Chinese Management Studies

Cognitive diversity and creativity in teams: the mediating roles of team learning
and inclusion
Irene Hau-Siu Chow,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Irene Hau-Siu Chow, (2018) "Cognitive diversity and creativity in teams: the mediating roles of team
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 05:18 07 March 2018 (PT)

learning and inclusion", Chinese Management Studies, https://doi.org/10.1108/CMS-09-2017-0262

Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/CMS-09-2017-0262
Downloaded on: 07 March 2018, At: 05:18 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 53 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 2 times since 2018*
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:320271 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1750-614X.htm

Cognitive
Cognitive diversity and creativity diversity and
in teams: the mediating roles of creativity

team learning and inclusion

Irene Hau-Siu Chow
Department of Management, Hang Seng Management College,
Shatin, Hong Kong
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 05:18 07 March 2018 (PT)

Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to identify the mechanisms through which cognitive diversity affects creativity.
It explores how and in what ways cognitive diversity affects team members by examining the mediating roles
of team learning and inclusion.
Design/methodology/approach – Questionnaire survey data were collected from matched supervisor
and employee pairs from a direct sales company in the health-care industry in China. The final sample
consisted of 216 employees from 48 teams, with a response rate of 90 per cent. Each employee’s immediate
supervisor rated his or her creativity and in-role performance.
Findings – The empirical results indicate that team learning and inclusion mediate the effect of cognitive
diversity on creativity.
Research limitations/implications – This study was conducted in a single organisation in China and
used subjective self-reported measures.
Practical implications – The results suggest that diversity training reduces the negative consequences
of team diversity and offer practical insights into the effectiveness of diversity management and the ways to
create a diverse and inclusive workplace. The study should help human resource professionals to identify
human resources strategies that stimulate an inclusive environment and leverage the benefits associated with
higher levels of diversity.
Social implications – The findings have significant implications for developing and maintaining social
harmony.
Originality/value – The uniqueness of this study is its simultaneous investigation of diversity and
inclusion and how they lead to creativity.
Keywords Inclusion, Creativity, Team cognitive diversity, Team learning
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
A diverse workforce is a source of sustained competitive advantage by increasing creativity
and innovation (Bassett-Jones, 2005). Diversity is commonly viewed as “the distribution of
differences among the members of a unit with respect to a vital characteristic such as gender
and ethnicity” (Harrison and Klein, 2007). That is, the demographic make-up of groups and
organisations. Inclusion reflects the degree to which an employee is accepted and treated as
a valuable member by others in a work unit (Pelled et al., 1999). In disentangling the
meanings of diversity and inclusion, Roberson (2006) found that the two constructs are
conceptually distinctive. Diversity represents “the varied perspectives and approaches that
members of different identity groups bring”, whereas inclusion refers to individuals having
Chinese Management Studies
© Emerald Publishing Limited
1750-614X
This research is financially supported by Research Grant Council, HKSAR, UGC/FDS14/B04/14. DOI 10.1108/CMS-09-2017-0262
 CMS the ability to influence decision-making processes and contribute fully and effectively.
Brewer (1991) suggests that individuals seek to be accepted and valued by group members
to optimise needs of belongingness and individuation. Members from different identity
groups bring along different perspectives and approaches to work with the potential for
greater creativity and adaptability. Employees working in a diverse and inclusive work
setting feel accepted, respected and valued, and are thus more willing to engage in creative
endeavour. Organisations should value and recognise the contributions of all employees. It
is believed that managing workforce diversity contributes to performance in terms of
innovation and creativity.
Previous studies on diversity have focussed largely on visible relational demography
(Tsui et al., 1992) and on explaining the outcomes of demographic composition such as
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 05:18 07 March 2018 (PT)

gender and race (Lawrence, 1997). Social identity theory (Tajfel, 1982) posits that people’s
self-concepts derive from being members of specific social groups. Similarity-attraction
theory (Byrne, 1971) and self-categorisation (Turner, 1987) exclude people from different
identity groups from full access and participation, thus having a negative impact on diverse
environment. This study goes beyond the visible attributes of difference such as
demography to focus on the less visible and perhaps the unnoticed characteristic of
cognitive team diversity (job-related diversity) among group members in an organisation.
Job-related perspectives pertinent to cognitive work tasks (reflected in experience, skill,
functional expertise, education and industry background) are learned through member
interactions (Pelled, 1996). During group interactions, information exchange and knowledge
sharing take place, thereby improving the group’s performance and creativity.
When examining creative performance, team cognitive diversity seems to have fairly
straightforward beneficial effects. It is generally expected that diverse group will result in
better performance and creativity. The relationship between cognitive diversity and
performance outcome is more complex than expected (Jiang and Zhang, 2014). The impact of
team diversity on creativity and the intervening variables that may affect the relationship
needs further investigation. This study aims to investigate the mechanisms affecting the
team cognitive diversity-creativity link. Key issues to be addressed are how and through
what mechanisms team cognitive diversity is linked to creativity and performance.
Preceding study by Sun et al.’s (2017) focussed on team diversity ! learning !
innovative performance. The theoretical framework and arguments are quite weak. The unit
of analysis was individual. The measures for both learning and innovative performance
were divided into individual and team using the respondent’s own perception and self-
reported data. The authors claimed that individual and team learning are independent. In
fact, all the variables in their study are highly correlated. The results support that both
individual learning and individual innovation performance are partial mediators of the team
variables, i.e. team diversity ! individual learning ! team innovation as well as team
learning ! individual innovative performance ! team innovative performance. The
present study made contributions beyond the findings of Sun et al.’s study with a stronger
theoretical foundation and more rigorous research design. It simultaneously investigated
both diversity and inclusion in decision-making. To avoid the confounding effect of
measuring both team and individual variables using single source individual subjective self-
reported data, this study aggregated individual data to group level. At the same time, it
substantially improved the research design by collecting data from two different sources
(the respondents and their immediate supervisor) so as to reduce the common method bias.
The purpose of this paper is to extend the current literature on cognitive diversity and
performance outcomes by focussing on exactly how cognitive diversity stimulates creativity
and performance. This study highlights the complexity of the cognitive-creativity
 relationship and social context as a potential mediator. It examined the mediating roles of Cognitive
team learning and inclusion. Members with diverse cognitive resource learn from each other diversity and
through the interaction, information exchange and knowledge sharing, which in turn
enhance performance and creativity. Along the same line, cognitive diversity strengthens
creativity
and reinforces the development of inclusion. Inclusion requires accepting the differences
among people and recognising the value of those differences. In a diverse work group,
individual differences are accepted and uniqueness is respected. As a result of inclusion in
decision-making, members are more willing to contribute fully and effectively to better and
higher quality decisions and innovation. It is posited that team learning and inclusion are
the underlying mechanisms that relate diversity to performance and creativity; thus, this
study aims to examine the mediating effects of team learning and inclusion on the cognitive
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 05:18 07 March 2018 (PT)

