The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/1352-7592.htm

Team climate
Examining the relationships in team
among cognitive diversity, innovation

knowledge sharing and team

climate in team innovation 299
Devi Yulia Rahmi Received 24 November 2018
Revised 14 April 2019
Department of Management, Faculty of Economics, Universitas Andalas, 19 April 2019
Padang, Indonesia, and Accepted 17 May 2019

Nurul Indarti
Department of Management, Faculty of Economics and Business,
Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia

Abstract
Purpose – This study aims to examine the role of knowledge sharing as a mediating variable on the effect
of cognitive diversity on team innovation. Additionally, the study also tests the role of a moderating variable
team climate on the relationship between cognitive diversity and knowledge sharing.
Design/methodology/approach – The study used an explanatory approach to test the hypothesis. A
survey with structured questionnaires was distributed to 39 creative teams between radio and television
broadcasting institutions in the Province of Yogyakarta, Indonesia.
Findings – The current study shows cognitive diversity has a significant association with knowledge
sharing, and knowledge sharing positively associated with team innovation. The findings of this study
indicate that team climate moderates the relationship between cognitive diversity and knowledge sharing.
Additionally, knowledge sharing is found not to be a significant mediation on the relationship between
cognitive diversity and team innovation.
Research limitations/implications – The study promises to examine how diverse teams work
particularly in the context of creative teams in radio and television broadcasting institutions. However, this
study only focuses on relationships; it does not examine the processes underlying those relationships. This
study implies for future research agenda focusing on the mechanism affecting the relationships. Additionally,
examining the relationship model in the context of a less-creative team such as banking industry could also a
call for future research.
Practical implications – The results of the study contribute to managerial implications which suggest
that to enhance team innovation, a team leader must design a comfortable working climate that stimulates
productive knowledge sharing.
Originality/value – The study provides a comprehensive understanding of knowledge sharing and team
climate on the relationship between cognitive diversity and team innovation, which are missing in previous
empirical studies. Then, the study is relevant because of inconclusive findings from past studies examining
the relationship between cognitive diversity and team innovation.
Keywords Knowledge sharing, Team climate, Team innovation, Cognitive diversity
Paper type Research paper

Team Performance Management:

Introduction An International Journal
Team performance is fundamental to achieve a team goal (Bell, 2007). Innovation within a team Vol. 25 No. 5/6, 2019
pp. 299-317
through the adoption and implementation of innovative solutions is considered a good strategy © Emerald Publishing Limited
1352-7592
to improve team performance (Tushman and O’Reilly, 2002; Yuan and Woodman, 2010). DOI 10.1108/TPM-11-2018-0070
TPM Previous studies indicate team innovation is a driver of organizational performance (Peltokorpi
25,5/6 and Hasu, 2014) and has been recognized as the most effective method to adapt to highly
dynamic environmental changes (Janssen et al., 2016). Producing innovation in the team cannot
be direct. Innovations within teams are social and psychological processes that can influence
evaluation, acceptance and implementation of new ideas (Bain et al., 2001).
In the literature on team innovation, team diversity is one of the most frequent
300 antecedents (Wang et al., 2016). However, studies on diversity within a team still provide
inconsistent results on how to improve team innovation. Diversity will increase innovation
within teams, and not infrequently, diversity will inhibit the emergence of team innovation
(Knippenberg and Schippers, 2007; Knippenberg, 2017). The view of information or decision-
making (Williams and O’Reilly, 1998) suggests that when diverse teams will emerge
differences in information, knowledge, and perspective, which will then benefit the team’s
performance. When members in a team are diverse, the possibility of having a different
perspective will also increase, both in the form of knowledge, expertise, which will become a
collection of information that is mutually integrated and synergized (Knippenberg, 2017).
However, diversity within the team does not always have a positive influence on improving
team innovation. Organizations experience dilemmas when diversity in teams does not have a
positive effect on team innovation (Martins et al., 2013). Based on the perspective of social
categorization by Reid (1987), it is said that when people differ from each other or feel different
from each other, they tend to form categorization within a team, often causing negative results
within the team (Knippenberg and Schippers, 2007). Perceptions that arise from differences
between team members will form sub-teams and create inter-team bias. This bias will disrupt
the function of the team in performing affective and evaluative responses to the team
(Knippenberg and Schippers, 2007). Therefore, the role of cognitive diversity in supporting
team innovation is considered as bad (Lantz and Brav, 2007).
Harrison et al. (1998) divide diversity into two terminologies, namely, surface-level
diversity and deep-level diversity.
Surface-level diversity is a difference in teams that are related to biological
characteristics reflected in physical features (e.g. age, gender and race/ethnicity) (Harrison
et al., 1998). Meanwhile, deep-level diversity is the difference in attitudes, beliefs, and values
among team members (Harrison et al., 1998). The current study focuses on deep-level
diversity namely cognitive diversity. To see the sensitivity of the results of the study, we
also analyze surface-level diversity (i.e. age and tenure) as control variables. Knippenberg
and Schippers (2007) and Knippenberg (2017), conducted an empirical review in 1997-2005
which concluded diversity increases innovation within teams, and not infrequently,
diversity will inhibit the emergence of team innovation. Previous studies on cognitive
diversity and team innovation (Ancona and Caldwell, 1992; Drach-Zahavy and Somech,
2001; Bell et al., 2011) concluded there is a positive relationship between cognitive diversity
and team innovation. Other studies found a negative effect (Keller, 2001), meanwhile a few
studies found there is neither a positive nor negative effect (Sethi et al., 2001; Somech, 2006).
The majority of previous studies on cognitive and team diversity have mainly measured
the level of diversity based on two concerns. First, most studies that examined the effects of
cognitive diversity on team innovation equated the definition of cognitive diversity with a
diversity of educational background (Martins et al., 2013). Second, despite the fundamental
differences in the use of variables of cognitive diversity, previous studies (Martins et al.,
2013; Mello and Delise, 2015) were also unclear in terms of the measurement of cognitive
diversity. Therefore, Bell et al. (2011) suggested that diversity should be measured using
variables that represent internal characteristics of a team. Internal characteristics of a team
such as differed way of thinking, knowledge, skills, view of the world, and beliefs about
what is right and wrong (Vegt and Onne, 2003). Therefore, the current study uses cognitive Team climate
diversity in response to that concern. in team
Knippenberg (2017) provided an overview in overcoming how inconsistencies affect team
cognitive diversity in team innovation. The sharing of ideas, information, and knowledge
innovation
among individuals that have different cognitive ability contributes to the degree of
innovation in a team (Knippenberg, 2017). Cognitive diversity and team innovation increase
when various factors are met, such as an appropriate climate that supports innovation (Fay
et al., 2006), a norm of open-mindedness (Mitchell and Boyle, 2015), and the shared 301
perceptions of team members (Hoever et al., 2012). The first part of this study examines the
indirect effect of cognitive diversity and team innovation, following the work of Cheung
et al. (2016) and adding the variable of knowledge sharing.
Previous studies indicated that sharing knowledge within a team is a potential mechanism
to support the effect of cognitive diversity on team innovation (Cheung et al., 2016; Tang and
Naumann, 2016). Individuals in a team are sources of knowledge that play an important role in
sharing knowledge (Walsh and Ungson, 1991). Tang and Naumann (2016) claimed that team
diversity has a positive effect on knowledge sharing when there is a positive attitude from each
individual in the team. However, a study by Cheung et al. (2016) found that the more diverse a
team with a low level of individual trust, the lower the team’s tendency to share knowledge.
Therefore, part of this study tests this inconsistency pattern using the variable of team climate
proposed by Anderson and West (1998) to moderate cognitive diversity and knowledge
sharing. Team climate is defined as the members’ shared perceptions of the atmosphere created
by practices, procedures, and rewards within the team (Schneider and Reichers, 1983). An
empirical study by Somech (2006) found that cognitive diversity and team innovation become
stronger when the leader supports innovation.
The current study focuses on creative teams among television and radio broadcasting
institutions in Yogyakarta, Indonesia. The nature of broadcasters is mainly related to the effort
of creating, producing, and packaging television and radio program content. Therefore,
broadcasting institutions generally consist of several creative teams. Individuals in the creative
team integrate and share knowledge to produce synergies through coordinated tasks and
activities with each other, resulting in higher innovative performance than each individual in
the team (Hu and Randel, 2014). According to Pangestu and Nirwandar (2014), broadcasting
industries such as television and radio in Indonesia are considered one of the fourteen sub-
sectors of creative- and innovation-based industries. Individuals in the creative teams are
usually from a variety of educational backgrounds, experiences, and functionalities.
Consequently, the creative team has a high degree of cognitive diversity.
The current study is organized as follows. The second section discusses development of
hypotheses and the research model. The third section elaborates the research methodology
with data analysis and discussion of the findings. Finally, the paper concludes with a
summary of the findings, limitations, and a future research agenda.

