusion of multicultural work teams was stronger.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2017
Accession Number: EJ1143187
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwEp_2Gi4Yv22bdafmHy0E8qAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDCVdZ79WQGkW5kn4XQIBEICBm1TPmuowy6Ms2s1cmYJEXUtytHCakRLcw2zzFO_cb-9bYTDzrUPjRLKjP8L62VAA9r4ZfED2Z0uXITIFYnSt0oZfAGshTMUwI0d-NO6cr-KowDX4reEHEAi2ICXwc5HSM0_i3qVP3uLh7K25a5fcfhE7hgICB-S0wIFjf3SJYX1N8Lwh__-o8fvidaD7zqlkFXxmVl-PVMpVxgIq
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0123348263;3u701jun.17;2018Jul02.12:50;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0123348263-1">A Multilevel Model of Team Cultural Diversity and Creativity: The Role of Climate for Inclusion. </title> <p>We developed a multi‐level model to test how team cultural diversity may relate to team‐ and individual‐level creativity, integrating team diversity research and information‐exchange perspective. We proposed that the team climate for inclusion would moderate both the relationship between cultural diversity and team information sharing and between cultural diversity and employee information elaboration. We collected time‐lagged data from 384 members and their leaders within 57 multicultural work teams. The results showed that team cultural diversity was positively related to both team creativity and individual creativity through team information sharing and employee information elaboration, respectively. We also found that the indirect positive relationship with team creativity and individual creativity was stronger for team cultural diversity when climate for inclusion of multicultural work teams was stronger.</p> <p>creativity; cultural diversity; information exchange; inclusion</p> <p>Creativity and innovation are crucial for organizations to sustain an advantage in highly competitive environments (Oldham & Cummings, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref1">41</reflink>] ). As work teams are widely used in workplaces, an increasing number of transnational organizations are using multicultural work teams, composed of members from diverse cultural backgrounds (Groves & Feyerherm, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref2">22</reflink>] ; Moon, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref3">35</reflink>] ). Collectively, these highlight the necessity to clarify the link between team‐level cultural diversity and creativity.</p> <p>Although researchers have accumulated knowledge on the relationship between team diversity, at both the surface‐level (i.e., age diversity) and deep‐level (i.e., cognitive diversity), and team creative performance (van Knippenberg, De Dreu, & Homan, [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref4">58</reflink>] ), knowledge about the relationship between team cultural diversity and team creativity is limited (Stahl, Maznevski, Voigt, & Jonsen, [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref5">53</reflink>] ). Research has recognized that the creative value of team diversity stems from the informational resources that members with various backgrounds bring to the team (Richter, Hirst, van Knippenberg, & Baer, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref6">47</reflink>] ; Shin, Kim, Lee, & Bian, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref7">49</reflink>] ). When the effect of demographic diversity on team performance is ambiguous (Horwitz & Horwitz, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref8">28</reflink>] ), the first research question is whether and how team cultural diversity relates to team creativity. Furthermore, the cross‐level relationship that team contexts have with individual performance by providing various inputs or stimuli has been recognized (Hirst, van Knippenberg, & Zhou, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref9">25</reflink>] ; Liao, Liu, & Loi, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref10">32</reflink>] ; Shalley, Zhou, & Oldham, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref11">48</reflink>] ). Team cultural diversity is a team‐level context, so the second research question is whether and how team cultural diversity also has a cross‐level effect on employee creativity. Thus, we aimed to examine the relationships that team cultural diversity may have with both team creativity and employee creativity.</p> <p>To clarify whether and how team cultural diversity relates to both team creativity and employee creativity, we adopted the information‐exchange perspective (Stahl et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref12">53</reflink>] ). This perspective suggests that knowledge sharing and combination is a crucial process for both team creativity and employee creativity that has been shown to link team properties and workplace creativity (Gong, Kim, Lee, & Zhu, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref13">19</reflink>] ). By articulating the notion of diversity as “valuable informational resources,” we argue that cultural diversity enhances information exchange among team members, because it provides members with increased opportunities to access knowledge and diverse perspectives. Among the team‐level information exchange, we focused on team information sharing—the exchange of work‐related data, ideas, and knowledge among team members, which has been shown to enhance innovation (Gong et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref14">19</reflink>] ). Employee‐level information exchange in this study focused on individual information elaboration, employees' searching for and considering task‐related information and perspectives from teammates, is a key individual cognitive process in individual creativity (Grant & Berry, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref15">21</reflink>] ). Furthermore, Harrison, Price, Gavin, and Florey ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref16">24</reflink>] ) suggested that the positive effect of demographic diversity emerges only when members frequently interact with one another. Thus, by integrating the group diversity and information‐exchange perspectives, we propose that team information sharing (individual information elaboration) is a mediator between cultural diversity and team creativity (employee creativity).</p> <p>However, information exchanges within culturally diverse teams do not occur automatically. This is because cultural diversity may engender intergroup biases that can disrupt communications among team members (Phillips, Northcraft, & Neale, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref17">43</reflink>] ). This may inhibit the effect of information exchange linking cultural diversity and creativity. Thus, one should explore team contexts that motivate team members to leverage their diverse informational resources. A climate for inclusion may be critical for information‐exchange behaviors in culturally diverse teams. Given the nature of inclusion as “learning and integrating differences (Ely & Thomas, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref18">13</reflink>] ; Holvino, Ferdman, & Merrill‐Sands, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref19">27</reflink>] ),” a climate for inclusion constitutes a critical context within which members are willing to exert considerable effort to explore their differences. We expected that a team climate for inclusion would moderate the relationship that cultural diversity has with team information exchange (employee information elaboration) and subsequently team creativity (employee creativity), because a climate for inclusion facilitates the exchange of information in a diverse team context.</p> <p>We provide several contributions to the cultural diversity and creativity literature. First, we developed a model addressing how team cultural diversity influences team‐ and individual‐level creativity. Because creativity occurs at multiple levels (Woodman, Sawyer, & Griffin, [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref20">63</reflink>] ), clarifying the interplay between cultural diversity and both team and individual creativity in work teams becomes salient. Second, by showing that team information sharing and employee information elaboration are mediators, we extend existing research by uncovering the mechanism by which team cultural diversity exerts an effect on team creativity and employee creativity. Finally, we addressed the gap regarding the moderating effect of information‐processing motivation on the link between diversity and workplace creativity (Shin et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref21">49</reflink>] ). Specifically, we tested how a climate for inclusion and cultural diversity interact to influence team creativity (individual creativity) through team information sharing (employee information elaboration).</p> <hd id="AN0123348263-2">Theory and Hypotheses</hd> <p>Consistent with prior research (Zhou & Shalley, [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref22">65</reflink>] ), we defined creativity as the production of novel and useful ideas by an individual or by a group of individuals working together. Because knowledge is a crucial building block in developing creative ideas (Amabile, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref23">1</reflink>] ), a key advantage of team diversity for creativity lies in the increased range of task‐relevant knowledge, skills and perspectives available to a team. Teams that are diverse with regard to cultural background are comprised of members who have various beliefs regarding the role of information and information‐processing methods (Ely & Thomas, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref24">13</reflink>] ; Moon, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref25">35</reflink>] ). Cultural diversity may relate to the various sets of task‐relevant skills, knowledge, and abilities team members possess as functions of their cultural backgrounds. Accordingly, teams with diverse cultural backgrounds allow members greater access to task‐relevant information, which should be beneficial for creativity. Among the cultural diversity, we focused on surface‐level cultural diversity because it does serve as a proxy for deep‐level indicators (Stahl et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref26">53</reflink>] ) and has been used frequently in recent diversity research (e.g., Nouri et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref27">40</reflink>] ).</p> <p>Prior research has suggested that greater exposure to different ideas is necessary but not sufficient to ensure workplace creativity (Amabile, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref28">2</reflink>] ). Diversity promotes workplace creativity only when non‐overlapping knowledge is mobilized and individuals access these information resources from others in their groups (Richter et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref29">47</reflink>] ). When non‐overlapping knowledge is not exchanged, the benefits of diversity may not emerge. These arguments lead to the belief that researchers should consider the role of knowledge exchange or combination on the cultural diversity–workplace creativity (team creativity and individual creativity) relationship.</p> <p>The generation of creative ideas not only arises from cognitive processing, but also results from motivational process within individuals (Mumford & Gustafson, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref30">37</reflink>] ). Thus, clarifying the conditions that enhance members' willingness to engage in knowledge exchange and elaboration for creativity is highly relevant, particularly for situations in which cultural diversity is likely to disrupt information exchange within teams (Stahl et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref31">53</reflink>] ). In our model (Figure [NaN] ), we addressed these issues by examining the mediating role of team information sharing (employee information elaboration) on the relationship between cultural diversity and team creativity (individual creativity). Additionally, we investigated the moderating effect of a climate for inclusion on the relationship between cultural diversity and team information sharing (employee information elaboration).