diversity–outcomes relationship. The performance outcomes are measured in in-role

performance and creativity. It provides an elaborated answer to the question of how and
through what mechanisms cognitive team diversity increases creativity and performance.
Diversity improves creativity and innovation by introducing a greater variety of
perspectives among team members. The benefits of diversity are thus more likely to emerge
through team learning. It is further posited that the effect of team cognitive diversity on
creativity is through inclusive decision-making. The uniqueness of this study is the
simultaneous investigation of diversity and inclusion and how they lead to team
performance and creativity. The graphical representation of the research model is depicted
in Figure 1.

2. Theoretical framework and hypotheses

2.1 Cognitive diversity and performance outcomes
The theoretical underpinning of this study is grounded in the information decision-
making perspective (Cox and Blake, 1991). Cognitive team diversity improves team
performance and creativity is based on the informational processing/diversity-
cognitive resource perspective (Cox and Blake, 1991; Williams and O’Reilly, 1998),
according to which heterogeneous groups are more likely to possess diverse knowledge
bases and different perspectives that are distinct and non-redundant. Team member’s

2a
Team
Learning
Creativity

Team 3a
Cognitive 1a
Diversity

1b 2b

Performance
Inclusion
3b

Note: The solid lines are the hypotheses that are confirmed by
empirical results, while the dotted lines are not supported by Figure 1.
Theoretical model
empirical results
 CMS unique cognitive attributes contribute positively and have a significant effect on
performance outcomes (Cox and Blake, 1991). The variety of cognitive resources of each
team member contributes to the overall success of the team performance (Horwitz,
2005). Team performance will be improved via information exchange, consideration of
alternative solutions and analysis of varied perspective, which results in higher quality
and better solutions as well as creativity. Team learning and inclusion in decision-
making are key factors in facilitating the process of sharing variety of different
perspectives. Accepting the differences and recognising the value of uniqueness are
vital to internalise the difference in cognitive diversity, which in turn further enhance
team performance and creativity.
Cognitive team diversity has been conceptualised as “the degree to which team
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 05:18 07 March 2018 (PT)

members differ in terms of expertise, experience, knowledge, skills, thinking styles,

value and beliefs” (Dahlin, Weingart and Hinds, 2005; Miller et al., 1998). Cognitive
diversity theory provides important insights into team diversity variables and their
potential effects on performance outcomes (Wang et al., 2016). Diverse groups have a
broader and richer base of experience to stimulate novel and innovative ideas to solve
problems. Cognitive resource diversity has a positive impact on performance because of
members’ unique perspectives and cognitive resources, such as expertise, skills and
knowledge, which can be integrated into decision-making processes (Cox and Blake,
1991). Combining ideas in new ways also generates better and creative performance.
Thus, leveraging the knowledge differences of members achieves better performance.
Diverse groups are also more effective in solving complex and non-routine problems
(Simons and Pelled, 1999).
Past studies provide support for the assertion that teams consisting of heterogeneous
members possess a broader range of knowledge, skills and abilities, and that a wider range
of perspectives and experiences improve team decision quality, resulting in creativity and
innovative ideas (Cox and Blake, 1991; Nemeth, 1986). Teams with heterogeneous members
engage in constructive debate and appreciate others’ perspectives and are better able to
harness their differences to generate creative solutions. Diverse groups tend to be more
innovative and creative in problem solving than homogeneous groups (Rink and Ellemers,
2007).
Perry-Smith and Shalley’s (2003) value-in-diversity suggests that wider exposure
and sharing variety of different perspectives may inspire individuals to generate
innovative ideas. This theoretical argument suggests that cognitive team diversity
leads to better team performance and creativity. Advocates of the value-in-diversity
hypothesis suggest that work team heterogeneity promotes creativity and innovation
(Ancona and Caldwell, 1992). To fully realise the value in diversity, most innovative
companies deliberately set up heterogeneous cross-functional teams to capitalise on the
different views that are held. Team members with multiple perspectives are more likely
to avoid the pitfall of groupthink in decision-making (Janis, 1972). Nemeth’s (1986)
review on “differential contributions of majority and minority influence” suggests that
heterogeneous teams are more creative in generating ideas and nonobvious alternatives
than homogeneous teams. Thus, cognitive diversity among heterogeneous team
members leads to improved decision-making process by increasing creativity and
innovation. It is proposed that there is a positive relationship between team diversity
and performance outcomes:
H1a. Cognitive diversity is directly correlated with team creativity.