Theory development and hypotheses

Impact of cognitive diversity on knowledge sharing
Knowledge sharing activities by individuals within a team are epistemically or socially
motivated (Nijstad et al., 2012). Epistemic motivation may be dependent on diversity in a
team in terms of functional diversity or cognitive diversity, as the tendency of team
members to learn something new will encourage the process of knowledge sharing (De Dreu
et al., 2011). Each team member also has a different thinking style to assess environments
and process knowledge that will present new alternatives (Gilson et al., 2013). Team
members also have different perspectives related to the knowledge of other team members
TPM (Nicoleta and Graff, 2015). Kurtzberg (2005) and Anderson et al. (2014) indicated that teams
25,5/6 would share knowledge when there was a high cognitive diversity therein. Based on these
arguments, we propose the following hypothesis:

H1. Cognitive diversity positively associated with knowledge sharing.

302 Impact of knowledge sharing on team innovation

The literature on knowledge management emphasizes that knowledge sharing is a process
to gain new and varied knowledge, and is an important dimension in creating innovation
(Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). Additionally, initiatives to innovate tend to rely heavily on
employee knowledge, skills, and experience in the value creation process (Wang and Wang,
2012). In short, we may conclude that knowledge sharing is a valuable input for innovation
because it has very complex social and interdependent characteristics.
Knowledge sharing between team members will stimulate the process of mutual
learning, and encourage team innovation (Eisenhardt and Tabrizi, 1995). Continuous
knowledge sharing will contribute to innovation in the team, unit, and organization.
Therefore, teams that promote the practice of sharing knowledge among fellow team
members or between teams tend to generate new ideas and facilitate team innovation
activities (Heffner and Sharif, 2008). Based on a study by Hu and Randel (2014), they
concluded that knowledge sharing together with social capital supports the process of
innovation. In conclusion, knowledge sharing has a positive effect on team innovation.
Based on this argument, the following hypothesis is:

H2. Knowledge sharing is positively associated with team innovation.

Knowledge sharing as a mediating variable for cognitive diversity and team innovation
Creating innovation within teams involves converting new ideas into a more realistic product
or process (Cheung et al., 2016). When a new idea emerges, the team must decide which ideas
should be implemented as soon as possible and how to implement those ideas (Levine and
Moreland, 2004). Knowledge sharing among team members with different backgrounds
and cognitive diversity will facilitate the exchange of views on the feasibility of an idea and
feedback in the implementation process. This is important because each team member needs to
incorporate new ideas into actual work practices (Anderson and West, 1998).
Teams with diverse members can benefit from a variety of existing knowledge, and acquire
skills and information by sharing and combining this knowledge (Somech and Drach-Zahavy,
2013). However, diverse teams are also prone to groupthink in team decision-making (Cheung
et al., 2016). According to Janis (1972), groupthink is used to describe a situation when a team
makes unreasonable decisions with the aim of rejecting public opinion, moral values or what
has been proven. This happens when people who are very influential in the team impose a
decision regardless of the team as a group and diversity of thought (Cheung et al., 2016).
Groupthink can be a problem because each member has experience and perspective that might
conflict with the decisions made by the team itself (Sethi et al., 2001).
Team thinking that occurs within the team can be overcome by knowledge sharing
(Cheung et al., 2016). Knowledge sharing provides an advantage in applying new ideas,
allowing team members to share information with a consensus about how new products,
practices, and services are implemented (De Dreu and West, 2001; Taylor and Greve, 2006).
Team members are more likely to be listened to when they are on a team that is cognitively
diverse and involved in the process of knowledge sharing. Knowledge sharing among
coworkers is important to support the emergence of potential innovation (Boom and Pennik, Team climate
2012). Thus, teams with cognitive diversity utilize this source of knowledge for team in team
innovation (Cheung et al., 2016). Based on these arguments, it can be said that knowledge innovation
sharing has a mediating effect on cognitive diversity and team innovation. Therefore, the
third hypothesis:

H3. Knowledge sharing mediates the relationship between cognitive diversity and team
innovation. 303

Team climate as a moderating variable on cognitive diversity and knowledge sharing

Many teams face difficulties in conducting knowledge sharing. This is due to the
unwillingness or reluctance of team members to share knowledge (Fong et al., 2006).
Individuals with more knowledge than their colleagues have advantages in terms of both
position and wealth of information. This may make these individuals not want to share their
knowledge because they are afraid of losing their position. Previous studies indicate that the
circumstance or climate in a team could stimulate or discourage a team member to share
knowledge – called the team climate – and the findings are still inconclusive (Lie et al., 2015;
Cheung et al., 2016; Tang and Naumann, 2016). A recent study by Cheung et al. (2016)
indicated the more diverse a team with a low level of individual confidence within the team,
the lower the team’s tendency to share knowledge. On the contrary, another study by Lie
et al. (2015) found that the more diverse a team, the higher the tendency to share knowledge.
Tang and Naumann (2016) also confirmed that team diversity has a positive effect on
knowledge sharing when every individual on team feels positive.
However, an individual’s reluctance to share knowledge can be minimized by creating a
conducive climate within the team (West, 1990). Based on the team’s climate dimension,
support for innovation reflects a shared perception that change and creativity should be
actively encouraged by team supervisors and organizational practices, so team members are
more likely to share new ideas with each other. Participative safety builds confidence among
team members, resulting in information flow and exchange. Vision refers to the norms within
the team relating to excellence in performance and encourages team members to collaborate on
accomplishing task execution (West, 1990). As West (1990) points out, the team climate is very
conducive to encouraging cognitively diverse team members to share knowledge. Based on the
previous discussion, it can be concluded that the team climate has a moderate influence on
cognitive diversity and knowledge sharing. Therefore, the fourth hypothesis

H4. Team climate moderates the relationship between cognitive diversity and
knowledge sharing.
Figure 1 depicts all hypotheses in this study.

Team Climate

H4
Cognitive Knowledge Team
Diversity Sharing Innovation
H1 H2 Figure 1.
H3
Research model
TPM Research methods
25,5/6 Approach and variables
The current study used an explanatory approach to test the association between variables
(Neuman, 2014). The independent variable is cognitive diversity, and the dependent variable
is team innovation. Knowledge sharing is treated as a mediating variable, and team climate
as a moderating variable. Operational definitions of each variable are summarized in
304 Table I. All variables are measured using a 5-point Likert scale (1= totally disagree;
5 = totally agree). To ensure the quality of the instruments, we conducted a reliability test as

No. of Cronbach’s
Variable item Items Source alpha

Cognitive 4 Differed way of thinking Vegt and Onne 0.845

diversity Differed knowledge and skills (2003)
Differed view of the world
Differed beliefs about what is right and wrong
Team 14 Agreement with the objectives Kivimaki and 0.942
climate Team’s objectives are clearly understood Elovainio (1999)
Team’s objectives are achievable
Objectives worthwhile to the organization
“We are together” attitude
People keep each other informed
People feel understood and accepted
Real attempts to share information
Preparedness to basic question
Critical appraisal of weaknesses
Building on each other’s ideas
Search for new ways of looking at problems
Team develops ideas
Cooperation in developing and applying ideas
Knowledge 10 “When I've learned something new, I see to it that Bartol and 0.922
sharing colleagues in my team can learn it as well.” Srivastava (2002)
“I share the information I have with colleagues within
my team.”
“I share my skills with colleagues within my team.”
“When I learn something new, I see to it that colleagues
outside of my team can learn it as well.”
“I share the information I have with colleagues outside
of my team.”
“I share my skills with colleagues outside of my team.”
“Colleagues within my team tell me what they know,
when I ask them.”
“Colleagues within my team tell me what their skills
are, when I ask them.”
“Colleagues outside of my team tell me what they
know, when I ask them.”
“Colleagues outside of my team tell me their skills when
I ask them.”
Team 4 The team initiated new procedures and methods Drach-Zahavy 0.885
innovation The team developed innovative ways of accomplishing and Somech
work targets/objectives (2001)
Table I. The team developed new skills to foster innovation
Measurements of The team initiated improved teaching strategies and
variable methods
shown in Table I, indicating all scores for Cronbach’s alpha are above 0.7, which are Team climate
considered high (Hair et al., 2014). In addition, we also conducted a confirmatory factor in team
analysis (CFA) with factor loading 0.7 to check the validity of the instrument (Hair et al.,
2014). The items with a score lower than 0.7 were excluded. Detailed results of the test are
innovation
summarized in Appendix 1. Therefore, we concluded the instrument used in this study is
reliable and valid.
305
Data collection technique, sampling strategy and respondents
The questionnaire was used as the main instrument of the study. To ensure the quality of
the instrument we conduct a pilot, validity, as well as reliability test. The original English
questionnaire and the translated Indonesian questionnaire, the items were closely checked
by the authors to ensure that they retained their original meaning. The questionnaire was
distributed using a structured survey during the period April and May 2018 among 39
creative teams (140 respondents or 39 teams representing to 92.8 per cent response rate)
from 18 broadcasting institutions (radio and television) in Yogyakarta, Indonesia. We used a
purposive sampling technique to select respondents involved in a team for at least three
months.