</p> <hd id="AN0123348263-3">Team cultural diversity, team information sharing, and team creativity</hd> <p>Information brought to bear is a key determinant of performance on creative tasks because the generation of creative ideas requires considering multiple perspectives (Dahlin, Weingart, & Hinds, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref32">8</reflink>] ). Information sharing among team members is a crucial mechanism for accumulating task‐relevant information (Gilson, Lim, Luciano, & Choi, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref33">17</reflink>] ; Gong, Cheung, Wang, & Huang, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref34">18</reflink>] ). Based on an action theory perspective (Frese & Zapf, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref35">16</reflink>] ; Zapf, [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref36">64</reflink>] ), we focus team information sharing on the provision or receipt of task information, know‐how and feedback regarding a product or procedure, which may facilitate creativity.</p> <p>The amount of information shared within a team may be related to the variety of team member perspectives. Team diversity provides team members with an increased range of perspectives that are usually non‐overlapping. Non‐overlapping information constitutes the fundamentals of a team's information sharing because utilizing these information resources requires a greater exchange of information among team members (Dahlin et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref37">8</reflink>] ). In contrast, a team whose members are highly homogeneous in their backgrounds may have little overlap in task‐relevant perspectives that members do not trigger each other's knowledge, thus resulting in less information sharing. Team cultural diversity may therefore relate positively to team information sharing because it allows team members access to a broader range of non‐overlapping information sources that different cultural members bring to the team.</p> <p>The accumulation of informational resources is an important parts of creativity (Amabile, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref38">1</reflink>] ). Through sharing, team members can accumulate informational resources. These resources provide members with raw materials from which newness can be generated through recombination (Simonton, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref39">52</reflink>] ). According to the literature, members bring different sets of knowledge and skills to bear upon team creativity, and team information sharing provides a platform through which this may occur (Kanter, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref40">30</reflink>] ). Furthermore, the hidden profile paradigm (Stasser & Titus, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref41">54</reflink>] ) indicate that information sharing among diverse team members results in more creative ideas, but this may be dependent on the quality of the information discussed, especially the discussing of unshared information not the shared information. However, the meta‐analysis work of Mesmer‐Magnus and DeChurch ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref42">34</reflink>] ) suggested that discussing information with greater breadth can also enhance team performance such as creativity by allowing more in‐depth information processing and increasing the opportunity for the sharing of unique information. In summary, we suggest that team cultural diversity influence team information sharing. Team information sharing, in turn, benefits team creativity and thus mediates the relationship that team cultural diversity has with team creativity. We hypothesize:</p> <p>Hypothesis 1. Team cultural diversity has an indirect positive relationship, via team information sharing, with team creativity.</p> <hd id="AN0123348263-4">Team cultural diversity, employee information elaboration, and individual creativity</hd> <p>Amabile's ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref43">1</reflink>] ) creativity componential model views informational resources as key building blocks of individual creativity. When a task requires vast amounts of information to be processed (e.g., the generation of ideas), an employee's ability to identify and make use of relevant information is vital for individual creativity (Wheelwright & Clark, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref44">62</reflink>] ). In this study, we focused employee information elaboration on individual information processing that involves in information exchange, discussion and integration of the implications of information to reach task goals.</p> <p>According to the value‐in‐diversity view, a key advantage of team diversity over team homogeneity lies in the greater pool of task‐relevant information and expertise available to teams. Diverse teams provide a platform of employees to elaborate task‐relevant information because team members have different knowledge and thinking styles that elicit them to discuss different perspectives on the task (Shin et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref45">49</reflink>] ). Larger worldviews of culturally diverse teams may provide team members with greater access to new information and perspectives than homogeneous groups, encouraging employees to engage in information elaboration. However, members in homogeneous teams (e.g., culturally homogeneous teams) are unlikely to have opportunities to integrate different viewpoints because of the absence of various perspectives.</p> <p>Elaborating information from others allows team members to tap more new materials from which new ideas can be generated to resolve complex problems (Grant & Ashford, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref46">20</reflink>] ). Drawing on information from other team members provides individuals with opportunities to analyze their viewpoints to tasks and different standards for evaluating the usefulness of their new ideas (Perry‐Smith, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref47">42</reflink>] ). Thus, when employees engage in information elaboration, novel ideas that are useful to the workplace can be identified, which is valuable for individual creativity. In summary, we suggest that team cultural diversity influences employee information elaboration. Employee information elaboration, in turn, benefits individual creativity and thus mediates the relationship that team cultural diversity has with individual creativity. We hypothesize:</p> <p>Hypothesis 2. Team cultural diversity has an indirect positive relationship, via employee information elaboration, with individual creativity.</p> <hd id="AN0123348263-5">The moderating role of team climate for inclusion</hd> <p>We proposed that team cultural diversity influences team information sharing and individual information elaboration behaviors. These advantages of cultural diversity for information exchange and elaboration, however, can be brought out more or constrained by the context within which team members operate. Demographic diversity, particularly cultural diversity, involves a social categorization process that disrupts communication (Earley & Mosakowski, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref48">11</reflink>] ; Stahl et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref49">53</reflink>] ). Inclusion, which triggers the interpersonal communication of diverse employees in the workplace, is critical for mitigating social categorization (Nishii, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref50">39</reflink>] ). In inclusive environments, people believe that their diverse cultural backgrounds are a source of insight and that these insights can be integrated and shared to improve their performances on tasks (Avery, McKay, Wilson, & Tonidandel, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref51">4</reflink>] ; Ely & Thomas, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref52">13</reflink>] ). We focused on inclusion as a team climate in which employees expend considerable effort exploring their cultural differences so that they can infuse their thinking and insights.</p> <p>Based on the work of Nishii ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref53">39</reflink>] ), the team climate for inclusion in this study consisted of three facets: equitable employment practices, integration of differences, and inclusion in decision making. Equitable employment practices refer to fairly implemented employment practices that ensure a level playing field in a work‐unit. Integration of differences reflects the efforts of a work‐unit to involve diverse employees in the mission and task of this unit with respect to their individual talents. Inclusion in decision‐making concerns the active seeking and integration of diverse perspectives that employees bring to the team, even if those ideas might upset dominant assumptions. Nishii ([<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref54">39</reflink>] ) first empirically examined the effect of a climate for inclusion in gender‐diverse teams. She found that a climate for inclusion diminished negative social categorization processes, which may impede interpersonal communication, of team diversity.</p> <p>We expect that team cultural diversity will enhance team information sharing and employee information elaboration behaviors, but this potential can be released more when the team climate for inclusion is stronger. A strong climate for inclusion leads to a lower social categorization effect within a diverse team (Shore et al., [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref55">51</reflink>] ). This team climate constitutes a fair and safe context in which teams with diverse cultural backgrounds can engage in activities, such as an exchange of different perspectives. In a climate for inclusion, team members are more likely to feel more comfortable to display interpersonal differences regarding cultural competence. This enhances the value of cultural diversity by causing team members to perceive that their team practices facilitate the sharing of their perspectives. Furthermore, an inclusive context can also foster interpersonal trust that facilitates greater interpersonal communication among diverse employees in the workplace (Collins & Smith, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref56">7</reflink>] ; Ensari & Miller, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref57">14</reflink>] ). This climate can thus increase the potential for information sharing activities associated with a culturally diverse team. Greater team information sharing, in turn, positively relates to team creativity, resulting in a stronger indirect relationship between cultural diversity and team creativity. However, when the team climate is not inclusive, the benefits of engaging in information sharing activities associated with cultural diversity are constrained. This occurs because team members perceive more social categorization, which leads to more relationship conflicts (DiTomaso, Post, & Parks‐Yancy, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref58">10</reflink>] ), and then feel less comfortable about doing so under this climate. Impeding activities such as team information sharing will, in turn, decrease team creativity. To summarize, we hypothesize:</p> <p>Hypothesis 3. A team climate for inclusion positively moderates the indirect relationship that the team cultural diversity has with team creativity via team information exchange, in that the indirect relationship is stronger when the team climate for inclusion is stronger.