H1b. Cognitive diversity is directly correlated with team performance.

 2.2 The mediating role of team learning Cognitive
Thomas and Ely’s (1996) learning and effectiveness or integration and learning perspective diversity and
provides the rationale for developing the hypothesis. It emphasises group members’ skills
and experiences as important resources. Different perspectives and approaches are
creativity
integrated into decision-making processes to leverage the benefits of diversity to enhance
team learning and growth (Roberson, 2006). Team members can use such diverse views to
stimulate new ideas and enhance the creative process. Creative performance is enhanced by
the insights, knowledge and skills derived from members’ experiences. Diversity of
perspectives and experiences provides a good source of learning and sharing. Diversity of
knowledge facilitates information exchange from different viewpoints. Team performance
and creativity is facilitated in an environment in which diverse views and perceptions are
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 05:18 07 March 2018 (PT)

shared and encouraged. Team learning elucidates the positive effects of diversity in
decision-making processes and encourages team members to exchange, share and integrate
task-unique information within the team (Russo, 2012).
Existing studies offer support for the mediating role of team learning in the cognitive
diversity – creativity link. Sun et al.’s (2017) empirical study based on 266 professionals in
Hong Kong reveals that team diversity plays a substantial role in improving both individual
and team learning, which in turn leads to innovative performance. Leung et al. (2008) found
that individuals with rich multicultural experiences boost creativity. Being exposed to
multicultural differences, individuals are able to process and encode information in multiple
ways and also generate many associations by combining different concepts, which in turn
facilitate creativity. Similarly, results from Simonton (2003) confirmed that creativity is
enhanced in diverse groups that engage in collaborative learning and in groups in which
heterogeneous views are shared and encouraged. Organisations that foster team learning
are particularly effective in producing high-quality work and allowing employees to
enhance their capabilities to exchange view-points productively. Russo (2012) verified that
learning-oriented teams are more likely to set higher target and undertake more challenging
responsibilities through which they can develop competences and innovative solutions to
handle difficult problems. According to the proactive learning approach, group members
gain access to diverse views and are encouraged to actively participate to find better, faster
or more efficient ways of handling problems and generating more innovative and creative
solutions. Thus, it is posited that team learning activates the underlying mechanism
between cognitive diversity and outcomes. That is, cognitive diversity facilitates team
learning which in turn leads to creativity and performance:
H2a. Team learning mediates the relationship between cognitive diversity and team
creativity.
H2b. Team learning mediates the relationship between cognitive diversity and team
performance.

2.3 The mediating effect of inclusion

Cognitive diversity strengthens and reinforces the development of inclusion (Ashikali and
Groeneveld, 2015). Diversity brings new knowledge, skills and unique perspectives to the
information/decision-making processes. Inclusion is critical in the context of diversity. In a
diverse work group, it appreciates everyone’s input. Members are given the opportunity to
express their unique value. Accepting individual differences and recognising the value of
those differences are important indicators of uniqueness in inclusion. Cognitive diversity
enhances employees’ sense of belongingness and their perception of being valued for their
 CMS unique attributes (Brewer, 1991). They feel included in decision-making and treated as in-
group members. Inclusion in decision-making influences how people express diverse views
and manage tensions related to diversity. It aims at internalising differences among
members and working with those differences.
In the studies by Mor-Barak and Cherin (1998) and Pelled et al. (1999), decision-making
influence and access to information are used to capture workplace inclusion. In a diverse
group, individuals feel as a part of the critical organisational processes, such as access to
information, connectedness to co-workers and ability to participate in and influence the
decision-making processes (Mor-Barak, 2011). In a similar line of work, Pelled et al. (1999)
added job security to the practices of workplace inclusion. It focuses on the psychological
experience of feeling accepted and treated as in-group while maintaining one’s uniqueness.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 05:18 07 March 2018 (PT)

Group members feel valued and treated equitably (Ferdman and Davison, 2002). Inclusion
not only reflects the degree to which individuals feel a part of critical organisational
processes but also indicates a person’s ability to contribute fully and effectively to an
organisation (Mor-Barak and Cherin, 1998). Inclusion means that all group members have
the opportunity to be represented, to have their voices heard and to have their different ideas
and perspectives valued (Shore et al., 2011). Inclusion requires the identification and removal
of barriers to reach maximum potential and allow all members full participation in activities
and decision-making on important issues. It emphasises the importance of attachment and
connectedness as well as the need to be valued and trusted. Nembhard and Edmondson
(2006) pointed out that inclusion helps to reduce status differences so that group members
feel free to be themselves and more willing to express their opinions.
In a recent study, Nishii (2013) tested inclusion in the workplace by using:
 fair employment practices;
 integration of differences among diverse members; and
 participation in decision-making.

