Journal of Business Research 69 (2016) 3231–3239

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research

Cognitive diversity and team creativity: Effects of team intrinsic

motivation and transformational leadership☆
Xiao-Hua (Frank) Wang a,1, Tae-Yeol Kim b,2, Deog-Ro Lee c,⁎
a
Department of Organization and Human Resources, School of Business, Renmin University of China, Beijing 100872, China
b
China Europe International Business School, 699 Hongfeng Road, Pudong, Shanghai 201206, China
c
School of Business, Seowon University, 241 Musimseoro, Heungdeok-gu, Cheongju, Chungbuk 361-742, South Korea

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: We theorized and tested an integrated model for the relationship between cognitive diversity and team creativity.
Received 19 June 2014 This model involves team intrinsic motivation as a mediator and transformational leadership as a moderator.
Received in revised form 19 February 2016 The Hierarchical Linear Modeling results using 62 teams revealed that transformational leadership moderated
Accepted 22 February 2016
cognitive diversity's direct effect on team intrinsic motivation and indirect effect on team creativity via team intrinsic
Available online 9 March 2016
motivation, such that the effects were positive when transformational leadership was high, but negative when
Keywords:
transformational leadership was low.
Cognitive diversity © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Team creativity
Transformational leadership
Team intrinsic motivation

1. Introduction One of the most frequently examined antecedents of team creativity

Rapid technological development and intense global competition
have made organizations increasingly reliant on creativity to survive
and succeed (Gumusluoglu & Ilsev, 2009; Hennessey & Amabile, 2010;
Yoshida, Sendjaya, Hirst, & Cooper, 2014). Teams have also been widely
used in the workplace, which explains the rapid growth of literature on
team creativity (e.g. Baer, Leenders, Oldham, & Vadera, 2010; Farh, Lee,
& Farh, 2010). Team creativity is defined as “the production of novel and
useful ideas concerning products, services, processes, and procedures by
a team of employees working together” (Shin & Zhou, 2007, p. 1715).
Woodman, Sawyer, and Griffin (1993) give a central place to team cre-
ativity in their model of organizational creativity. Teams can serve as an
important vehicle for the development of creative ideas and, therefore,
have been promoted as the focal unit for organizational innovation
(Sutton & Hargadon, 1996). As a result, the last several decades have
witnessed a rapid growth in the number of studies that investigate the
facilitators and inhibitors of team creativity (Hülsheger, Anderson, &
Salgado, 2009).
☆ This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea Grant funded
by the Korean Government (NRF-2010-32A-B00075).
⁎ Corresponding author at: School of Business Administration, Seowon University, 241
Musimseoro, Heungdeok-gu, Cheongju, Chungbuk, 361-742, South Korea. Tel.: +82 43
299 8554.
E-mail addresses: wangxiaohua@rbs.org.cn (X.-H.(F.) Wang), tykim@ceibs.edu
(T.-Y. Kim), drlee@seowon.ac.kr (D.-R. Lee).
1
Tel.: +86 10 6251 0390.
2
Tel.: +86 21 28905643.
is team diversity. Studies on diversity and team creativity have mainly
focused on functional and educational diversity (Choi, 2007; Fay,
Borrill, Amir, Haward, & West, 2006; Shin & Zhou, 2007; Somech,
2006). Evidence has shown that, under certain supportive contexts,
teams composed of employees with differing functional or educational
backgrounds tend to be more creative. However, it is not always feasible
for organizations to form cross-functional teams to take on all the
innovation challenges. Many managers are facing the daunting task of
stimulating creativity within their seemingly “homogenous” teams.
Indeed, many teams in organizations are composed of members with
similar educational or functional backgrounds, but are also expected
to generate creative ideas or innovative solutions to problems.
Van Knippenberg and Schippers (2007) have called for more research
that examines how those seemingly less “heterogeneous” teams
(e.g., teams with similar educational or functional backgrounds) man-
age to deliver creative team results.
Recent research on diversity and creativity (Hoever, van Knippenberg,
van Ginkel, & Barkema, 2012; Kurtzberg, 2005) has shown that any team
can have great potential for creativity if the team members possess or
perceive high cognitive diversity, defined as perceived differences in
thinking styles, knowledge, skills, values, and beliefs among team mem-
bers (Kilduff, Angelmar, & Mehra, 2000; Van der Vegt & Janssen, 2003).