Data analysis methods at the team level

The level of analysis of the study is at the team level. To calculate the score of each variable,
the average team score is used (Hitt et al., 2007). Each team member was asked to respond to
questions on cognitive diversity, knowledge sharing, team climate, and team innovation.
Before calculating the team score, we conduct two aggregation tests, namely a) homogeneity
of variance in a team (within group agreement), and b) difference between teams (ICC –
interclass correlation). The two tests ensured the average team score can be standardized as
a proxy of team data (James et al., 1984; Bliese and Halverson, 1998), and that there are
differences in each level of the variable (Roberson et al., 2007). When results from the
aggregation tests do not meet the minimum score, the team is excluded from the sample. As
shown in Appendix 2, the first aggregation test shows all scores of homogeneity of the
variance [Rwg(j), within-group agreement] from 39 creative teams are above 0.7. According to
James et al. (1984), the minimum predefined score is > 0.7, indicating that there is consensus
among team members. We concluded that the data taken at the individual level can
represent data at the team level.
In the second aggregation test, we used the ICC (1) to indicate consensus among team
members, and ICC (2) to check whether a team can be differentiated based on team member
answers to the variables used in this study. As summarized in Table II, the scores of ICC (1)
and the ICC (2) for all variables are above 0.12 and 0.70, respectively. According to Glick
(1985) (in De Jong and Elfring, 2010), the minimum value for ICC (1) is 0.12, and the
minimum value of ICC (2) is 0.7, as in James (1982). The findings indicate there is consensus
among team members and team member answers can be differentiated.

Variable ICC (1) ICC (2)

Cognitive Diversity 0.64 0.84

Team Climate 0.58 0.91 Table II.
Knowledge Sharing 0.56 0.92 Intraclass correlation
Team Innovation 0.55 0.94 coefficients (ICC)
TPM Moreover, to test the research hypotheses, a hierarchical multiple regression analysis was
25,5/6 used.

Results
Profile of the respondents
The respondent is the creative team that consists of 2-6 members. More than half of the team
306 members (52.1 per cent) are female and 63.6 per cent are single. The average age of team
members is 30.7 years old, and the majority (62.8 per cent) is 15-30 years old. The majority of
team members have been involved in a team (48.7 per cent) for approximately
3-12 months (Table III). The scope of creative teams varied from news teams (5.1 per cent) to
program creative teams (35.9 per cent).
Descriptive statistics. Table IV shows the mean of each variable, which range from 3.90 to
4.16. The findings indicate the levels of cognitive diversity, team climate, and knowledge
sharing are relatively high (above 4.00), while innovation is modest (below 4.00). To
determine the intensity of surface-level diversity (age and tenure), we used the Blau index

Profile of respondents (N = 140) Total (%)

Gender
Male 67 47.9
Female 73 52.1
Age
15-30 years 88 62.8
31-45 years 33 23.5
More than 45 years 19 13.7
Marital status
Single 89 63.6
Married 51 36.4
Educational background
Senior High School 27 19.3
Non-Degree Diploma Qualification 24 17.1
Bachelor Degree 86 61.4
Graduate and Post Graduate 3 2.1
Profile of the teams (N = 39)
Tenure of team
3-12 months 19 48.7
13-24 months 9 23.0
25-36 months 6 15.3
More than 36 months 5 12.8
Type of team
Permanent 33 84.6
Temporal 6 15.3
Scope of teams
Programs creative 14 35.9
Production creative 7 17.9
Table III. Marketing creative 7 17.9
Profile of Event creative 6 15.4
respondents and Digital creative 3 7.7
team News 2 5.1
(Harrison and Klein, 2017) as shown in Table IV. The mean of age is 0.52 (0, minimum; 0.55, Team climate
maximum), while tenure is 0.70 (0, minimum; 0.83, maximum). These results indicate that in team
surface-level diversity of each team is high and heterogeneous.
innovation
Hypothesis testing: Hierarchical multiple regression analysis. We used hierarchical
regression analysis and followed the standard procedure of mediation and moderation
testing by Hayes (2018). The results of hypothesis testing are summarized in Table V. H1
stated that cognitive diversity positively associated with knowledge sharing. From the 307
model 1, the findings indicate that the associated of knowledge sharing on cognitive
diversity is significantly positive (coeff = 1.567; p < 0.01). The analysis was carried out after
entering the surface-level diversity (e.g. age and tenure) as a control variable, but these
variables were not significant. This finding offers support for H1.
The results of H2 are shown in the Model 3 (Table V), indicating that knowledge sharing
has a positive associated on team innovation (coeff = 0.320; p < 0.01). Hence, we conclude
that H2, which states knowledge sharing positively associated with team innovation, is
supported.

Variable Mean SD

Age 0.52 0.19

Tenure 0.70 1.97
Cognitive Diversity 4.16 0.41
Team Climate 4.06 0.40
Knowledge Sharing 4.20 0.41
Table IV.
Team Innovation 3.90 0.43 Mean (M) and
standard deviation
Note: N = 39 (SD)

Dependent variable
Knowledge sharing Team innovation
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
Variable Coeff SE Coeff SE Coeff SE Coeff SE

Control variables age 1.843 1.446 0.992 1.250 0.235 1.141 0.275 1.107
Tenure 0.047 0.141 0.161 0.125 0.148 0.109 0.158 0.106
Cognitive diversity 1.567** 0.258 5.019 2.685 0.495 0.277
Knowledge sharing 0.320** 0.091 0.158 0.126
Team climate 1.323 0.669
Cognitive diversity x team climate 0.119* 0.052
Bootstrap indirect effects of cognitive
diversity > knowledge sharing > team
innovation
Coeff 0.247
LL 95% CI 0.086a
UL 95% CI 0.513a
F 15.364** 15.899** 4.761** 4.593**
R2 0.568 0.707 0.290 0.351

Notes: N = 39; unstandardized regression coefficients are reported; **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05 (two-ailed test); Table V.
a
= bootstrap sample size = 5000. CI, confidence interval; LL, lower limit; UL, upper limit Hypotheses testing
TPM The relationship between cognitive diversity and team innovation is mediated by
25,5/6 knowledge sharing (H3) is tested by examining the indirect effect (reported in Table V,
Model 4). To be comprehensive and as recommended by Hayes (2018), we estimated and
tested indirect paths simultaneously using boorstrap confidence interval based on 5000
bootstrap samples. We found that the indirect effect of knowledge sharing on cognitive
diversity and team innovation are not significant (coeff = 0.247; 95 per cent CI=-0.086 to
308 0.513), see Model 4 (Table V). Based on the findings, we conclude that knowledge sharing is
not a mediator on the relationship between cognitive diversity and team innovation; hence,
H3 is rejected.
The last hypothesis, H4, stated that team climate moderates the relationship between
cognitive diversity and knowledge sharing. The result of interaction effect between
cognitive diversity and team climate towards knowledge sharing is summarized in Table V
(see Model 2, coeff = 0.119, p < 0.05; F = 15.899; p < 0.01). This finding indicates that the
positive impact of the moderating variable. Figure 2 plots the conditional effect of team
climate – as moderating variable – on the relationship between knowledge sharing and
cognitive diversity. We found that the association of knowledge sharing and cognitive is
stronger when the team climate is high, and vice-versa. Hence, the H4 is substantiated.