It reflects the degree to which they accept and include rather than reject and exclude
individuals. In an inclusive work setting, all policies, procedures and the actions are treated
fairly and consistently among individuals. All members feel that they belong and feel
respected. Hence, social context plays a key role in influencing the diversity–creativity
relationship. In an inclusive environment, employees feel psychologically safe and are more
willing to take risks to engage in creative performance (Edmondson, 1999). Personal
contributions are valued and not harshly criticised by other members. Team members
devote more time and energy to relevant activities, thereby enhancing their motivation and
ability to contribute to cooperation and problem solving. Hence, they are more likely to be
involved in creative performance. Inclusion activates the underlying mechanism of cognitive
diversity and performance outcomes. That is, cognitive diversity affects performance and
creativity indirectly through inclusion.
Prior studies have investigated the mediating role of inclusion (Ashikali and Groeneveld,
2015; Cottrill et al., 2014; Yang and Farn, 2010). Through creating an inclusive work
environment, diversity management would benefit all and thereby boost positive attitude
and behaviour of all employees. Yang and Farn (2010) examined the effect of workplace
social inclusion on tacit knowledge acquisition and tacit knowledge sharing intention in
Taiwan. Recent study by Ashikali and Groeneveld (2015) found the level of diversity
management is associated with an increased inclusive environment, which in turn boots
employees’ affective commitment and OCB. In another study, Cottrill et al. (2014) showed
that inclusion mediated the relationship between authentic leadership and self-rated OCB.
 A perceived supportive internal climate reduces task disagreement by stimulating a Cognitive
higher level of internal coordination and overcoming coordination problems. Wasserman diversity and
et al. (2008) further highlighted the importance of leaders in fostering an organisational
creativity
culture of inclusion. Homan et al. (2008) confirmed that salient diversity and openness to
experience climate result in more open to different perspectives and able to integrate multiple
viewpoints successfully, which in turn enhance team performance. Cultivating more diversity
via inclusive climate through which all members are involved enhances the diversity-creative
performance relationship. Hence, an inclusive decision-making triggers the underlying
mechanism that mediates the relationship between cognitive team diversity and increased
creative performance. Cognitive diversity strengthens and reinforces the development of
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 05:18 07 March 2018 (PT)

inclusion, which in turn enhance creativity and performance:

H3a. Inclusion mediates the relationship between cognitive team diversity and team
creativity.
H3b. Inclusion mediates the relationship between cognitive team diversity and team
performance.

3. Research methods
3.1 Sample and procedures
The data were collected using questionnaire survey from a direct sales company in the
health-care industry in Nanjing, China. The purpose of the survey was explained by the HR
and the research assistant. The research assistants coded the questionnaires for a matched
supervisor and employee survey. The coded questionnaires in self-addressed envelopes
were distributed to employees in each work group. Questionnaires were distributed to 240
respondents in 50 teams by the research assistant at a weekly morning conference. The team
members were assured of confidentiality in their responses and participation was voluntary.
Questionnaires for the same team were put in the same envelop. The employees in each team
provided data on the demographic variables, cognitive diversity, team learning and
inclusion. Their immediate supervisors rated each respondent’s creativity and performance.
The final matched sample consisted of 216 employees from 48 teams, with a response rate of
90 per cent. The average team size was 4.5, ranging from 3 to 5.
Sixty-four per cent of respondents were male. They reported a mean age of 30.2 years
(SD = 5.52). For the education level, 74.2 per cent had a college degree and 15.3 per cent had
master and above level of education. Their classifications of positions were technicians (46.9
per cent), clerks (15.3 per cent), administrators (9.2 per cent) and secretary (3.6 per cent). On
average, they worked for their current position for 2.76 years (SD = 2.19). In terms of age,
supervisors on average were 37.6 years old (S.D. = 7.31). In total, 85.4 per cent were males.
They were highly educated, with 60.5 per cent having a college education and the rest
having master’s and above degree. With respect to positions, 44.4 per cent were
administrators and 25 per cent were technicians. They have been in the current position for
5.93 years and in supervision for 4.92 years (S.D. = 3.66). On average, there were 9.64
employees under their supervision.

3.2 Measures
The survey instrument was based on established measures from previous research. The
questionnaire items were originally constructed in English but translated into Chinese
following the recommendation by Brislin (1986) using the back-translation procedure. The
 CMS questionnaire items adopted a five-point scale Likert-type response options, ranging from 1
(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
(1) Cognitive team diversity: A four-item measure scale validated by Van der Vegt and
Janssen (2003) was used to capture cognitive team diversity. The respondents were
asked to indicate the extent (1 = to a small extent, 5 = to a large extent) to which
the members of their team differ in their knowledge and skills, thinking styles,
value and beliefs. A sample item is “To what extent the members of the work
group differ in their way of thinking”. The individual responses were aggregated
to compute the team-level cognitive diversity. The alpha coefficient is 0.81, mean
rwg = 0.91, ICC(1) = 0.38 and ICC(2) = 0.73.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 05:18 07 March 2018 (PT)

(2) Team learning: Team learning behaviour was measured by using a seven-item
scale developed by Edmondson (1999). A sample item includes “This team
frequently seeks new information that leads us to make important changes”. The
alpha coefficient is 0.86, mean rwg = 0.89, ICC(1) = 0.36 and ICC(2) = 0.71.
(3) Inclusion: Inclusion was assessed by four items drawn from Nishii’s (2013)
inclusion in decision-making abbreviated scale. An example is “In this team,
everyone’s ideas for how to do things better are given serious consideration”. The
alpha coefficient is 0.87, mean rwg = 0.94, ICC(1) = 0.47 and ICC(2) = 0.78.
(4) Performance: Performance was measured by a seven-item scale constructed by
Williams and Anderson (1991). One sample item is “Meet the performance
requirements of the job”. The alpha coefficient is 0.75, mean rwg = 0.95.
(5) Employee creativity: Zhou and George’s (2001) 13-item widely used and validated
creativity scale was adopted to measure employee creativity. A sample item is
“Often has new and innovative ideas”. Employee creativity was rated by
supervisors to avoid common method variance. The alpha coefficient is 0.96, mean
rwg = 0.97.