</p> <p>The reason to expect that a climate for inclusion will enhance a positive relationship between cultural diversity and employee information elaboration is related to the perspective that employees believe the diverse backgrounds of others as a source of insight for improving their tasks in an inclusive environment (Ely & Thomas, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref59">13</reflink>] ). Because of the belief, team members will devote more time to understanding their differences (Mor Barak & Cherin, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref60">36</reflink>] ) that leads them to recognize the unique value of member with different backgrounds. In such context, team members are more open to different perspectives that enable them to capture different cultural information and elaborate the value of the information. Therefore, a team climate for inclusion can better bring out the potential for employee individual‐level information elaboration associated with a culturally diverse team. In a less inclusive environment, visible differences, like culture, are more likely to result in social categorization, which cause members to view one another's perspectives negatively (Larkey, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref61">31</reflink>] ). As a result, cultural diversity should be associated with lower levels of employee information elaboration than would be the case in work contexts (such as an inclusive climate) that do not trigger social categorization processes. To summarize, we hypothesize:</p> <p>Hypothesis 4. A team climate for inclusion positively moderates the indirect relationship that the team cultural diversity has with individual creativity via employee information elaboration, in that the indirect relationship is stronger when the team climate for inclusion is stronger.</p> <hd id="AN0123348263-6">Method</hd> <hd id="AN0123348263-7">Sample and Data Collection</hd> <p>The sample consisted of 57 engineering project teams in two multinational high‐tech companies with headquarters in Taiwan. In the two organizations, these teams typically performed tasks such as technological research and development, improvement of intricate processes, and prototype design work. In these teams, team members interacted frequently and worked collaboratively toward common team goals. With the permission of the two organizations, all members of these engineering teams were invited to complete this study. All team members that participated in the study also participated in the survey. Participation was voluntary, and the respondents were assured of the anonymity of their responses. After research assistants introduced the purpose of the survey, participants completed a questionnaire in conference rooms during their work shift. Data were collected from three sources: human resource (HR) departments, team members, and team leaders.</p> <p>We conducted three waves of surveys. Participants completed surveys at three time points with 6 months in between periods. At Time 1, HR departments provided the demographic information of team members, and leaders completed the control variables. After 3 months (Time 2), this study conducted on‐site interviews with 57 intact teams to assess team‐level measures (team information exchange and climate for inclusion) and to ask members to report the extent of their individual information elaboration within teams. The author asked intact members of each participating team to deliberate on each questionnaire item. Three months after the second wave (Time 3), the author interviewed the leaders of each of the 57 work teams who were asked to assess team creativity and the individual creativity of their subordinates.</p> <p>Finally, data were collected from 384 team members and 57 team leaders. The average team size was 6.74 members (ranging from five to seven), and the average age of the members was 30.7 years. Of the team leaders, 87% were men; of the team members, 82% were men. The sample consisted of eight different nationalities, with 168 local Taiwanese, and other from several countries, such as United States, Japan, Australia, Singapore, South Korea, and India. The average number of nationalities per team was 3.42. Among the ethnic backgrounds, 43.75% were Chinese, 29.69% were Asian (but not Chinese), 21.87% were Caucasian, and the remaining 4.69% consisted of other racial ethnic groups.</p> <hd id="AN0123348263-8">Measures</hd> <p>The measures were developed through in‐depth group interviews with ten team members and three team leaders to evaluate the face validity, relevance, and equivalence of the measures. Multiple‐item scales were employed with a 7‐point scale and are reported in Appendix A1.</p> <hd id="AN0123348263-9">Cultural diversity</hd> <p>Because this study hypothesized that cultural diversity constitute heterogeneity regarding task‐relevant resources, the diversity was operationalized as variety rather than separation or disparity (Harrison & Klein, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref62">23</reflink>] ). Thus, the Blau's ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref63">6</reflink>] ) index of heterogeneity was used to calculate the diversity, based on four ethnic categories: Chinese, Asian excluding Chinese, Caucasian, and other ethnic groups. This index was calculated as</p> <p>1−∑pi2,</p> <p>where p<subs>i</subs> is the proportion of a team in the ith category. The average number of ethnicities represented in a team was three, and the range was between one and five (Blau's index: mean = .59, ranging from 0.0 for a team in which all members came from the Taiwanese to 1 for a team in which all members came from different countries).</p> <hd id="AN0123348263-10">Employee information elaboration</hd> <p>We relied on employee's self‐assessment to measure information elaboration with four items. Referring to the employee level, these items tapped the extent to which employees searched for, elaborated, and integrated task‐related information provided by their teammates. As there are no suitable measures for the field survey, this study developed our own. Drawing on prior definitions and measures (Hoever, van Knippenberg, van Ginkel, & Barkema, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref64">26</reflink>] ) and discussions with two management theory experts, we developed four items. The two researchers help check the face validity, clarity, and relevance of the four‐item scale. From the feedback the author made several changes in the instrument to improve its clarity and to ensure effective communication with the respondents. This study then conducted a pilot‐test to initially assess the validity. To further assess the validity of the employee information elaboration measure, we collected separate data from 159 team members in 23 R&D teams in five Chinese companies. We measured employee information elaboration, employee information exchange (Subramaniam & Youndt, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref65">55</reflink>] ), and employee learning behavior (Daniels, Boocock, Glover, Hartley, & Holland, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref66">9</reflink>] ). We subsequently tested a three‐factor measurement model with a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The results showed that all items loaded significantly on the expected constructs, indicating convergent validity of the measures. The fit indices showed that the three‐factor model fit the data reasonably well (chi‐square = 29.34, df = 32, RMSEA = .00, GFI = .97, AGFI = .95, RMR = .02), and more optimally than the one‐factor model (chi‐square = 242.30, df = 35, RMSEA = .18, GFI = .75, AGFI = .61, RMR = .09), providing evidence of the four items validity. In the formal survey, Cronbach's alpha for this measure is.81.</p> <hd id="AN0123348263-11">Team information sharing</hd> <p>Team information sharing was measured with two items adapted from the scale developed by Gong et al. ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref67">19</reflink>] ). We prompted the team members to focus on their teams when they answered these questions by emphasizing the questions in this particular section that concerned their teams. Specifically, referring to the team level, the items tapped team member perception in information exchange with contacts within the team. For example, “Team members share ideas with each other to analyze and solve problems.” Cronbach's alpha for this measure is.79. The measure of agreement among team members' ratings produced the mean rwg of.0.93 (rang = 0.80–0.99), an ICC (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref68">1</reflink>) of.18, and an ICC (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref69">2</reflink>) of.58, suggesting that aggregating the responses to the team level was appropriate (James, Demaree, & Wolf, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref70">29</reflink>] ).</p> <hd id="AN0123348263-12">Climate for inclusion</hd> <p>This variable was measured by using 14 items assessing three dimensions of climate for inclusion that are meaningful in group settings: foundation of equitable employment practices, integration of differences, and inclusion in decision making (Nishii, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref71">39</reflink>] ). We performed a second‐order factor with a three‐factor model to test whether the data supported the three‐dimension structure. The results indicated that the second‐order model had an approximate acceptable fit with the data (model fit). The three dimensions of empowerment were highly intercorrelated (average r = .65) and were viewed empirically as interrelated dimensions of a higher order construct. Thus, the scores for the three dimensions were averaged to form an overall climate for inclusion variable, supported by previous studies (Nishii, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref72">39</reflink>] ). Cronbach's alpha for this measure is.90. The measure of agreement among team members' ratings produced the mean rwg of.0.93 (range = 0.84–0.99), an ICC (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref73">1</reflink>) of 0.18, and an ICC (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref74">2</reflink>) of.58. Thus, aggregating the responses to the team level was appropriate.</p> <hd id="AN0123348263-13">Employee creativity</hd> <p>This variable was assessed using the four‐item measure developed by Farmer, Tierney, and Kung‐McIntyre ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref75">15</reflink>] ). Following previous studies, the team leaders were asked to indicate the extent to which each of the four creative behaviors characterized each team member. The Cronbach's alpha for this measure is.83.</p> <hd id="AN0123348263-14">Team creativity</hd> <p>Using the four‐item measure developed by Shin and Zhou ([<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref76">50</reflink>] ), the team leaders were asked to assess the extent to which their own teams were creative compared with other similar work teams. The leader‐rating approach has been supported by previous creativity literature (Van der Vegt & Janssen, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref77">57</reflink>] ; Zhou & Shalley, [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref78">65</reflink>] ) and has demonstrated the reliability and validity of this measure. The Cronbach's alpha for this measure is.87.</p> <hd id="AN0123348263-15">Control variables</hd> <p>Consistent with previous studies (Shin & Zhou, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref79">50</reflink>] ), we controlled for employee gender (male = 1, female = 0), education level, job tenure, and openness to experience at the employee level. We measured educational level (the number of years of post‐high school education) to reflect that people who hold different educational experience may develop different work attitudes and behaviors such as creativity. Job tenure (the number of years working in a specific organization) was controlled because task domain expertise may account for variance in creative outcomes (Tierney & Farmer, [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref80">56</reflink>] ). In addition, in keeping with Ang et al. ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref81">3</reflink>] ), we controlled for individual cultural intelligence to partial out any potential effects in the creative process. We measured cultural intelligence using metacognitive cultural intelligence with four items because it is more likely to influence the relationship between cultural diversity and information exchange. Finally, we controlled for team size and average team tenure at the team level to partial out their influences on the relationships (e.g., Moon, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref82">35</reflink>] ; Wegge, Roth, Neubach, Schmidt, & Kanfer, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref83">61</reflink>] ). We controlled for the effects of task complexity by including the types of R&D task performed by the teams. We used three dummy variables to measure the type of project task performed, including basic or non‐mission tasks, applied or mission‐oriented tasks, new product or process development, and existing product or process improvement. Because task interdependence might influence the creative process, task interdependence was controlled in this study and rated by team members.</p> <p>Finally, we conducted a CFA on the three individual‐level variables (employee information elaboration, employee creativity, and metacognitive cultural intelligence) to examine the distinctiveness of our scales. The results indicated that each measure loaded significantly on the expected constructs, which demonstrates convergent validity. The model fit indexes (chi‐square [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref84">51</reflink>] = 39.72, p > .05; GFI = .98, AGFI = .97, SRMR = .02) suggest that the model fit is acceptable.</p> <hd id="AN0123348263-16">Analytical Strategies</hd> <p>Our data contained a hierarchical structure in which responses of individual‐level variables were nested within teams. Furthermore, to test our multilevel mediation hypotheses (i.e., Hypotheses 3 and 4), the covariances among the Level 1 (i.e., the employee level) random effects had to be estimated to estimate random indirect effects (Bauer, Preacher, & Gil, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref85">5</reflink>] ). On the basis of the recommendations by Preacher, Zyphur, and Zhang ([<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref86">45</reflink>] ) on how to model multilevel mediation, we applied multilevel path analysis with Mplus 7 (Muthén & Muthén, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref87">38</reflink>] ) without conflating the individual‐level and team‐level relationships. On the basis of the recommendations of Wallace, Butts, Johnson, Stevens, and Smith ([<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref88">60</reflink>] ), we adapted the simultaneous multilevel regression procedure (Bauer et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref89">5</reflink>] ) and applied it within the moderated mediation approach (Preacher et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref90">45</reflink>] ) to examine the indirect effects of cultural diversity on employee creativity through employee information elaboration and on team creativity through team information exchange at different levels of climate for inclusion. To reduce possible problems of multicollinearity (Raudenbush & Bryk, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref91">46</reflink>] ), following recommendations, we group‐mean‐centered all employee‐level (Level 1) variables except for gender. Team‐level (Level 2) variables were not centered (Preacher, Curran, & Bauer, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref92">44</reflink>] ).</p> <hd id="AN0123348263-17">Results</hd> <p>Descriptive statistics, reliability estimates, and correlations are shown in Table [NaN] . The statistics in the upper portion of the table pertain to the correlations among individual‐level variables and those in the lower portion pertain to the team level of analysis.</p> <p>Correlation Matrix and Descriptive Statistics of Measures</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><tr><th align="left" /><th align="center">Mean</th><th align="center">SD</th><th align="center">1</th><th align="center">2</th><th align="center">3</th><th align="center">4</th><th align="center">5</th><th align="center">6</th><th align="center">7</th><th align="center">8</th><th align="center">9</th></tr><tr><td align="left">Individual variables (Level 1)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">1. Individual creativity</td><td align="char" char=".">4.86</td><td align="char" char=".">0.63</td><td align="char" char=".">(0.83)</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">2. Employee information elaboration</td><td align="char" char=".">4.85</td><td align="char" char=".">0.61</td><td align="char" char=".">0.15</td><td align="char" char=".">(0.81)</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">4. Job tenure</td><td align="char" char=".">4.50</td><td align="char" char=".">1.46</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.02</td><td align="char" char=".">0.04</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">5. Education level</td><td align="char" char=".">4.27</td><td align="char" char=".">0.86</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.10</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.03</td><td align="char" char=".">0.04</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">6. Gender</td><td align="char" char=".">1.15</td><td align="char" char=".">0.35</td><td align="char" char=".">0.03</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.01</td><td align="char" char=".">0.04</td><td align="char" char=".">0.04</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">7. Cultural intelligence</td><td align="char" char=".">4.64</td><td align="char" char=".">0.71</td><td align="char" char=".">0.09</td><td align="char" char=".">0.40</td><td align="char" char=".">0.09</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.01</td><td align="char" char=".">0.00</td><td align="char" char=".">(0.87)</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Team variables (Level 2)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">1. Team creativity</td><td align="char" char=".">4.85</td><td align="char" char=".">0.66</td><td align="char" char=".">(0.87)</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">2. Cultural diversity</td><td align="char" char=".">0.59</td><td align="char" char=".">0.09</td><td align="char" char=".">0.68</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">3. Climate for inclusion</td><td align="char" char=".">4.79</td><td align="char" char=".">0.21</td><td align="char" char=".">0.08</td><td align="char" char=".">0.06</td><td align="char" char=".">(0.90)</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">4. Team information sharing</td><td align="char" char=".">4.67</td><td align="char" char=".">0.64</td><td align="char" char=".">0.48</td><td align="char" char=".">0.30</td><td align="char" char=".">0.11</td><td align="char" char=".">(0.79)</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">5. Team tenure</td><td align="char" char=".">3.53</td><td align="char" char=".">1.11</td><td align="char" char=".">0.04</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.06</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.24</td><td align="char" char=".">0.07</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">6. D1</td><td align="char" char=".">0.40</td><td align="char" char=".">0.49</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.15</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.14</td><td align="char" char=".">0.09</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.07</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.03</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">7. D2</td><td align="char" char=".">0.33</td><td align="char" char=".">0.48</td><td align="char" char=".">0.09</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.01</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.11</td><td align="char" char=".">0.06</td><td align="char" char=".">0.24</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.58</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">8. D3</td><td align="char" char=".">0.19</td><td align="char" char=".">0.40</td><td align="char" char=".">0.04</td><td align="char" char=".">0.16</td><td align="char" char=".">0.10</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.06</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.34</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.40</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.35</td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">9. Teamwork interdependence</td><td align="char" char=".">4.43</td><td align="char" char=".">0.71</td><td align="char" char=".">0.12</td><td align="char" char=".">0.13</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.09</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.10</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.14</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.23</td><td align="char" char=".">0.05</td><td align="char" char=".">0.07</td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left">10. Team size</td><td align="char" char=".">6.74</td><td align="char" char=".">0.55</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.15</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.02</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.05</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.14</td><td align="char" char=".">0.01</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.13</td><td align="char" char=".">0.00</td><td align="char" char=".">0.24</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.15</td></tr></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>4 Note</item> <item>5 *p < .05,</item> <item>6 n = 384,</item> <item>7 n = 57.</item> <item>8 For D1: 0 “others,” 1 applied research”; D2: 0 “others,” 1 “new project”; D3: 0 “others,” 1 “modifying a current project.” Reliabilities are in parentheses.</item> </ulist> <p>Hypothesis 1 predicted that the team cultural diversity would have an indirect positive relationship, through team information sharing, with team creativity. The result of model 1 in Table [NaN] shows that the cultural diversity was significantly related to team information sharing (γ = .32, p < .01). Team information sharing was significantly related to team creativity (model 2, Table [NaN] : γ = .19, p < .01). Based on MacKinnon, Lockwood, and Williams' ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref93">33</reflink>] ) procedure, the bootstrapping test indicated that the indirect relationships that the team cultural diversity had with team creativity via team information sharing were significant. The 95% CI of the indirect relationship were.010 and.127, excluded zero. Thus, the results supported Hypothesis 1.