Discussion
The current study provides empirical evidence on the effect of cognitive diversity on team
innovation with special reference to creative teams in broadcasting institutions from a
developing country context. To be precise, the effect of cognitive diversity on knowledge
sharing is positive. The more diverse the cognitive ability of a team, the greater the
willingness to share knowledge within the team. This study substantiates previous studies
by Cheung et al. (2016), and Tang and Naumann (2016). Teams with diverse members will
benefit from the diverse knowledge when individuals are willing to share their knowledge
(Somech and Drach-Zahavy, 2013). In this study, the level of surface-level diversity (e.g. age,
tenure) in creative teams is high and heterogeneous (Table IV), therefore it does not affect
the level of knowledge sharing in cognitively diverse teams. The findings indicate that the
age and tenure of the teams did not significantly affect knowledge sharing and team
innovation.
The study also supports previous research that knowledge sharing positively affects
team innovation (Eisenhardt and Tabrizi, 1995; Heffner and Sharif, 2008; Hu and Randel,
2014). The greater the sharing of knowledge within a team, the greater the team innovation.

34
Low Team Climate
33.5 High Team Climate

33
Knowledge Sharing

32.5

32
Figure 2.
The moderated effect 31.5

of team climate on the 31

relationship between
30.5
cognitive diversity
and knowledge 30
Low High
sharing
Cognitive Diversity
According to De Dreu et al. (2008), the unique value of each team member in collaboration Team climate
with others will increase knowledge within the team. Knowledge sharing can drive the in team
process of innovation within a team (Hu and Randel, 2014). In the context of creative teams,
individuals integrate and share knowledge to produce synergies through coordinated task
innovation
completion activities with each other, resulting in higher innovation performance than each
individual in the team (Robbin and Judge, 2014). The nature of the creative teams
themselves can explain the findings. The current study looked at teams already doing
creative work. 309
The roles of mediating (i.e. knowledge sharing) and moderating (i.e. team climate)
variables are also examined in this study. As regards to the mediating variable, we found
that knowledge sharing is not mediated the relationship between cognitive diversity and
team innovation. This finding does not support the previous studies (Lantz and Brav, 2007;
Martins et al., 2013). Based on the perspective of social categorization by Reid (1987), it is
said that when people differ from each other or feel different from each other, they tend to
form categorization within a team, often causing negative results within the team
(Knippenberg and Schippers, 2007). Perceptions that arise from the differences between
team members will form sub-teams and create inter-team bias. This bias will disrupt the
function of the team in performing affective and evaluative responses to the team
(Knippenberg and Schippers, 2007). Therefore, the role of knowledge sharing in the
relationship between cognitive diversity and team innovation is not supported.
In addition to that, in our sample, we found that the level of team power in the sample is
varied (egalitarian team power = 61.6 per cent and unequal team power = 36.4 per cent) and
considered high. According to Greer et al. (2017), power within teams may actually make
people more focused on their dependencies and vulnerabilities towards one another. The
high-level power in teams tends to give adverse outcomes to the team directly. In the context
of creative teams, people with and without power directly interact with one another in the
team for completing their tasks. These situations may explain why the knowledge sharing is
not mediated the relationship between cognitive diversity and team innovation.
As regards to the moderating variable, the current study also substantiates previous
studies on the presence of team climate to enhance the effect of cognitive diversity on
knowledge sharing (see Lie et al., 2015; Tang and Naumann, 2016). Innovation involves
converting new ideas into a real products or processes (Cheung et al., 2016). When new ideas
arise within the team it must be decided whether to implement them. The feasibility of an
idea is determined from the exchange of opinions that occurs when knowledge sharing is
processed. Individuals that are reluctant to share knowledge in cognitively diverse teams
can be encouraged by creating a conducive climate within the team (West, 1990). The
climate in creative teams helps diverse members interact with each other to share their
knowledge.

Implications, limitations and future research agenda

This study contributes empirically that, in the team context, cognitive diversity positively
impacts knowledge sharing. It indicates that the diversity present in the team is important
to encourage knowledge sharing within the team. In addition, this study also confirms the
influence of knowledge sharing on team innovation. Thus, the intensity of knowledge
sharing that takes place within the team will have a positive impact on the innovations
generated by the team. It signifies that the optimization of the benefits of cognitive diversity
within the team will occur if members within the team share their knowledge. The
accumulation of knowledge will give the team the best decision for development and
renewal within the team. Finally, the theoretical findings of this study confirm that there is a
TPM moderation of influence from the team climate on cognitive diversity and knowledge
25,5/6 sharing. This means that the individual in the team that is less interested in sharing his/her
knowledge will be willing to share knowledge when there is a team climate that strongly
supports the process of sharing knowledge within the team.
The results of the study offer managerial implications suggesting that to enhance
innovation in a team, a team leader needs to design a comfortable working climate that
310 stimulates productive knowledge sharing. This can be done by exploring the
experience of team members, both from an educational background and from previous
work. In addition, the intensity of meetings within teams or between teams should be
more frequent. Meetings can be face-to-face or meeting will be very effective if utilizing
technology. It should be ensured that when there are meetings, every individual on the
team speaks to contribute his ideas, so that team members can give each other good
feedback for his team.
In this study, the construct of cognitive diversity is measured by perception. According
to Harrison and Klein (2007), diversity as a perception has more proximal explanatory
power than surface-level diversity (e.g., functional background, age, tenure). However,
cognitive diversity may also arise from surface-level diversity (Harrison et al., 1998; Ries
et al., 2010; Hentschel et al., 2013). Therefore, future research may validate the findings of the
current study by using surface-level diversity. The study is focused on the creative teams a
future study may intend to look at less-creative teams such banking industries to provide
broader understanding about the results. Furthermore, even though the current study does
not focus on power in a team, the level of team power in the sample is varied and high.
Examining the variety of power in a team and its impact on team performance can be one of
future research agenda.