According to the “value in diversity” perspective, team diversity allows
members to pool information, combine ideas, and integrate perspectives,
so that they can generate synthetic solutions to work-related problems
(Williams & O'Reilly, 1998). Cognitive diversity can serve as a prerequi-
site condition for perspective integration and idea integration, because

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.02.026
0148-2963/© 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
3232 X.-H.(F.) Wang et al. / Journal of Business Research 69 (2016) 3231–3239
it brings in a wide range of knowledge, skills, ideas, and values (Shin, Kim,
Lee, & Bian, 2012; Van der Vegt & Janssen, 2003). Also, even team mem-
bers with similar educational and functional backgrounds can have differ-
ent knowledge, skills, ideas, and values. Thus, cognitive diversity is more
conceptually relevant to team creativity than other diversity dimensions
such as demographic diversity, and can promote creativity even in teams
whose members have similar educational or functional backgrounds. The
primary purpose of our study is to investigate why, when, and how team
cognitive diversity contributes to team creativity.
Two experimental studies have linked cognitive diversity with team
creativity. Kurtzberg (2005) found that teams with high cognitive diver-
sity, referring to team members' difference in their problem-solving
approaches in this study, generated more creative ideas than homoge-
nous teams. Hoever et al. (2012) found that diversity of perspectives
has a positive effect on team creativity when team members are
instructed to take others' perspectives, and that such moderation effect
is mediated by team information elaboration. The present study
continues this line of research, but advances the literature on cognitive
diversity and team creativity in several ways.
First, previous studies have operationalized cognitive diversity as the
extent to which members differ on one attribute (e.g., the problem-
solving approach) (Kurtzberg, 2005) or on their assigned functional
roles in the experiment (e.g., artistic manager vs. finance manager)
(Hoever et al., 2012). By definition, cognitive diversity refers to the
perceived differences among team members in a variety of different
attributes (Van der Vegt & Janssen, 2003). Thus, our study adopts a
broader scope of cognitive diversity and measures team members'
perceived differences in such attributes as thinking styles, knowledge,
skills, values, and beliefs. To fully understand the effect of cognitive
diversity on team creativity in real working teams, it is important to
consider the different cognitive aspects simultaneously.
Second, those studies have yet to examine the motivational mecha-
nism through which cognitive diversity is transmitted to team creativi-
ty. Van Knippenberg, De Dreu, and Homan (2004) contend that effective
team processes are contingent on team motivation, suggesting that
diverse teams may actualize the potential benefits for creative perfor-
mance only when team motivation is high. However, we still do not
know how cognitive diversity is associated with team motivation. In
order to fill this gap, this study focuses on team intrinsic motivation,
defined as the extent to which team members enjoy performing a
team task for itself and experience the pleasure and satisfaction
inherent in the task. According to Amabile's (1996) componential
theory of creativity, intrinsic motivation is the motivational mechanism
of creativity or creative performance. Drawing on early theories
(Amabile, 1996; Chiang, Hsu, & Hung, 2014; Deci & Ryan, 1985), we
extend individual intrinsic motivation to the team level due to their
functional equivalence (Morgeson & Hofmann, 1999), and consider
team intrinsic motivation as a shared motivational state within a team
through which the members utilize their cognitive diversity to achieve
team creativity.
Third, prior studies on cognitive diversity and team creativity
(Hoever et al., 2012; Kurtzberg, 2005) have not examined the influence
of leadership. Managing a diverse team could be challenging, because
diversity might create conflicts and tension among members due to
their different views and perspectives (Mohammed & Angell, 2004;
Fig. 1. Proposed relationships among variables.
Pelled, Eisenhardt, & Xin, 1999). As a result, team leaders can play an
important role in translating team members' cognitive diversity into
positive team motivation (Van Knippenberg et al., 2004). Van
Knippenberg and Schippers (2007) also recommend that researchers
give more attention to the moderating role of leadership in studying
the effects of cognitive diversity. Despite the importance of leadership
in managing cognitive diversity, the interplay between leadership
and cognitive diversity remains largely unexplored (Jackson, Joshi, &
Erhardt, 2003). Thus, this study aims to explore the moderation effect
of transformational leadership in the relationship between cognitive
diversity and team intrinsic motivation (and team creativity). Transfor-
mational leadership encourages employees to transcend their self-
interests for the good of the team and the organization, pushes them
to address higher-order needs, and enables them to achieve perfor-
mance beyond expectations (Bass & Riggio, 2006). Transformational
leaders act as role models, provide inspirational motivation and intellec-
tual stimulation, and show individualized consideration to followers
(Wang & Howell, 2010). When leaders highly encourage employees to
focus on the good of the team and organization and stimulate them
intellectually, we expect that employees will be more likely to enjoy
working with people who have different knowledge and views, and
thus produce more creative ideas.