</p> <p>Results of Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM) Analysis for Team Information Sharing and Team Creativity by Mplus</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><tr><th align="left">Variable</th><th align="center">Model 1: Team information sharing</th><th align="center">Model 2: Team creativity</th></tr><tr><td align="left">Intercepts</td><td align="char" char=".">4.66</td><td align="char" char=".">3.46</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Level 2 control variables</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Team size</td><td align="char" char=".">−.11</td><td align="char" char=".">−.05</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Team tenure</td><td align="char" char=".">.02</td><td align="char" char=".">.05</td></tr><tr><td align="left">D1</td><td align="char" char=".">−.34</td><td align="char" char=".">.02</td></tr><tr><td align="left">D2</td><td align="char" char=".">−.12</td><td align="char" char=".">.06</td></tr><tr><td align="left">D3</td><td align="char" char=".">−.30</td><td align="char" char=".">.03</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Teamwork interdependence</td><td align="char" char=".">−.17</td><td align="char" char=".">.05</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Level 2 independent variables</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Cultural diversity</td><td align="char" char=".">.32</td><td align="char" char=".">.39</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Team information sharing</td><td align="left" /><td align="char" char=".">.19</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Climate for inclusion</td><td align="char" char=".">.11</td><td align="char" char=".">.02</td></tr><tr><td align="left">X Cultural diversity</td><td align="char" char=".">.25</td><td align="left" /></tr></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>9 Note</item> <item>10 n = 384 individuals and 57 teams. For D1: 0 “others,” 1 “applied research”; D2: 0 “others,” 1 “new project”; D3: 0 “others,” 1 “modifying a current project.”</item> <item>11 *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.</item> </ulist> <p>Hypothesis 2 predicted that the team cultural diversity would have an indirect positive relationship, through employee information elaboration, with individual creativity. The result of model 3 in Table [NaN] shows that the cultural diversity was significantly related to employee information elaboration (γ = .33, p < .001). Employee information elaboration was significantly related to individual creativity (model 4, Table [NaN] : γ = .20, p < .05). The bootstrapping test based on MacKinnon et al. ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref94">33</reflink>] ) confirmed the significance of the indirect relationship that the team cultural diversity had with individual creativity via employee information elaboration (95% CI excluded zero: [.007,.129]). Thus, the results supported Hypothesis 2.</p> <p>Results of HLM Analysis for Employee Information Elaboration and Individual Creativity by Mplus</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><tr><th align="left">Variable</th><th align="center">Model 3: Employee information elaboration</th><th align="center">Model 4: Individual creativity</th></tr><tr><td align="left">Intercepts</td><td align="char" char=".">5.25</td><td align="char" char=".">5.24</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Level 1 control variables</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Education level</td><td align="char" char=".">−.01</td><td align="char" char=".">−.04</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Job tenure</td><td align="char" char=".">.01</td><td align="char" char=".">.01</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Gender</td><td align="char" char=".">−.00</td><td align="char" char=".">.01</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Cultural intelligence</td><td align="char" char=".">.24</td><td align="char" char=".">.08</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Level 2 control variables</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Team size</td><td align="char" char=".">.01</td><td align="char" char=".">−.00</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Team tenure</td><td align="char" char=".">.04</td><td align="char" char=".">−.02</td></tr><tr><td align="left">D1</td><td align="char" char=".">−.03</td><td align="char" char=".">−.22</td></tr><tr><td align="left">D2</td><td align="char" char=".">.00</td><td align="char" char=".">−.13</td></tr><tr><td align="left">D3</td><td align="char" char=".">.03</td><td align="char" char=".">−.06</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Teamwork interdependence</td><td align="char" char=".">.11</td><td align="char" char=".">−.04</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Level 1 independent variables</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Employee information elaboration</td><td align="left" /><td align="char" char=".">.20</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Level 2 independent variables</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Cultural diversity</td><td align="char" char=".">.33</td><td align="char" char=".">.04</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Team information sharing</td><td align="char" char=".">−.05</td><td align="char" char=".">−.05</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Climate for inclusion</td><td align="char" char=".">−.01</td><td align="char" char=".">.06</td></tr><tr><td align="left">X Cultural diversity</td><td align="char" char=".">.17</td><td align="left" /></tr></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>12 Note</item> <item>13 n = 384 individuals and 57 teams. For D1: 0 “others,” 1 “applied research”; D2: 0 “others,” 1 “new project”; D3: 0 “others,” 1 “modifying a current project.”</item> <item>14 *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.</item> </ulist> <p>The model results (see Figure [NaN] ) provide initial support for Hypotheses 3 and 4. Hypothesis 3 predicted that the climate for inclusion would positively moderate the indirect relationship that the team cultural diversity has with team creativity via team information sharing, whereby the relationship would become stronger when the climate for inclusion is higher. The interaction between the cultural diversity and the climate for inclusion was significantly related to team information sharing (model 1, Table [NaN] : γ = .25, p < .01). On the basis of the procedures suggested by Edwards and Lambert ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref95">12</reflink>] ), we used the first‐stage moderation model to examine whether the moderated indirect relationship was significant. Results indicated that the indirect effect of team cultural diversity on team creativity via team information sharing differed as a function of climate for inclusion. The simple slope of the indirect relationship that the cultural diversity had with team creativity via team information sharing was significant (simple slope = .45, p < .001) when the climate for inclusion was high, but was nonsignificant (simple slope = .11, n.s.) when it was low. As shown in Figure [NaN] , cultural diversity related more positively to team information sharing when climate for inclusion was higher rather than when climate for inclusion was lower. We confirmed the significance of the indirect relationship that the interaction term of cultural diversity and climate for inclusion had with team creativity (95% CI excluded zero: [.001,.101]). Thus, Hypothesis 3 was supported.</p> <p>Hypothesis 4 predicted that the climate for inclusion would positively moderate the indirect relationship that the team cultural diversity has with individual creativity via employee information elaboration, whereby the relationship would become stronger when the climate for inclusion is higher. The interaction between the cultural diversity and the climate for inclusion was significantly related to employee information elaboration (model 3, Table [NaN] : γ = .25, p < .01). We used the first‐stage moderation model to examine whether the moderated indirect relationship was significant. Results indicated that the indirect effect of team cultural diversity on individual creativity via employee information elaboration differed as a function of climate for inclusion. The simple slope of the indirect relationship that the cultural diversity had with team creativity via team information sharing was significant (simple slope = .40, p < .001) when the climate for inclusion was high, but was nonsignificant (simple slope = .24, n.s.) when it was low. As shown in Figure [NaN] , cultural diversity related more positively to employee information elaboration when climate for inclusion was higher rather than when climate for inclusion was lower. The indirect relationship that the interaction term of cultural diversity and climate for inclusion had with individual creativity was significant (95% CI excluded zero: [.003,.073]). Thus, Hypothesis 4 was supported.</p> <hd id="AN0123348263-18">Discussion</hd> <p>We found that team cultural diversity was positively related to team information sharing, which in turn were positively related to team creativity. Furthermore, team cultural diversity was positively related to employee information elaboration and subsequently to individual creativity. Finally, we found that the team climate for inclusion played a moderating role in the indirect positive relationship between team cultural diversity and creativity. When the climate for inclusion was stronger, the indirect relationship with team creativity (individual creativity), via team information sharing (employee information elaboration), was more significant for team cultural diversity.</p> <hd id="AN0123348263-19">Implications for Theory and Research</hd> <p>This study has several theoretical implications for existing research. First, this study enriched the cultural diversity and creativity literature by examining whether and how team cultural diversity positively relates to both team and individual creativity beyond a single level of analysis. Our study departed from the common scholarly practice of studying relevant research at a single‐level analysis (Stahl et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref96">53</reflink>] ). This study demonstrated that cultural diversity has a positive relationship with team creativity. Our study also provided empirical evidence regarding the cross‐level relationship between team cultural diversity and individual‐level creativity, which has never been examined. Thus, this study extends cultural diversity research to the team‐ and cross‐level relationship with creativity.</p> <p>By integrating team diversity and information‐exchange perspectives, this study showed team information sharing and employee information elaboration as crucial activities link cultural diversity and team creativity and individual creativity, respectively. This study, together with that of Gong et al. ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref97">19</reflink>] ), supported the idea that team properties (e.g., cultural diversity) are related to team outcomes (e.g., team creativity) through team information‐exchange activities. Volmer and Sonnentag's ([<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref98">59</reflink>] ) empirical findings also supported that team diversity may increase the willingness of team members to seek the perspectives of other members, which in turn, enhance team performance. In particular, we found that team cultural diversity enhances individual creativity fully through employee information elaboration. One implication of this is that the informational resource derived from cultural diversity, by itself, may not necessarily benefit individual creativity. Members of culturally diverse teams need to learn from one another, which, in turn, may promote their individual creativity. Overall, this study provided a more complete view of the potential roles of information exchange in determining the effect of cultural diversity on workplace creativity.