References
Ancona, D.G. and Caldwell, D.F. (1992), “Bridging the boundary: external activity and performance in
organizational teams”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 634-665.
Anderson, N., Potocnik, K. and Zhou, J. (2014), “Innovation and creativity in organizations”, Journal of
Management, Vol. 40 No. 5, pp. 1297-1333.
Anderson, N.R. and West, M.A. (1998), “Measuring climate for work group innovation: development
and validation of the team”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 235-258.
Bain, P.G., Mann, L. and Pirola-Merlo, A. (2001), “The innovation imperative the relationship between
team climate, innovation, and performance in research and development teams”, Small Group
Research, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 55-73.
Bartol, K.M. and Srivastava, A. (2002), “Encouraging knowledge sharing: the role of organizational
reward systems”, Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 64-76.
Bell, S.T. (2007), “Deep-Level composition variables as predictors of team performance: a meta-
analysis”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 3, pp. 595-615.
Bell, S.T., Villado, A.J., Lukasik, M.A., Belau, L. and Briggs, A.L. (2011), “Getting specific about
demographic diversity variable and team performance relationships: a meta-analysis”, Journal
of Management, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 709-743.
Bliese, P.D. and Halverson, R.R. (1998), “Group size and measures of group-level properties: an
examination of Eta-Squared and ICC values”, Journal of Management, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 157-172.
Boom, I.H. and Pennik, B.W. (2012), “The relationship between humanness and knowledge sharing in
Malaysia empirical evidence from Malaysian managers”, Gadjah Mada International Journal of
Business, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 99-122.
Cheung, S.Y., Gong, Y., Wang, M., Zhou, L. and Shi, J., (2016), “When and how does functional diversity Team climate
influence team innovation? The mediating role of knowledge sharing and the moderation role of
Affect-Based trust in a team”, Human Relations, Vol. 69 No. 7, pp. 1507-1531.
in team
De Dreu, C.K., Nijstad, B.A. and van Knippenberg, D., (2008), “Motivated information processing in
innovation
group judgment and decision making”, Personality and Social Psychology Review, Vol. 12 No. 1,
pp. 22-49.
De Dreu, C.K.W., Nijstad, B.A., Bechtoldt, M.N. and Baas, M. (2011), “Group creativity and innovation: a
motivated information processing perspective”, Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the 311
Arts, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 81-89.
De Dreu, C.K.W. and West, M.A. (2001), “Minority dissent and team innovation: the importance of
participation in decision making”, The Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 6,
pp. 1191-1201.
De Jong, B.A. and Elfring, T. (2010), “How does trust affect the performance of ongoing teams? The
mediating role of reflexivity, monitoring, and effort”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 53
No. 3, pp. 535 -549.
Drach-Zahavy, A. and Somech, A. (2001), “Understanding team innovation: the role of team processes
and structures”, Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 111-123.
Eisenhardt, K.M. and Tabrizi, D.B.N. (1995), “Accelerating adaptive processes: product innovation in
the global computer industry”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 84-110.
Fay, D., Borrill, C., Amir, Z., Haward, R. and West, M.A. (2006), “Getting the most out of
multidisciplinary teams: a Multi-Sample study of team innovation in health care”, Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 79 No. 4, pp. 553-567.
Fong, P., Sik-Wah, L. and Chu, J. (2006), “Exploratory study of knowledge sharing in contracting
companies: a sociotechnical perspective”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,
No. 132, pp. 928-939. September).
Gilson, L.L., Lim, H.S., Luciano, M.M. and 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, Vol. 86 No. 2, pp. 203-222.
Glick, W.H. (1985), “Conceptualizing and measuring organizational and psychological climate: pitfalls
in multilevel research”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 601-616.
Greer, L.L., van Bundren, S. and Yu, L. (2017), “The dysfunctions of power in teams: a review and
emergent conflict perspective”, Research in Organizational Behaviour, (Article in Press).
Hair, J.F., Black, B.J., Babin, d.R.E. and Anderson, W.C. (2014), Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th ed.
Prentice Hall, Vectors.
Harrison, D.A. and Klein, K.J. (2007), “What's the difference? Diversity constructs as separation, variety,
or disparity in organizations”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 1199-1228.
Harrison, D.A., Price, K.H. and Bell, M.P. (1998), “Beyond relational demography: time and the effects of
surface- and deep-level diversity on work group cohesion”, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 96-107.
Hayes, A.F. (2018), Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis A
Regression-Based Approach. 2nd ed. The Guilford Press, New York, NY.
Heffner, M. and Sharif, d.N. (2008), “Knowledge fusion for technological innovation in organizations”,
Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 79-93.
Hentschel, T., Shemla, M., Wegge, J. and Kearney, K. (2013), “Perceived diversity and team
functioning”, Small Group Research, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 33-61.
Hitt, M.A., Beamish, P.W., Jackson, S.E. and Mathieu, J.E. (2007), “Buiding theoritical and empirical
bridges across levels: multilevel research in management”, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 50 No. 6, pp. 1385-1399.
TPM Hoever, I.J., van Knippenberg, D., van Ginkel, W.P. and Barkema, H.G. (2012), “Fostering team
creativity: perspective taking as key to unlocking diversity’s potential”, Journal of Applied
25,5/6 Psychology, Vol. 97 No. 5, pp. 982-996.
Hooff, B.V.D and de Ridder, J.A. (2004), “Knowledge sharing in context: the influence of organizational
commitment, communication climate and CMC use on knowledge sharing”, Journal of
Knowledge Management, Vol. 8 No. 6, pp. 117-130.
312 Hu, L. and Randel, A.E. (2014), “Knowledge sharing in teams: social capital, extrinsic incentives, and
team innovation”, Group & Organization Management, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 1-31.
James, L.R. (1982), “Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreement”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 67 No. 2, pp. 219 -229.
James, L.R., Demaree, R.G. and Wolf, G. (1984), “Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and
without response bias”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 69 No. 1, pp. 85 -98.
Janis, I. (1972), Victims of Groupthink, Houghton Mifflin Company.
Janssen, O., van de Vliert, M. and West, E. (2016), “The bright and dark sides of individual and group
innovation: a special issue introduction”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 25 No. 2,
pp. 129-145.
Keller, R.T. (2001), “Cross-Functional project groups in research and new product development:
diversity, communications, job stress, and outcomes”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44
No. 3, pp. 547-555.
Kivimaki, M. and Elovainio, M., (1999), “A short version of the team climate inventory: development