By proposing and testing this integrated model, we aim to extend
our knowledge with regard to how, when and why cognitive diversity
affects team creativity. Fig. 1 depicts our conceptual model.
2. Theory and hypothesis development
2.1. Cognitive diversity and team creativity
The “value in diversity” perspective (Williams & O'Reilly, 1998)
posits that cognitive diversity may provoke team creativity because
exposure to different or divergent perspectives may stimulate team
members to generate more innovative ideas. Also, information and
decision-making theories (De Dreu, Nijstad, & Van Knippenberg, 2008;
De Dreu & West, 2001) suggest that cognitive diversity brings in a
wide range of knowledge, skills, abilities and ideas to the team that
are distinct and non-redundant. Such a broad range of knowledge and
abilities can then produce more new choices, plans, and products. In
addition, members with different thinking styles and value systems
can use different perspectives to scan the environment and process
information, thereby helping the team analyze problems using diverse
angles and consider several possible alternatives (Gilson, Lim, Luciano,
& Choi, 2013). As a result, those teams may be expected to make better
decisions and generate more creative ideas than teams with low
cognitive diversity (Jackson, May, & Whitney, 1995; Kurtzberg, 2005).
Therefore, we hypothesize:
Hypothesis 1. Cognitive diversity is positively related to team creativity.
2.2. Cognitive diversity and team intrinsic motivation
Prior studies linking diversity with team creativity have mainly
focused on members' task-related activities as mediators that translate
 X.-H.(F.) Wang et al. / Journal of Business Research 69 (2016) 3231–3239 3233

cognitive diversity into team creativity, such as information elaboration information among team members (De Dreu et al., 2008). During this
(Hoever et al., 2012; Kearney & Gebert, 2009), team learning (Van der process, members may be inspired by one another and feel more
Vegt & Bunderson, 2005), and team reflection (Somech, 2006). A key competent in their team's ability to generate solutions to problems. As
assumption of those studies is that team members must be motivated a result, they may develop a shared belief that it is intrinsically rewarding
to engage in those task-relevant activities. However, the mediation to work together on the group tasks. Hence, we propose the following:
role of team motivation has been largely neglected in the diversity
literature (Van Knippenberg et al., 2004). To fill this gap, this study Hypothesis 2. Cognitive diversity is positively related to team intrinsic
focuses on team intrinsic motivation as the motivation-oriented mech- motivation.
anism explicating the effect of cognitive diversity on team creativity.
According to Amabile's (1996) componential theory of creativity,
2.3. Team intrinsic motivation and team creativity
intrinsic motivation is one of the most important mechanisms through
which external factors result in individual or team creativity (Shalley,
As stated above, Amabile's (1996) componential theory of creativity
Zhou, & Oldham, 2004; Shin & Zhou, 2003). Intrinsic motivation is the
contends that intrinsic motivation is one of the key contributors to cre-
motivation to complete a task or solve a problem because it is interest-
ativity. Previous research (Shin & Zhou, 2003; Tierney, Farmer, & Graen,
ing, challenging, and satisfying. Based on Amabile's theory, we examine
1999) has supported the importance of intrinsic motivation in the
the mediating role of team intrinsic motivation in the team creativity
individual-level creativity process. Drawing on Amabile's theory,
process. Paulus (2000) posited that team motivation is a crucial precon-
Milliken, Bartel, and Kurtzberg (2003) proposed that collective
dition for diverse teams to initiate productive team processes (e.g., idea
emotional engagement is an important mechanism through which
exchange or information elaboration) and fulfill their creative potential.