</p> <p>Perhaps the most important implication of our findings is that an inclusive team climate plays a critical role in helping culturally diverse teams and their members in capitalizing on the potential creative benefits of team diversity. We not only theoretically developed the moderated mediation effect on both team and individual creativity by integrating research on inclusion, cultural diversity and workplace creativity, but also empirically found that the indirect relationships that team cultural diversity has with both team and individual creativity vary as a function of the team climate for inclusion. This study therefore extended cultural diversity research to workplace creativity by identifying the climate for inclusion as a novel boundary condition. Furthermore, it is interesting that team cultural diversity seems to have some benefits on team and individual‐level information‐exchange activities whether under favorable (high inclusive climate) or unfavorable conditions (low inclusive climate). As the diversity literature suggested, these results support the idea that team diversity, whether cognitive diversity or demographic diversity, enhances the amount of information shared by a team.</p> <hd id="AN0123348263-20">Managerial Implications</hd> <p>The findings relating to the indirect effects of team cultural diversity on both team and individual creativity have practical implications. For managing multicultural teams (MCTs), it would be important to inform managers that cultural diversity alone does not benefit creativity. Our findings suggest that for teams with high cultural diversity, managers should ensure that teams constitute high levels of a climate for inclusion. Without an inclusive team climate, information exchange among team members may not be triggered in MCTs. By establishing equitable employment practices, encouraging teams to integrate difference and ensuring inclusion in decision making, managers can strengthen their team climate for inclusion. Furthermore, the results indicated that to gain the full benefits of cultural diversity, managers should provide institutionalized platforms or channels for exchanging ideas, perspectives, and knowledge to enable teams and their members to share and discover new ideas, appreciate one another's different perspectives, and seek novel and useful solutions. Consequently, team members in MCTs are more likely to exploit informational resources stemming from cultural diversity to enhance workplace creativity.</p> <hd id="AN0123348263-21">Limitations and Future Research Directions</hd> <p>The results of our study should be interpreted within the context of the study's limitations. First, the cross‐sectional design of our study does not establish causality in relationship. A team with previous success in creativity might reinforce team information sharing, which in turn might prefer to organize diverse teams. Similarly, individual creativity, once achieved, may reinforce employee information elaboration. Future research should use a longitudinal or experimental design to demonstrate the direction of causality.</p> <p>In addition, we used a self‐reported approach to collect all of the data, including the dependent variables. Common method variance may have potentially affected the results. We approached this problem in two ways. A temporally lagged design was adopted: the independent variables and the moderator were collected at Time 1, the mediator was collected at Time 2, and the dependent variable was collected at Time 3. We also collected data from multiple sources to eliminate potential bias. Team leaders rated the dependent variable and employees completed the mediators and the moderator. Thus, we believe that common method variance may not be a serious problem in our study.</p> <p>Another limitation was that we did not include other potential mediators or moderators. One example is team learning goal orientation as a moderator. Intrinsic motivation has been identified as a critical factor for creativity (Amabile, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref99">2</reflink>] ). If teams have high levels of team learning orientation, they are likely to willingly search for and integrate different ideas and perspectives (Gong et al., [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref100">19</reflink>] ), which may influence the indirect relationship between team cultural diversity and creativity through information exchange. Future studies should investigate this moderating relationship with determine whether and how cultural diversity influences workplace creativity. In addition, one interesting direction for future research would be to explicitly examine whether different aspects of information sharing (e.g., transactive memory system or the uniqueness of information sharing) have different effects on creativity.</p> <p>This study did not examine deep‐level cultural diversity among team members. Instead, we focused on surface‐level cultural diversity. Surface‐level cultural diversity has been frequently used in diversity research (e.g., Nouri et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref101">40</reflink>] ). However, the surface and deep levels may actually capture different aspects of diversity. Thus, future research should compare the strength and mechanisms of the relationships between creativity and surface‐ and deep‐level cultural diversity, respectively. In addition, one interesting direction for future research would be to explicitly examine whether different aspects of a climate for inclusion (e.g., equitable employment practices, integration of differences and inclusion in decision making) play different mediating roles for team‐ or individual‐level activities.</p> <hd id="AN0123348263-22">AcknowledgEments</hd> <p>This research paper is supported by Natural Science Foundation of Fujian Province, China (2015R0031) and partially supported by Ministry of Science and Technology Individual Research Grant of Taiwan (project no. MOST 103‐2410‐H‐277‐002‐SSS).</p> <hd id="AN0123348263-23">Author Note</hd> <p>Ci‐Rong Li, is now an Associate Professor in the College of Management, Jilin University. Chen‐Ju Lin is now an Associate Professor in the Department of Marketing and Distribution Management, Tzu Chi College of Technology. Yun‐Hsiang Tien, is now an Associate Professor in the School of Political Science and Public Administration, Wuhan University. Chien‐Ming Chen, is now an Assistant Professor in the School of Computer Science and Technology, Harbin Institute of Technology Shenzhen Graduate School.</p> <hd id="AN0123348263-24">A1 Appendix Measures and Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results</hd> <p></p> <p> <ephtml> <table><tr><th align="left">Construct and Source</th><th align="left">Operational Measure</th><th align="center">SFL</th><th align="center">t‐value</th></tr><tr><td align="left">Employee creativity (Farmer et al., 15)</td><td align="left">1. Seeks new ideas and ways to solve problems.</td><td align="char" char=".">0.71</td><td align="char" char=".">14.83</td></tr><tr><td align="left">2. Generates ideas revolutionary to the field.</td><td align="char" char=".">0.77</td><td align="char" char=".">16.46</td></tr><tr><td align="left">3. Is a good role model for innovation/creativity.</td><td align="char" char=".">0.75</td><td align="char" char=".">15.79</td></tr><tr><td align="left">4. Tries new ideas and approaches to problems.</td><td align="char" char=".">0.75</td><td align="char" char=".">15.71</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Employee information elaboration</td><td align="left">1. On the job, I consult a wide variety of task‐related information.</td><td align="char" char=".">0.75</td><td align="char" char=".">15.41</td></tr><tr><td align="left">2. On the job, I search for information from multiple sources (e.g., personal memories, others' experience, documentation, Internet, etc.).</td><td align="char" char=".">0.73</td><td align="char" char=".">14.94</td></tr><tr><td align="left">3. On the job, I make an effort to consider all task‐related information to generate optimal solutions.</td><td align="char" char=".">0.69</td><td align="char" char=".">13.82</td></tr><tr><td align="left">4. On the job, I carefully consider the information provided by multiple sources (e.g., personal memories, others' experience, documentation, Internet, etc.).</td><td align="char" char=".">0.73</td><td align="char" char=".">14.99</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Team information sharing (Gong et al., 19)</td><td align="left">1. Team members share information with and learn from each other.</td><td align="char" char=".">0.70</td><td align="char" char=".">8.41</td></tr><tr><td align="left">2. Team members share ideas with each other to analyze and solve problem.</td><td align="char" char=".">0.94</td><td align="char" char=".">9.17</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Team creativity (Shin & Zhou, 50)</td><td align="left">1. How well does your team produce new ideas?</td><td align="char" char=".">0.75</td><td align="char" char=".">6.22</td></tr><tr><td align="left">2. How useful are those ideas?</td><td align="char" char=".">0.76</td><td align="char" char=".">6.33</td></tr><tr><td align="left">3. How creative do you consider your team to be?</td><td align="char" char=".">0.81</td><td align="char" char=".">6.88</td></tr><tr><td align="left">4. How significant are those ideas to your organization?</td><td align="char" char=".">0.82</td><td align="char" char=".">7.00</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Climate for inclusion (Nishii, 39)</td><td align="left">This work‐unit does not have a fair promotion process.</td><td align="char" char=".">0.76</td><td align="char" char=".">16.89</td></tr><tr><td align="left">In this work‐unit, the unique needs of members are met by flexible benefit programs.</td><td align="char" char=".">0.76</td><td align="char" char=".">16.76</td></tr><tr><td align="left">This work‐unit invests in the development of all of its members.</td><td align="char" char=".">0.74</td><td align="char" char=".">16.14</td></tr><tr><td align="left">This work‐unit provides safe ways for members to voice their grievances.</td><td align="char" char=".">0.78</td><td align="char" char=".">17.33</td></tr><tr><td align="left">In this work‐unit, members are comfortable being themselves.</td><td align="char" char=".">0.76</td><td align="char" char=".">17.04</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Promoting diversity awareness is not a priority of this work‐unit.</td><td align="char" char=".">0.77</td><td align="char" char=".">17.47</td></tr><tr><td align="left">In this work‐unit, people's differences are respected.</td><td align="char" char=".">0.70</td><td align="char" char=".">15.39</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Members of this work‐unit are valued for who they are as people, not just for the jobs that they fill.</td><td align="char" char=".">0.77</td><td align="char" char=".">17.57</td></tr><tr><td align="left">In this work‐unit, people often share and learn about one another as people.</td><td align="char" char=".">0.76</td><td align="char" char=".">17.18</td></tr><tr><td align="left">This work‐unit has a culture in which members appreciate the differences that people bring to the workplace.</td><td align="char" char=".">0.76</td><td align="char" char=".">17.18</td></tr><tr><td align="left">It is clear that this work‐unit perceives members' input as a key to its success.</td><td align="char" char=".">0.77</td><td align="char" char=".">16.82</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Members in this work‐unit are empowered to make work‐related decisions on their own.</td><td align="char" char=".">0.74</td><td align="char" char=".">15.93</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Members in this work‐unit are encouraged to offer ideas on how to improve operations outside of their own areas.</td><td align="char" char=".">0.69</td><td align="char" char=".">14.64</td></tr><tr><td align="left">In this work‐unit, members' insights are used to rethink or redefine work practices.</td><td align="char" char=".">0.77</td><td align="char" char=".">16.93</td></tr></table> </ephtml> </p> <ref id="AN0123348263-25"> <title>References</title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref23" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext>Amabile, T.M. ( 1988 ). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 10, 123 – 167. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref28" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext>Amabile, T.M. ( 1996 ). Creativity in context. Boulder, CO : Westview. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref81" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext>Ang, S., Van Dyne, L., Koh, C., Ng, K.Y., Templer, K.J., Tay‐Lee, S.L.C., & Chandrasekar, N.A. ( 2007 ). Cultural intelligence: Its measurement and effects on cultural judgment and decision making, cultural adaptation and task performance. Management and Organization Review, 3, 335 – 371. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref51" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext>Avery, D.R., McKay, P.F., Wilson, D.C., & Tonidandel, S. ( 2007 ). Unequal attendance: The relationships between race, organizational diversity cues, and absenteeism. Personnel Psychology, 60, 875 – 902. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref85" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext>Bauer, D.J., Preacher, K.J., & Gil, K.M. ( 2006 ). Conceptualizing and testing random indirect effects and moderated mediation in multilevel models: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 11, 142 – 163. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref63" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext>Blau, P.M. ( 1977 ). Inequality and heterogeneity. New York : Free Press. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref56" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext>Collins, C.J., & Smith, K.G. ( 2006 ). Knowledge exchange and combination: The role of human resource practices in the performance of high‐technology firms. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 544 – 560. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref32" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext>Dahlin, K.B., Weingart, L.R., & Hinds, P.J. ( 2005 ). Team diversity and information use. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 1107 – 1123. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref66" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext>Daniels, K., Boocock, G., Glover, J., Hartley, R., & Holland, J. ( 2009 ). An experience sampling study of learning, affect, and the demands control support model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1003 – 1017. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib10" idref="ref58" type="bt">10</bibl> <bibtext>DiTomaso, N., Post, C., & Parks‐Yancy, R. ( 2007 ). Workforce diversity and inequality: Power, status, and numbers. In D.S. Massey & K.S. Cook (Eds.), Annual review of sociology (pp. 473 – 501 ). Palo Alto, CA : Annual Reviews. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib11" idref="ref48" type="bt">11</bibl> <bibtext>Earley, P.C., & Mosakowski, E.A. ( 2000 ). Creating hybrid team cultures: An empirical test of transnational team functioning. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 26 – 49. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib12" idref="ref95" type="bt">12</bibl> <bibtext>Edwards, J.R., & Lambert, L.S. ( 2007 ). Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: A general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychological Methods, 12, 1 – 22. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib13" idref="ref18" type="bt">13</bibl> <bibtext>Ely, R.J., & Thomas, D.A. ( 2001 ). Cultural diversity at work: The effects of diversity perspectives on work group processes and outcomes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 229 – 273. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib14" idref="ref57" type="bt">14</bibl> <bibtext>Ensari, N., & Miller, N. ( 2006 ). The application of the personalization model in diversity management. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 9, 589 – 607. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib15" idref="ref75" type="bt">15</bibl> <bibtext>Farmer, S.M., Tierney, P., & Kung‐McIntyre, K. ( 2003 ). Employee creativity in Taiwan: An application of role identity theory. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 618 – 630. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib16" idref="ref35" type="bt">16</bibl> <bibtext>Frese, M., & Zapf, D. ( 1994 ). Action as the core of work psychology: A German approach. In H.C. Triandis, M.D. Dunnette & L.M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 271 – 340 ). Palo Alto, CA : Consulting Psychologists Press. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib17" idref="ref33" type="bt">17</bibl> <bibtext>Gilson, L.L., Lim, H.S., Luciano, M.M., & Choi, J.N. ( 2013 ). Unpacking the cross‐level effect of tenure diversity, explicit knowledge, and knowledge sharing on individual creativity. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 86, 203 – 222. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib18" idref="ref34" type="bt">18</bibl> <bibtext>Gong, Y., Cheung, S.Y., Wang, M., & Huang, J.C. ( 2012 ). Unfolding the proactive process for creativity: Integration of the employee proactivity, information exchange, and psychological safety perspectives. Journal of Management, 38, 1611 – 1633. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib19" idref="ref13" type="bt">19</bibl> <bibtext>Gong, Y., Kim, T.‐Y., Lee, D.‐R., & Zhu, J. ( 2013 ). A multilevel model of team goal orientation, information exchange, and creativity. Academy of Management Review, 56, 827 – 851. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib20" idref="ref46" type="bt">20</bibl> <bibtext>Grant, A.M., & Ashford, S.J. ( 2008 ). The dynamics of proactivity at work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 3 – 34. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib21" idref="ref15" type="bt">21</bibl> <bibtext>Grant, A.M., & Berry, J. ( 2011 ). The necessity of others is the mother of invention: Intrinsic and prosocial motivations, perspective‐taking, and creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 54, 73 – 96. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib22" idref="ref2" type="bt">22</bibl> <bibtext>Groves, K.S., & Feyerherm, A.E. ( 2011 ). Leader cultural intelligence in context: Testing the moderating effects of team cultural diversity on leader and team performance. Group and Organization Management, 36, 535 – 566. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib23" idref="ref62" type="bt">23</bibl> <bibtext>Harrison, D.A., & Klein, K.J. ( 2007 ). What's the difference? Diversity constructs as separation, variety, or disparity in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32, 1199 – 1228. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib24" idref="ref16" type="bt">24</bibl> <bibtext>Harrison, D.A., Price, K.H., Gavin, J.H., & Florey, A.T. ( 2002 ). Time, teams, and task performance: Changing effects of surface‐ and deep‐level diversity on group functioning. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 1029 – 1045. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib25" idref="ref9" type="bt">25</bibl> <bibtext>Hirst, G., van Knippenberg, D., & Zhou, J. ( 2009 ). A cross‐level perspective on employee creativity: Goal orientation, team learning behavior, and individual creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 280 – 293. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib26" idref="ref64" type="bt">26</bibl> <bibtext>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, 982 – 996. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib27" idref="ref19" type="bt">27</bibl> <bibtext>Holvino, E.H., Ferdman, B.M., & Merrill‐Sands, D. ( 2004 ). Creating and sustaining diversity and inclusion in organizations: Strategies and approaches. In M.S. Stockdale & F.J. Cosby (Eds.), The psychology and management of workplace diversity (pp. 245 – 276 ). Malden, MA : Blackwell. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib28" idref="ref8" type="bt">28</bibl> <bibtext>Horwitz, S., & Horwitz, I.B. ( 2007 ). The effects of team diversity on team outcomes: A meta‐analytic review of team demography. Journal of Management, 33, 987 – 1015. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib29" idref="ref70" type="bt">29</bibl> <bibtext>James, L.R., Demaree, R.G., & Wolf, G. ( 1984 ). Estimating within‐group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 85098. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib30" idref="ref40" type="bt">30</bibl> <bibtext>Kanter, R.M. ( 1988 ). When a thousand flowers bloom: Structural, collective, and social conditions for innovation in organization. Research in Organizational Behavior, 10, 169 – 211. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib31" idref="ref61" type="bt">31</bibl> <bibtext>Larkey, L.K. ( 1996 ). Toward a theory of communicative interactions in culturally diverse workgroups. Academy of Management Review, 21, 463 – 491. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib32" idref="ref10" type="bt">32</bibl> <bibtext>Liao, H., Liu, D., & Loi, R. ( 2010 ). Looking at both sides of the social exchange coin: A social cognitive perspective on the joint effects of relationship quality and differentiation on creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 1090 – 1109. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib33" idref="ref93" type="bt">33</bibl> <bibtext>MacKinnon, D.P., Lockwood, C.M., & Williams, J. ( 2004 ). Confidence limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 99 – 128. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib34" idref="ref42" type="bt">34</bibl> <bibtext>Mesmer‐Magnus, J.R., & DeChurch, L.A. ( 2009 ). Information sharing and team performance: A meta‐analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 535 – 546. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib35" idref="ref3" type="bt">35</bibl> <bibtext>Moon, T. ( 2013 ). The effects of cultural intelligence on performance in multicultural teams. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43, 2414 – 2425. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib36" idref="ref60" type="bt">36</bibl> <bibtext>Mor Barak, M.E., & Cherin, D.A. ( 1998 ). A tool to expand organizational understanding of workforce diversity: Exploring a measure of inclusion‐exclusion. Administration in Social Work, 22, 47 – 63. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib37" idref="ref30" type="bt">37</bibl> <bibtext>Mumford, M.D., & Gustafson, S.B. ( 1988 ). Creativity syndrome: Integration, application, and innovation. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 27 – 43. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib38" idref="ref87" type="bt">38</bibl> <bibtext>Muthén, L.K., & Muthén, B.O. ( 2012 ). Mplus user's guide. Los Angeles : Muthén & Muthén. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib39" idref="ref50" type="bt">39</bibl> <bibtext>Nishii, L.H. ( 2013 ). The benefits of climate for inclusion for gender‐diverse groups. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 1754 – 1774. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib40" idref="ref27" type="bt">40</bibl> <bibtext>Nouri, R., Erez, M., Rockstuhl, T., Ang, S., Leshem‐Calif, L., & Rafaeli, A. ( 2013 ). Taking the bite out of culture: The impact of task structure and task type on overcoming impediments to cross‐cultural team performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34, 739 – 763. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib41" idref="ref1" type="bt">41</bibl> <bibtext>Oldham, G.R., & Cummings, A. ( 1996 ). Employee creativity: Personal and contextual factors at work. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 607 – 634. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib42" idref="ref47" type="bt">42</bibl> <bibtext>Perry‐Smith, J.E. ( 2006 ). Social yet creative: The role of social relationships in facilitating individual creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 85 – 101. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib43" idref="ref17" type="bt">43</bibl> <bibtext>Phillips, K.W., Northcraft, G.B., & Neale, M.A. ( 2006 ). Surface‐level diversity and decision‐making in groups: When does deep‐level similarity help? Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 9, 467 – 482. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib44" idref="ref92" type="bt">44</bibl> <bibtext>Preacher, K.J., Curran, P.J., & Bauer, D.J. ( 2006 ). Computational tools for probing interaction effects in multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 31, 437 – 448. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib45" idref="ref86" type="bt">45</bibl> <bibtext>Preacher, K.J., Zyphur, M.J., & Zhang, Z. ( 2010 ). A general multilevel SEM framework for assessing multilevel mediation. Psychological Methods, 15, 209 – 233. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib46" idref="ref91" type="bt">46</bibl> <bibtext>Raudenbush, S.W., & Bryk, A.S. ( 2002 ). Hierarchical linear models. Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib47" idref="ref6" type="bt">47</bibl> <bibtext>Richter, A.W., Hirst, G., van Knippenberg, D., & Baer, M. ( 2012 ). Creative self‐efficacy and individual creativity in team contexts: Cross‐level interactions with team informational resources. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 1282 – 1290. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib48" idref="ref11" type="bt">48</bibl> <bibtext>Shalley, C.E., Zhou, J., & Oldham, G.R. ( 2004 ). Effects of personal and contextual characteristics on creativity: Where should we go from here? Journal of Management, 30, 933 – 958. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib49" idref="ref7" type="bt">49</bibl> <bibtext>Shin, S.J., Kim, T.‐Y., Lee, J.‐Y., & Bian, L. ( 2012 ). Cognitive team diversity and individual team member creativity: A cross‐level Interaction. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 197 – 212. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib50" idref="ref76" type="bt">50</bibl> <bibtext>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. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib51" idref="ref55" type="bt">51</bibl> <bibtext>Shore, L.M., Randel, A.E., Chung, B.G., Dean, M.A., Ehrhart, K.H., & Singh, G. ( 2011 ). Inclusion and diversity in work groups: A review and model for future research. Journal of Management, 37, 1262 – 1289. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib52" idref="ref39" type="bt">52</bibl> <bibtext>Simonton, D.K. ( 1999 ). Creativity from a historiometric perspective. In R.J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 116 – 133 ). New York : Cambridge University Press. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib53" idref="ref5" type="bt">53</bibl> <bibtext>Stahl, G.K., Maznevski, M.L., Voigt, A., & Jonsen, K. ( 2010 ). Unraveling the effects of cultural diversity in teams: A meta‐analysis of research on multicultural work groups. Journal of International Business Studies, 41, 690 – 709. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib54" idref="ref41" type="bt">54</bibl> <bibtext>Stasser, G., & Titus, W. ( 1985 ). Pooling of unshared information in group decision making: Biased information sampling during discussion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1467 – 1478. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib55" idref="ref65" type="bt">55</bibl> <bibtext>Subramaniam, M., & Youndt, M.A. ( 2005 ). The influence of intellectual capital on the types of innovative capabilities. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 450 – 463. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib56" idref="ref80" type="bt">56</bibl> <bibtext>Tierney, P., & Farmer, S.M. ( 2002 ). Creative self‐efficacy: Its potential antecedents and relationship to creative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 1137 – 1148. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib57" idref="ref77" type="bt">57</bibl> <bibtext>Van der Vegt, G.S., & Janssen, O. ( 2003 ). Joint impact of interdependence and group diversity on innovation. Journal of Management, 29, 729 – 751. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib58" idref="ref4" type="bt">58</bibl> <bibtext>van Knippenberg, D., De Dreu, C.K.W., & Homan, A.C. ( 2004 ). Work group diversity and group performance: An integrative model and research agenda. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 1008 – 1022. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib59" idref="ref98" type="bt">59</bibl> <bibtext>Volmer, J., & Sonnentag, S. ( 2011 ). The role of star performers in software design teams. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 26, 219 – 234. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib60" idref="ref88" type="bt">60</bibl> <bibtext>Wallace, J.C., Butts, M.M., Johnson, P.D., Stevens, F.G., & Smith, M.B. ( 2015 ). A multilevel model of employee innovation: Understanding the effects of regulatory focus, thriving, and employee involvement climate. Journal of Management, doi: 10.1177/0149206313506462. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib61" idref="ref83" type="bt">61</bibl> <bibtext>Wegge, J., Roth, C., Neubach, B., Schmidt, K.‐H., & Kanfer, R. ( 2008 ). Age and gender diversity as determinants of performance and health in a public organization: The role of task complexity and group size. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1301 – 1313. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib62" idref="ref44" type="bt">62</bibl> <bibtext>Wheelwright, S.J., & Clark, K. ( 1992 ). Revolutionizing product development: Quantum leaps in speed, efficiency, and quality. New York : Free Press. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib63" idref="ref20" type="bt">63</bibl> <bibtext>Woodman, R.W., Sawyer, J.E., & Griffin, R.W. ( 1993 ). Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Academy of Management Review, 18, 293 – 321. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib64" idref="ref36" type="bt">64</bibl> <bibtext>Zapf, D. ( 2002 ). Emotion work and psychological well‐being: A review of the literature and some conceptual considerations. Human Resource Management Review, 12, 237 – 268. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib65" idref="ref22" type="bt">65</bibl> <bibtext>Zhou, J., & Shalley, C.E. ( 2003 ). Research on employee creativity: A critical review and directions for future research. In J. Martocchio (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resource management (pp. 165 – 217 ). Oxford, UK : Elsevier. </bibtext> </blist> </ref> <p>Graph: Research framework.</p> <p>Graph: Moderated mediation model path coefficients.</p> <p>Graph: The moderating effect of climate for inclusion on the relationship between cultural diversity and team information sharing.</p> <p>Graph: The moderating effect of climate for inclusion on the relationship between cultural diversity and employee information elaboration.</p> <aug> <p>By Ci‐Rong Li; Chen‐Ju Lin; Yun‐Hsiang Tien and Chien‐Ming Chen</p> </aug>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1143187
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: A Multilevel Model of Team Cultural Diversity and Creativity: The Role of Climate for Inclusion
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Li%2C+Ci-Rong%22">Li, Ci-Rong</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Lin%2C+Chen-Ju%22">Lin, Chen-Ju</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Tien%2C+Yun-Hsiang%22">Tien, Yun-Hsiang</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Chen%2C+Chien-Ming%22">Chen, Chien-Ming</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Creative+Behavior%22"><i>Journal of Creative Behavior</i></searchLink>. Jun 2017 51(2):163-179.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley-Blackwell. 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148. Tel: 800-835-6770; Tel: 781-388-8598; Fax: 781-388-8232; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 17
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2017
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Hierarchical+Linear+Modeling%22">Hierarchical Linear Modeling</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teamwork%22">Teamwork</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Cultural+Pluralism%22">Cultural Pluralism</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Ethnic+Diversity%22">Ethnic Diversity</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Creativity%22">Creativity</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Inclusion%22">Inclusion</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Information+Dissemination%22">Information Dissemination</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Employees%22">Employees</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Data+Collection%22">Data Collection</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Group+Dynamics%22">Group Dynamics</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1002/jocb.93
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0022-0175
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: We developed a multi-level model to test how team cultural diversity may relate to team- and individual-level creativity, integrating team diversity research and information-exchange perspective. We proposed that the team climate for inclusion would moderate both the relationship between cultural diversity and team information sharing and between cultural diversity and employee information elaboration. We collected time-lagged data from 384 members and their leaders within 57 multicultural work teams. The results showed that team cultural diversity was positively related to both team creativity and individual creativity through team information sharing and employee information elaboration, respectively. We also found that the indirect positive relationship with team creativity and individual creativity was stronger for team cultural diversity when climate for inclusion of multicultural work teams was stronger.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2017
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1143187
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1143187
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1002/jocb.93
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 17
        StartPage: 163
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Hierarchical Linear Modeling
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teamwork
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Cultural Pluralism
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Ethnic Diversity
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Creativity
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Inclusion
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Information Dissemination
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Employees
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Data Collection
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Group Dynamics
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: A Multilevel Model of Team Cultural Diversity and Creativity: The Role of Climate for Inclusion
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Li, Ci-Rong
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Lin, Chen-Ju
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Tien, Yun-Hsiang
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Chen, Chien-Ming
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 06
              Type: published
              Y: 2017
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0022-0175
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 51
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Creative Behavior
              Type: main
ResultId 1