and psychometric properties”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 72
No. 2, pp. 241-246.
Knippenberg, D.V. (2017), “Team innovation”, Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 211-233.
Knippenberg, D.V. and Schippers, M.C. (2007), “Work group diversity”, Annual Review of Psychology,
Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 515-541.
Kurtzberg, T.R. (2005), “Feeling creative, being creative: an empirical study of diversity and creativity
in teams”, Creativity Reseach Journal, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 51-65.
Lantz, A. and Brav, A. (2007), “Job design for learning in work group”, Journal of Workplace Learning,
Vol. 19 No. 5, pp. 269-285.
Levine, J.M. and Moreland, R.L. (2004), “Collaboration: the social context of theory development”,
Personality and Social Psychology Review, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 164-172.
Lie, D., May, W., Lagha, R.R., Forest, C., Banzali, Y. and Lohenry, K. (2015), “Adapting the mcmaster-
Ottawa scale and developing behavioral anchors for assessing performance in an
interprofessional team observed structured clinical encounter”, Medical Education Online,
Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 1-10.
Martins, L.L., Schilpzand, M.C., Kirkman, B.L., Ivanaj, S. and Ivanaj, V. (2013), “A contingency view
of the effects of cognitive diversity on team performance: the moderating roles of team
psychological safety and relationship conflict”, Small Group Research, Vol. 44 No. 2,
pp. 96-126.
Mello, A.L. and Delise, L.A. (2015), “Cognitive diversity to team outcomes: the roles of cohesion and
conflict management”, Small Group Research, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 204-226.
Mitchell, R. and Boyle, B. (2015), “Professional diversity, identity salience and team innovation: the moderating
role of openmindedness norms”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 36 No. 6, pp. 873-894.
Neuman, W.L. (2014), Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches, 7th ed.
Pearson Education Limited, England.
Nicoleta, M. and Graff, D. (2015), “Being open matters: the antecedents and consequences of cross-
understanding in teams”, Team Performance Management, Vol. 21 Nos 1/2, pp. 6-18.
Nijstad, B.A., Carsten, K.W.D. and Dreu, (2012), “Motivated information processing in organizational Team climate
teams: Progress, puzzles, and prospects”, Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 32,
pp. 87-111. in team
Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995), “Knowledge-creating company: how Japanese companies create the innovation
dynamics of innovation”, Oxford University Press, New York.
Pangestu, M.E. and Nirwandar, D.S. (2014), Ekonomi Kreatif: Kekuatan Baru Indonesia Menuju, 2025,
Kementrian Pariwisata Dan Ekonomi Kreatif Republik Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia. (Pangestu,
Mari Elka and Sapta Nirwandar, (2014), Creative Economy: Indonesia’s New PowerToward, 313
Ministry of Tourism and Creative Economy of the Republic of Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia.
Peltokorpi, V. and Hasu, M. (2014), “Transactive memory systems and team innovation”, Team
Performance Management: An International Journal, Vol. 20 Nos 5/6, pp. 262-272.
Reid, F. (1987), “Rediscovering the social group: a Self-Categorization theory”, British Journal of Social
Psychology, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 347-348.
Ries, B.C., Diestel, S., Wegge, J. and Schmidt, K.-H. (2010), “The role of salience of age heterogeneity and
conflicts in teams as mediators in the relationship between age heterogeneity and group
effectiveness”, Zeitschrift für Arbeits-und Organisationspsychologie A&O, Vol. 54 No. 3,
pp. 117-130.
Robbins, S.P. and Judge, T.A. (2014), “Essentials of organizational behavior”, 12th Edition, Pearson
Education, Inc., New Jersey.
Roberson, Q.M., M.C., Sturman, dan, T.L. and Simons, (2007), “Does the measure of dispersion matter in
multilevel research? A comparison of the relative performance of dispersion indexes”,
Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 20 No. 10, pp. 564-588.
Schneider, B. and Reichers, A.E. (1983), “On the etiology of climates”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 36
No. 1, pp. 19-39.
Sethi, R., Smith, D.C. and Park, C.W. (2001), “Cross-functional product development teams, creativity,
and the innovativeness of new consumer products”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 38
No. 1, pp. 73-85.
Shin, S.J., Kim, T.-Y., Lee, J.-Y. and Bian, L. (2012), “Cognitive team diversity and individual team
member creativity: a cross-level interaction”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 55 No. 1,
pp. 197-212.
Somech, A. (2006), “The effects of leadership style and team process on performance and innovation in
functionally heterogeneous teams”, Journal of Management, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 132-157.
Somech, A. and Drach-Zahavy, A. (2013), “Translating team creativity to innovation implementation:
the role of team composition and climate for innovation”, Journal of Management, Vol. 39 No. 3,
pp. 684-708.
Tang, C. and Naumann, S.E. (2016), “Team diversity, mood, and team creativity: the role of team
knowledge sharing in chinese R&D teams”, Journal of Management and Organization, Vol. 22
No. 3, pp. 420-434.
Taylor, A. and Greve, H.R. (2006), “Superman or the fantastic four? Knowledge combination and
experience in innovative teams”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 723-740.
Tushman, M.L. and O’Reilly, C.A. (2002), Winning through Innovation: A Practical Guide to Leading
Organizational Change and Renewal, Harvard Business School Press, England.
Vegt, D.V. and Onne, J. (2003), “Joint impact of interdependence and group diversity on innovation”,
Journal of Management, Vol. 29 No. 6, pp. 801-830.
Walsh, J.P. and Ungson, d.G.R. (1991), “Organizational memory”, Academy of Management Review,
Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 57-91.
Wang, X.-H., Kim, T.-Y. and Lee, D.-R. (2016), “Cognitive diversity and team creativity: effects of team
intrinsic motivation and transformational leadership”, Journal of Business Reseach, Vol. 69 No. 9,
pp. 3231-3239.
TPM Wang, Z. and Wang, N. (2012), “Knowledge sharing, innovation and firm performance”, Expert Systems
with Applications, Vol. 39 No. 10, pp. 8899-8908.
25,5/6
West, M.A. (1990), “The social psychology of innovation in groups”, in Michael A. and Westdan J.L.
(Eds) Innovation and Creativity at Work: Psychological and Organizational Strategies, Wiley,
Chichester, pp. 309-333.
West, M.A. and Wallace, M. (1991), “Innovation in health care teams”, European Journal of Social
Psychology, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 303-315.
314
Williams, K.Y. and O’Reilly, d.C.A. (1998), “Demography and diversity in organizations: a review of 40
years of research”, Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 20, pp. 77-140.
Meslec, N. and Graff, D. (2015), “Being open matters: the antecedents and consequences of cross-
understanding in teams”, Team Performance Management: An International Journal, Vol. 21
Nos 1/2, pp. 6-18.
Yuan, F. and Woodman, R.W. (2010), “Innovative behavior in the workplace: the role of performance
and image outcome expectations”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 53 No. 2, pp. 323-342.
 Appendix