team diversity is transmitted to team creativity. Collective emotional
Chen and Kanfer (2006) defined team motivation as shared beliefs
engagement is defined as a shared feeling of team members that reflect
among members regarding various aspects of their tasks and capabili-
their “emotional investment in the group and their interest in engaging
ties. Such shared beliefs originate from individual motivation and are
with members and in the task” (Milliken et al., 2003; p. 48). Collective
formed through constant interaction and communication among team
emotional engagement is inherently consistent with team intrinsic
members (Morgeson & Hofmann, 1999).
motivation, because both constructs emphasize the internal interests
Recent studies show that team motivation may be understood by
of team members to perform the task and the positive emotional states
generalizing individual-level motivation constructs and theories to the
arising from such interests.
team level. For example, collective efficacy, the team-level analog of in-
We propose that team intrinsic motivation mediates the positive
dividual self-efficacy, captures the shared belief among team members
effect of cognitive diversity on team creativity for several reasons.
that the team can accomplish specific tasks (Bandura, 1997). Team
First, intrinsic motivation theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Oldham &
empowerment, the team-level analog of psychological empowerment,
Cummings, 1996) suggests that situational factors, such as cognitive
reflects a team's shared belief in its autonomy and capability to perform
diversity, exert influence on creativity via intrinsic motivation. When
meaningful work that affects the organization (Kirkman & Rosen, 1999).
team members feel excited about the tasks and highly engaged in the
In a similar vein, we contend that individual and team intrinsic motiva-
task for its own sake in a cognitively diverse team, they are more likely
tions are functionally equivalent (Morgeson & Hofmann, 1999), such
to explore innovate cognitive pathways, to play with different ideas, and
that team intrinsic motivation has a similar effect on team creativity
to concentrate on the task for a longer period (McGraw & Fiala, 1982;
as does individual intrinsic motivation on individual creativity. Team
McGraw & McCullers, 1979). Such extensive exploration and persis-
intrinsic motivation originates from individual intrinsic motivation,
tence thus should result in higher team creativity. Second, according
and is shaped in the process of ongoing interaction, coordination, and
to Amabile's (1996) componential theory of creativity, intrinsically
collaboration among members within the same team (Morgeson &
motivated team members are cognitively more flexible and are more
Hofmann, 1999). Individual intrinsic motivation is an individual's
likely to conduct divergent thinking, heuristic exploration, and even
perception of and experience with a task (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Indi-
risk taking. Third, team intrinsic motivation may improve the cognitive
viduals' perceptions and beliefs about work tasks can be influenced
processes of the team. Intrinsically motivated team members want to
and reinforced by other team members. Through constant informa-
expand their knowledge bases by incorporating diverse information.
tion sharing, opinion exchange, and collective sense-making, team
They tend to openly exchange and integrate ideas, knowledge, and
members may develop a normative belief about the task they are
insights relevant to the task, which then promotes team creativity
performing (Levine & Moreland, 1991; Morgeson & Hofmann,
(Van Knippenberg et al., 2004). The theoretical development so far
1999). The team members may reach a consensus that it is intrinsi-
suggests that cognitive diversity influences team intrinsic motivation,
cally rewarding to conduct their task and to find solutions or creative
which in turn helps team members engage in a higher level of creative
ideas for complex problems associated with the task. Hence, the
behavior. To sum up, we hypothesize:
team members, as a whole, may enjoy performing the team task for
itself and experience the pleasure and satisfaction inherent in the Hypothesis 3. Team intrinsic motivation mediates the positive rela-
task. tionship between cognitive diversity and team creativity.
We propose that cognitive diversity is positively related to team
intrinsic motivation. According to cognitive evaluation theory (Deci &
Ryan, 1985), contextual factors contribute to intrinsic motivation if 2.4. The moderating role of transformational leadership
they provide relevant information or feedback that confirms an
individual's feeling of competence. Cognitive diversity broadens the Although we generally expect a positive link between cognitive
ability and skill repertoire of the team, thereby enhancing team mem- diversity and team intrinsic motivation (and team creativity), the
bers' sense of competence by enabling them to analyze problems from variability observed in the relationship between cognitive diversity
different angles and by stimulating innovative solutions (Amabile, and creativity in the literature suggests the potential for moderators.