3.3 Aggregation of variables

Because individual respondents were nested within groups (under the same supervisor
within a group), it is likely that individual members’ ratings reflect the shared perception
within each team, the measures were aggregated to team level for data analysis. The unit of
analysis was team level. By focussing on team level analysis, support for aggregating the
variable to the team level was indicated by the intraclass correlations (ICCs, Bliese, 2000),
which represent the ratio of between-group to total variance (ICC1) and the reliability of
average group perceptions (ICC2), respectively. To justify the aggregation, within-team
agreement and inter-rater agreement and reliability were tested. The aggregation were
evaluated by adequate agreement among team members using interclass correlation ICC(1)
and ICC(2) (Bliese, 2000).

4. Data analysis
Standard validity and reliability tests, including confirmatory factor analysis, Cronbach’s
alphas and inter-rater reliability, were conducted to make sure the data quality is of an
acceptable standard. Confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to validate the factor
structure of major constructs and examine the distinctiveness of these constructs. The
hypotheses were tested using Mplus modelling. Hayes’ (2013) PROCESS was used to test the
mediation model. Specifically, bootstrapped with 1,000 samples were used to estimate and
construct bias-corrected confidence intervals (CI) for all significance tests.
 5. Results Cognitive
Descriptive statistics including the means, standard deviations and correlations among diversity and
variables are given in Table I. There are significant correlations among variables. It is
worth-noting that team learning and inclusion, as well as creativity and performance are
creativity
highly correlated. But these pairs of variables were not entered into the same statistical
model simultaneously. CFA was conducted on individual members’ ratings of all concerned
variables (independent variables) and supervisors’ rating of creativity and performance.
Results indicated a good fit for the four-factor model (team cognitive diversity, team
learning, inclusion and creativity) with all items loaded on the intended constructs ( x 2 =
603.92, df = 394, p = 0.00; RMSEA = 0.085, p = 0.003; CFI = 0.93; TLI = 0.92). All factor
loadings are significant at the p < 0.05 level. The results support the notion that these
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 05:18 07 March 2018 (PT)

factors are distinctive. ICC(1) and ICC(2) exhibited acceptable reliability, individual
responses were aggregated to team level for further analysis.

5.1 Test of direct and mediation hypotheses

Table II presents the hypotheses testing results. There is no direct effect of team cognitive
diversity on both team creativity and performance. H1a and H1b were rejected. A
significant direct effect of the independent variable on the outcome variable is no longer
essential in establishing mediation (Mackinnon et al., 2007).
In Table II, the empirical results reveal that cognitive diversity is significantly related to
team learning (b = 0.69, p < 0.001, see M1). There is a significant relationship between the
mediator, team learning and team creativity (b = 0.63, p < 0.001, see M3), but no significant
relation is observed between team learning and team performance (b = 0.30, ns, see M5).

No. Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 Cognitive diversity 3.61 0.41 (0.81)

2 Team learning 3.61 0.62 0.62*** (0.86)
3 Inclusion 3.79 0.40 0.48*** 0.76*** (0.87)
4 Creativity 2.49 0.68 0.24** 0.43*** 0.39*** (0.96)
5 In-role performance 3.76 0.61 0.24** 0.38*** 0.20** 0.66*** (0.75)
6 Age 30.03 5.49 0.22** 0.04 0.05 0.13 0.15*
7 Gender 0.36 0.49 0.15* 0.03 0.04 0.12 0.18* 0.23**
Table I.
8 Work (years) 2.90 2.37 0.20** 0.11 0.04 0.15* 0.15* 0.59*** 0.16* Descriptive statistics
and correlations
Notes: N = 48 teams; *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001 among variables

Learning Inclusion Creativity Performance

Variables M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6

Diversity 0.69 ***

0.59 ***
0.05 0.08 0.001 0.09
Learning 0.63*** 0.30
Inclusion 0.50*** 0.50*** Tables II.
R2 0.56*** 0.38*** 0.32*** 0.31** 0.14 ** 0.33***
F 58.81 28.97 10.91 10.59 3.63 11.33
Results of
df 1, 47 1, 47 2, 46 2, 46 2, 46 2, 46 hypotheses testing
using regression
Notes: N = 48; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001 analysis
 CMS Thus, the results show that support for H2a but H2b is rejected. Cognitive diversity is
significantly related to inclusion (b = 0.59, p < 0.001, see M2). Inclusion is significantly
related to creativity (b = 0.30, p < 0.001, see M4) and performance (b = 0.50, p < 0.001, see
M6). The results provide support for both H3a and H3b.
The above findings were further confirmed by bootstrapping. Table III presents the
bootstrapping analysis results. Results from Table III(1) provides support for (H2a) the
indirect effect cognitive diversity on creativity via team learning (b = 0.43, SE = 0.162, 95
per cent bias-corrected CI [0.14 to 0.79]). The mediating effect is reflected by the indirect
effect of cognitive diversity on creativity through inclusion. H3a is also supported (b =
0.295, SE = 0.114, 95 per cent bias-corrected CI [0.10 to 0.55]). The empirical results support
the mediating roles of both team learning and inclusion on the cognitive diversity-creativity
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 05:18 07 March 2018 (PT)

link.
Results from Table III(2) offers support for the indirect effect cognitive diversity on
performance via inclusion (b = 0.296, SE = 0.409, 95 per cent bias-corrected CI [0.13 to 0.58]).
Thus, H3b was supported. However, the indirect effect cognitive diversity on performance
via team learning (H2b) was rejected (b = 0.206, SE = 0.151, 95 per cent bias-corrected CI
[0.12 to 0.5]). The confidential interval contains zero. Thus, the mediating role of team
learning was rejected on the cognitive diversity–performance link.
In summary, team cognitive diversity is not directly influence creativity, but indirect
through team learning and inclusion. Team cognitive diversity is not directly related to
performance, but indirect through inclusion only.