Factor
Variable Description Indicator AVE loading Sources

Cognitive Difference in how thinking Different way of thinking 0.635 0.959 Shin et al. (2012), Vegt
Diversity styles, knowledge, abilities, Different knowledge and skills 0.932 and Onne (2003)
(a = 0.845) values, and beliefs among Different view of the world 0.700
individuals within a team are Different beliefs about what is right and wrong 0.515iv
perceived
Team Climate The extent to which the team Agreement with the objectives 0.575 0.792 West (1990);
(a = 0.942) or organization encourages Team’s objectives are clearly understood 0.821 Anderson and West
and enables innovation. The Team’s objectives are achievable 0.727 (1998), Kivimaki and
climate is reflected by vision, Objectives worthwhile to the organization 0.808 Elovainio (1999)
participative safety, support “We are together” attitude 0.814
for innovation, and task People keep each other informed 0.540iv
orientation People feel understood and accepted 0.700
Real attempts to share information 0.738
Preparedness to basic question 0.751
Critical appraisal of weaknesses 0.734
Building on each other’s ideas 0.825
Search for new ways of looking at problems 0.744
Team develops ideas 0.782
Cooperation in developing and applying ideas 0.800
0.577
(continued)

Table AI.
innovation
in team

measurement
315
Team climate

Instrument
 316
TPM
25,5/6

Table AI.
Factor
Variable Description Indicator AVE loading Sources

Knowledge Information exchange “When I've learned something new, I see to it that 0.829 Bartol and Srivastava
Sharing activities, ideas, support, and colleagues in my team can learn it as well” 0.791 (2002); Hoof and de
(a = 0.922) skills between one individual “I share the information I have with colleagues within my 0.786 Ridder (2004)
and another in a team team” 0.821
“I share my skills with colleagues within my team.” 0.837
“When I learn something new, I see to it that colleagues 0.779
outside of my team can learn it as well.” 0.692iv
“I share the information I have with colleagues outside of 0.773
my team.” 0.737
“I share my skills with colleagues outside of my team.” 0.489iv
“Colleagues within my team tell me what they know,
when I ask them.”
“Colleagues within my team tell me what their skills are,
when I ask them.”
“Colleagues outside of my team tell me what they know,
when I ask them.”
“Colleagues outside of my team tell me their skills when I
ask them.”
Team Introduction and application The team initiated new procedures and methods 0.575 0.807 Anderson and West
Innovation of ideas, processes, products, The team developed innovative ways of accomplishing 0.872 (1998); West and
(a = 0.885) and procedures by and for work targets/objectives 0.934 Wallace (1991)
teams The team developed new skills to foster innovation 0.837 modified by Drach-
The team initiated improved teaching strategies and Zahavy and Somech,
methods (2001)

Notes: iv, factor loading < 0.7, invalid was excluded

Team no. Cognitive diversity Team climate Knowledge sharing Team innovation
Team climate
in team
Team 1 0.94 0.98 0.97 0.94 innovation
Team 2 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98
Team 3 0.90 0.99 0.99 0.96
Team 4 0.88 0.99 0.93 0.98
Team 5 0.94 1.00 0.99 0.99
Team 6 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.95 317
Team 7 0.97 0.98 0.79 0.95
Team 8 0.96 0.99 0.99 0.95
Team 9 0.94 1.00 0.99 0.98
Team 10 0.76 1.00 0.99 0.99
Team 11 0.95 0.98 0.98 0.94
Team 12 0.77 0.99 0.96 0.97
Team 13 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.92
Team 14 0.94 1.00 0.96 0.99
Team 15 0.98 0.94 0.94 0.83
Team 16 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Team 17 0.94 0.98 0.98 0.95
Team 18 0.97 0.98 0.99 0.95
Team 19 0.98 0.98 0.97 0.92
Team 20 0.98 0.98 0.99 0.95
Team 21 0.89 0.99 0.98 0.96
Team 22 0.97 0.99 0.96 0.96
Team 23 0.90 0.98 0.97 0.94
Team 24 0.83 0.99 0.99 0.96
Team 25 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.98
Team 26 0.92 0.98 0.97 0.94
Team 27 0.96 0.99 0.98 0.96
Team 28 0.88 0.98 0.98 0.93
Team 29 0.94 1.00 1.00 1.00
Team 30 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.99
Team 31 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00
Team 32 0.91 0.99 0.99 0.97
Team 33 0.92 0.98 0.98 0.94
Team 34 0.97 0.99 1.00 0.96
Team 35 0.93 0.99 0.97 0.96
Team 36 0.94 0.99 0.97 0.95
Team 37 0.94 0.97 0.96 0.91 Table AII.
Team 38 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 Within group
Team 39 0.94 0.99 0.98 0.98 agreements (rwg(j))

Corresponding author
Nurul Indarti can be contacted at: nurulindarti@ugm.ac.id

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com