1996). The higher a team's cognitive diversity, the more likely its mem- As such, drawing on previous studies (Shin & Zhou, 2007; Somech,
bers will hold unique and indispensable information, knowledge, and 2006), we propose that leadership behaviors can serve as a critical
perspectives relevant to their tasks. When team members are exposed boundary condition that determines how much cognitive diversity can
to the different preferences and opinions held by others, they must en- enhance team intrinsic motivation. Managers are facing a new challenge
gage in systematic information processing, characterized by deeper and because organizations are increasingly relying on diverse teams to
elaborate dissemination as well as integration of knowledge and generate creative solutions to complex problems and issues (Van
3234 X.-H.(F.) Wang et al. / Journal of Business Research 69 (2016) 3231–3239
Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007). They must ensure that the creative
potential of a diverse team can be realized, and that the different
perspectives and expertise of team members can be fully integrated to
produce superior collective outcomes.
We propose that transformational leadership serves as a catalyst
that facilitates the development of team intrinsic motivation in cogni-
tively diverse teams because it can enhance employees' enthusiasm
for the activity. Transformational leadership includes four interrelated
behavioral dimensions, namely, idealized influence, inspirational
motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration
(Bass & Riggio, 2006). Each behavioral dimension can affect the relation-
ship between cognitive diversity and team intrinsic motivation.
First, transformational leaders exert idealized influence and provide
inspirational motivation via communicating an appealing collective
vision. According to the self-concept theory of transformational leader-
ship (Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993), the collective vision enables
leaders to unify diverse team members, to assign important meaning
to the team's task, and to increase the intrinsic valance of members'
efforts (Shamir et al., 1993). These leadership behaviors are expected
to enhance team members' beliefs about the values of diversity and
their understanding of the proper way to deal with diversity (Van
Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007). Consistent with this, Milliken et al.
(2003) asserted that a common vision can unite team members with
cognitive diversity and shape positive dynamics among the members.
That is, transformational leadership can evoke positive feelings such as
optimism and enthusiasm in cognitively diverse teams, which ultimate-
ly enhance the pleasure and satisfaction inherent to the task (Deci &
Ryan, 1985).
Second, the intellectual stimulation of transformational leaders
encourages team members to utilize cognitive diversity among
team members in questioning their own assumptions, reframing
problems, and thinking out of the box (Bass & Riggio, 2006). They
are also motivated to appreciate the diverse knowledge bases and
skills of others and to integrate different perspectives to generate
new ideas. In addition, according to psychological empowerment
theory (Spreitzer, 1995; Thomas & Velthouse, 1990), intellectual
stimulation enhances the feeling of self-determination because it
gives team members the freedom and autonomy to decide how
they can leverage their cognitive diversity to tackle the problem in
an innovative way. As a result, working in a cognitive diverse team
is perceived by members as more enjoyable and interesting
(Eisenbeiss, Van Knippenberg, & Boerner, 2008).
Third, transformational leaders recognize individual differences in
followers, encourage followers to express their unique inputs, and listen
to their followers attentively through individualized consideration
(Bass & Riggio, 2006). According to social learning theory (Bandura,
1977), leaders act as role models via individualized consideration,
showing their members how to handle team members with different
knowledge, skills, and perspectives. By observing the modeling behav-
ior of their leaders, team members learn to fully appreciate and build
on one another's perspectives and expertise to generate creative
solutions. Thus, team members working with a high transformational
leader in cognitively diverse teams may consider working together to
be more enjoyable. Thus, the following hypothesis is proposed:
Hypothesis 4. Transformational leadership moderates the positive
relationship between cognitive diversity and team intrinsic motivation,
such that the relationship is stronger when transformational leadership
is high rather than low.
Cumulatively, the above predictions suggest a first-stage moderation
(Edwards & Lambert, 2007). Hence, we propose the following:
Hypothesis 5. Transformational leadership moderates the indirect effect
of cognitive diversity on team creativity via team intrinsic motivation,
such that the indirect relationship is stronger when transformational
leadership is high rather than low.
3. Method
3.1. Participants and procedures
We collected data from 62 R&D teams in 14 organizations in South
Korea, including three pharmaceutical companies, six electronic compa-
nies, one chemical company, one information technology company, and
three manufacturing companies. The third author obtained the partici-
pation of these 14 organizations, based on their inclusion in a list of
companies that cooperate with his university. All R&D teams in the
organizations participated in this survey. Participation was voluntary,
and the respondents were assured of the confidentiality of their re-
sponses. The participating team members and their leaders completed
the questionnaires during working hours. Team members reported
cognitive diversity, team intrinsic motivation, and transformational
leadership behavior of their leaders. Team leaders assessed team
creativity. The surveys were translated into Korean following Brislin's
(1986) back-translation procedure.