6. Discussion
Results from the present study unravel that team cognitive resource is not directly related to
team creativity and performance. Diversity in teams offers both opportunities and threats
(Dadfar and Gustavasson, 1992). Cognitive team diversity can produce positive outcomes
such as novel, diverse ideas, greater creativity and better problem solving. However,
research evidence also indicates that workforce diversity can lead to undesirable outcomes.
Diverse views can hinder coordination within teams. It can also lead to open conflict and
chaos if there is mistrust and a lack of respect among group members (Ancona and Caldwell,
1992; Pelled, 1996). Discomfort and detrimental conflict may lower social integration and
team performance (Chua, 2013). According to the group dynamic literature, heterogeneity in
teams can produce negative consequences and disrupt group functioning by reducing
cohesiveness and increasing conflicts and misunderstanding, which in turn lowers member
satisfaction and decreases cooperation (Dougherty, 1992). Prior research shows both
positive and negative effects of cognitive diversity. The impact of diversity shows mixed or
inconsistent results in the existing studies.
Cognitive team diversity can foster individual creative performance by exposing a
person to novel and diverse ideas, thus encouraging new ways of looking at task-related

Independent variable Mediator Effect Boot SE 95% bias-corrected CI

(1) Indirect effect of cognitive diversity on creativity through two mediators

Cognitive diversity Team learning 0.429 0.163 (0.14, 0.79)
Cognitive diversity Inclusion 0.295 0.114 (0.10, 0.55)
Table III. (2) Indirect effect of cognitive diversity on in-role performance through two mediators
Bootstrapping Cognitive diversity Team learning 0.206 0.151 (-0.12, 0.50)
analysis Cognitive diversity Inclusion 0.296 0.109 (0.13, 0.58)
 issues. Such exposure to alternative ways of thinking should give a person new insights into Cognitive
a problem and help to generate more creative ideas. However, other researchers, for diversity and
example, Cronin and Weingart (2007), have shown that cognitive difference lead to negative
outcomes such as misunderstanding, tension and conflict that harms team performance and
creativity
innovation. An individual’s performance may be hindered in diverse groups if the group has
difficulty coming to a consensus.
The purpose of this study is to identify the underlying mechanisms that influence the
effect of cognitive diversity on creativity. It explored how and in what ways cognitive
diversity matters among team members in organisation. The results from this study provide
an answer to the mechanism underlying the effects of cognitive diversity on creativity and
performance. The empirical results supported the medicating effect of team learning and
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 05:18 07 March 2018 (PT)

inclusion on cognitive diversity and creativity link. The results enrich the understanding of
the influence of two mediating mechanisms on team effectiveness. More importantly, team
members share a belief that insights and thoughts from others are available and
exchangeable to achieving better outcomes.

7. Theoretical and practical implications

7.1 Theoretical contribution
The results from the present study offer several significant contributions to the diversity
and inclusion literature. It provides insights into how cognitive team diversity relates to
team creativity and in-role performance. This study extends the existing literature by
providing a theoretical explanation and empirical investigation to enrich the understanding
of the mechanisms through which cognitive team diversity is positively related to team
creative performance. More explicitly, it theorises on the mechanism that underlies this link
to explain how this occurs.
The results from this study advance theory development by contributing to the better
understanding of the mediating roles of team learning and inclusion on the relationship
between cognitive team diversity and creative performance. The findings provide further
empirical understanding of the mechanisms by which team learning and inclusion mediate
the impact of diversity on performance outcomes. The theoretical contributions include a
theory-based analysis to explain the mechanism that links cognitive team diversity and
creative performance. Based on the cognitive diversity as well as integration and learning
perspective, the study simultaneously integrates the effects of diversity and inclusion on
creativity and performance. It contributes to the literature by explicating the mediating
effects of inclusion in activating the underlying mechanisms that mediate the relationship
between cognitive team diversity and increased creative performance. The present study
develops an alternative view of conceptualisation in analysing the conventional diversity
and inclusion research. From the theoretical perspective, these findings help to better
understand how team learning affects the diversity–performance relationship and broaden
our knowledge of the diversity–performance link to contribute to the growing stream of
research on diversity in a pluralistic Chinese economy.

7.2 Practical implications

The findings provide some practical implications for creating more diverse and inclusive
organisations. The results offer guidance in terms of diversity training to reduce the
negative consequences associated with team diversity and practical insights that could
enhance the effectiveness of diversity management in organisations. By understanding their
current approach to diversity management, managers and human resources (HR)
professionals should be better able to identify appropriate HR strategies that stimulate an
 CMS inclusive environment and help to leverage the benefits associated with higher levels of
diversity. This study advocates that inclusion is needed to realise the benefits accruing to
diversity.
Diversity alone is not enough. Organisation should promote inclusive environments to
facilitate creativity and performance. Practitioners should encourage inclusion and move
beyond diversity initiatives towards leveraging and integrating diversity in the work
setting. They should fully use the opportunity to influence employee experience of inclusion
by creating a diverse and inclusive workplace such as treating team members as unique and
different as well as involving them in decision-making. Organisations should also facilitate
team learning by removing barriers that block employees from using the full range of their
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 05:18 07 March 2018 (PT)

skills and competencies and fully use the variety of talents in their heterogeneous work
teams. The findings also have significant implications for developing and maintaining
social harmony. The acceptance of diversity and the interaction between heterogeneous
views foster harmonious relations. Not respecting differences leads to social disintegration.
It is thus important to foster diversity to increase integration.

7.3 Limitations and future research direction

The present study has several limitations that need to be addressed in future studies. This
study was conducted in a single organisation in China. Generalisation of results should be
interpreted with caution. Future study should extend to other types of industries and
organisations in different locations to enhance generalizability. Studies in different national
and cultural contexts are also recommended. Future studies should use more objective
measures instead of the subjective self-reported measures. Major variables in this study
were collected from team members and performance was provided by their immediate
supervisors. Such research design helped to avoid common source bias. The confirmatory
factor analysis indicated that these variables are evaluated distinctly from each other. Team
creativity is a more complex phenomenon than simply aggregated from individual
creativity. Jiang and Zhang’s (2014) study on complex systems theory of team creativity
suggests the hierarchy of team creativity system in terms of status, role, structure and the
interaction of its subsystems. This will definitely be an area for future research.
The present study supported the mediating role of inclusive work context. There is
possibility that inclusive environment leads to more cognitive diversity. Future research
should use laboratory and field experiments to examine the causal linkage. It is
recommended that future study should use other psychological mechanisms in multi-level
research design. Empirical findings from this study generally support the indirect effect of
diversity on performance outcomes. Future study should also examine the dysfunctional
aspect of diversity like conflict.

References
Ancona, D.G. and Caldwell, D.F. (1992), “Demography and design: predictors of new product team
performance”, Organization Science, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 321-341.
Ashikali, A. and Groeneveld, S. (2015), “Diversity management for all? An empirical analysis of
diversity management outcomes across groups”, Personnel Review, Vol. 44 No. 5, pp. 757-780.
Bassett-Jones, N. (2005), “The paradox of diversity management, creativity and innovation diversity
management”, Creativity and Innovation Management, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 169-175.
Bliese, P.D. (2000), “Within group agreement, non-dependence, and reliability: implications for data
aggregation and analyses”, in Klein, K.J. and Kolowski, S.W.J. (Eds), Multilevel Theory Research
 and Methods in Organizations: Foundations Extensions and New Directions, Jossey-Bass, Cognitive
San Francisco, CA, pp. 349-381.
diversity and
Brewer, M.B. (1991), “The social self: on being the same and different at the same time”, Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 475-482. creativity
Brislin, R.W. (1986), “The wording and translation of research instruments”, in Lonner, W.J. and Berry,
J.W. (Eds), Field Methods in Cross Cultural Research, Sage, CA.
Byrne, D. (1971), The Attraction Paradigm, Academic Press, New York, NY.
Chua, R.Y.J. (2013), “The costs of ambient culture disharmony: indirect intercultural conflicts in social
environment undermine creativity”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 56 No. 6, pp. 1545-1577.
Cottrill, K., Lopez, P.D. and Hoffman, C.C. (2014), “How authentic leadership and inclusion benefit
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 05:18 07 March 2018 (PT)

organizations”, Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, Vol. 33 No. 3,

pp. 275-292.
Cox, T. and Blake, S. (1991), “Managing cultural diversity: implications for organizational
competitiveness”, Executive, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 45-46.
Cronin, M.A. and Weingart, L.R. (2007), “Representational gaps, information processing, and conflict in
functionally diverse teams”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 761-773.
Dadfar, H. and Gustavasson, P. (1992), “Competition by effective management of cultural diversity: the
case of international construction projects”, International Studies of Management and
Organization, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 81-92.
Dahlin, K.B., Weingart, L.R. and Hinds, P.J. (2005), “Team diversity and information use”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 48 No. 6, pp. 1107-1123.
Dougherty, D. (1992), “Interpretive barriers to successful product innovation in large firms”,
Organization Science, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 179-202.
Edmondson, A. (1999), “Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams”, Administrative
Science Quarterly, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 350-383.
Ferdman, B.M. and Davison, M.N. (2002), “Matter of difference: inclusion: what can I and my
organization do about it?”, The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 80-85.
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.
Hayes, A.F. (2013), Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A
Regression-Based Approach, Guilford Press, New York, NY.
Homan, A.C., Hollenbeck, J.R., Humphrey, S.E., wan Knippenberg, D. and Illgen, D.R.V. (2008),
“Facing differences with an open mind: openness to experience, salience of intragroup
differences, and performance of diverse work groups”, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 1204-1222.
Horwitz, S.K. (2005), “The compositional impact of team diversity on performance: theoretical
consideration”, Human Resource Development Review, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 219-245.
Janis, I.L. (1972), Victims of Groupthink: A Psychological Study of Foreign-Policy Decisions and Fiascoes,
Houghton Mifflin, Oxford.
Jiang, H. and Zhang, Q. (2014), “Development and validation of team creativity measures: a complex
systems perspective”, Creativity and Innovation Management, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 264-275.
Lawrence, B. (1997), “The black box of organizational demography”, Organization Science, Vol. 8 No. 1,
pp. 1-22.
Leung, A.K., Maddux, W.W., Galinsky, A.D. and Chiu, C. (2008), “Multicultural experience enhances
creativity: the when and how”, American Psychologist, Vol. 63 No. 3, pp. 169-181.
MacKinnon, D.P., Fairchild, A.J. and Fritz, M.S. (2007), “Mediation analysis”, Annual Review of
Psychology, Vol. 58, pp. 593-614.
 CMS Miller, C.C., Burke, L.M. and Glick, W.H. (1998), “Cognitive diversity among upper-echelon executives:
implications for strategic decision processes”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 39-58.
Mor-Barak, M.E. (2011), Managing Diversity: Toward a Globally Inclusive Workplace, Sage Publications,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Mor-Barak, M.E. and Cherin, D.A. (1998), “A tool to expand organizational understanding of workforce
diversity: exploring a measure of inclusion-exclusion”, Administration in Social Work, Vol. 22
No. 1, pp. 47-64.
Nembhard, I.M. and Edmondson, A.C. (2006), “Making it safe: the effects of leader inclusiveness and
professional status on psychological safety and improvement efforts in health care teams”,
Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 27 No. 7, pp. 941-966.
Nemeth, C.J. (1986), “Differential contributions of majority and minority influence”, Psychology Review,
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 05:18 07 March 2018 (PT)

Vol. 93 No. 1, pp. 23-32.

Nishii, L.H. (2013), “The benefits of climate for inclusion for gender diverse groups”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 56 No. 6, pp. 1754-1774.
Pelled, L.H. (1996), “Demographic diversity, conflict, and work group outcomes: an intervening process
theory”, Organizational Science, Vol. 7 No. 6, pp. 615-631.
Pelled, L.H., Ledford, G.E., Jr and Mohrman, S.A. (1999), “Demographic dissimilarity and workplace
inclusion”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 36 No. 7, pp. 1013-1031.
Perry-Smith, J.E. and Shalley, C.E. (2003), “The social side on creativity: a static and dynamic social
network perspective”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 89-106.
Rink, F. and Ellemers, N. (2007), “Diversity as a basis for shared organizational identity: the norm
congruity principle”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 18 No. s1, pp. 17-27.
Roberson, Q.M. (2006), “Disentangling the meanings of diversity and inclusion in organizations”, Group
and Organization Management, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 212-236.
Russo, M. (2012), “Diversity in goal orientation, team performance, and internal team environment”,
Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 124-143.
Shore, L.M., Randel, A.E., Chung, B.G., Dean, M.A., Ehrhart, K.H. and Singh, G. (2011), “Inclusion and
diversity in work groups: a review and model for future research”, Journal of Management,
Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 1262-1289.
Simons, T. and Pelled, L. (1999), “Understanding executive diversity, more than meets the eye”, Human
Resource Planning, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 49-51.
Simonton, D.K. (2003), “Scientific creativity as constrained stochastic behavior: the integration
of product, person, and process perspectives”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 129 No. 4,
pp. 474-494.
Sun, H., Teh, P., Ho, K. and Lin, B. (2017), “Team diversity, learning, and innovation: a mediation
model”, Journal of Computer Information Systems, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 22-30.
Tajfel, H. (1982), “Social identify and intergroup relations”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 33 No. 1,
pp. 1-39.
Thomas, D.A. and Ely, R.J. (1996), “Making differences matter: a new paradigm for managing
diversity”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 74 No. 5, pp. 79-90.
Tsui, A.S., Egan, T. and O’Reilly, R.C. (1992), “Being different: relational demography and
organizational attachment”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 549-579.
Turner, J.C. (1987), Rediscovering the Social Group: A Self-Categorization Theory, Blackwell, Oxford.
Van der Vegt, C.D. and Janssen, O. (2003), “Joint impact of interdependence and group diversity on
innovation”, Journal of Management, Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 729-751.
Wang, X., Kim, T. and Lee, D. (2016), “Cognitive diversity and team creativity: effects of team intrinsic
motivation and transformational leadership”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69 No. 9,
pp. 3231-3239.
 Wasserman, I.C., Gallegos, P.V. and Ferdman, B.M. (2008), “Dancing with resistance: leadership Cognitive
challenges in fostering a culture of inclusion”, in Thomas, K.M. (Ed.), Diversity Resistance
in Organizations, Taylor and Francis Group/Lawrence Erlbaum, New York, NY, diversity and
pp. 175-200. creativity
Williams, K.Y. and O’Reilly, C.A. (1998), “Demography and diversity in organizations”, in Staw, B.
M. and Sutton, R.M. (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior, JAI, Stamford, CT, Vol. 20,
pp. 77-140.
Williams, L.J. and Anderson, S. (1991), “Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as
predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors”, Journal of Management,
Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 601-617.
Yang, S. and Farn, C. (2010), “Investigating tacit knowledge acquisition and sharing from the
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 05:18 07 March 2018 (PT)

perspective of social relationships-a multilevel mode”, Asia Pacific Management Review, Vol. 15
No. 2, pp. 167-185.
Zhou, J. and George, J.M. (2001), “When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: encouraging the
expression of voice”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 682-696.

Further reading
Ely, R.J. and Thomas, D.A. (2001), “Cultural diversity at work: the effects of diversity perspectives on work
group processes and outcomes”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 229-273.

Corresponding author
Irene Hau-Siu Chow can be contacted at: Irenechow@hsmc.edu.hk

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