Of the 478 member–team leader pair surveys distributed, 351 were
returned by 68 teams, representing a response rate of 73.6%. Six teams
returned the response of only two or less team members or missing
values were eliminated, resulting in 346 member–team leader pair sur-
veys across 62 teams for data analysis. A total of 29% of the employees
were female. The average age of the employees was 32.6 years (SD =
6.1), and the average team tenure was 3.4 years (SD = 4.0). The team
leaders had an average age of 43.6 years (SD = 4.9) and an average
team tenure of 8.5 years (SD = 6.9). A total of 11% of the team leaders
were female.
3.2. Measures
3.2.1. Cognitive diversity
Following Shin et al. (2012), we used Van der Vegt and Janssen's
(2003) four-item scale to assess cognitive diversity. These items
measure team members' perceived difference in their thinking styles,
knowledge, skills, values, and beliefs (e.g., “To what extent do the
members of the work group differ in their knowledge and skills?”;
1 = “To a very small extent;” 7 = “To a very large extent”).
3.2.2. Transformational leadership
Transformational leadership was assessed using the Multifactor
Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) Form 5X (Avolio & Bass, 2004)
[e.g., “(My leader) emphasizes the importance of having a collective
sense of mission”; 1 = “Not at all;” 5 = “Frequently, if not always”].
MLQ contains 20 items (i.e., five items for the following five dimensions:
charismatic attributes, charismatic behavior, inspirational motivation,
intellectual stimulation, and individual consideration). Following previ-
ous studies, we combined the five dimensions to generate a composite
transformational leadership score.
3.2.3. Team intrinsic motivation
To assess team intrinsic motivation, we adapted Tierney et al.'s
(1999) 5-item measure of individual intrinsic motivation. We changed
the focal referent from the individual level (i.e., “I”) to the team level
(i.e., “our team”) (Chan, 1998). Sample items include “Our team enjoys
finding solutions to complex problems” and “Our team enjoys coming
up with new ideas for products” (1 = “Strongly disagree”, 7 = “Strongly
agree”).
3.2.4. Team creativity
Team creativity was evaluated by team leaders using Shin and
Zhou's (2007) four-item scale. Sample items include “How creative do
you consider your team to be?” and “How well does your team produce
new ideas?” (1 = “Poorly”, 7 = “Very much”).
 X.-H.(F.) Wang et al. / Journal of Business Research 69 (2016) 3231–3239 3235

3.2.5. Control variables
First, we controlled for team size and team tenure, given that these
factors may affect team outcomes (Hirst, Van Knippenberg, & Zhou,
2009). Second, we controlled for task interdependence (Van der Vegt
& Janssen, 2003), using Shin and Zhou's (2007) single item, “The work
I usually do is a group project rather than an individual project.” Third,
following Shin and Zhou (2007), we controlled for the type of tasks
performed by the teams. We created three dummy variables using
Keller's (1992) categorization of research and development tasks:
basic or non-mission research, applied or mission-oriented research,
new product or process development, and technical service or existing
product development. Finally, to test the effects of cognitive diversity
over and beyond demographic diversity, we controlled for age, sex,
and organizational tenure diversity (Van der Vegt & Bunderson, 2005).
that consist of the product term (MacKinnon et al., 2004). Finally, we
followed Edwards and Lambert's (2007) procedure to test the first-
stage moderated mediation effect of transformational leadership.
4. Results
4.1. Descriptive statistics
Descriptive statistics, reliability estimates, and correlations for
all measures are presented in Table 1. The reliabilities for all variables
are acceptable (α N .70). A total of 54% of the teams worked on new
products. The teams worked highly interdependently (mean = 5.27).
4.2. Tests of hypotheses

3.3. Aggregation tests
Three variables (i.e., cognitive diversity, team intrinsic motivation,
and transformational leadership) were measured at the individual
level and then aggregated to the team level. We calculated the within-
group inter-rater agreement (rwg) and the inter-member reliability
ICC(1) and ICC(2) for the three variables: Cognitive diversity, median
rwg = .87, ICC(1) = .16, ICC(2) = .62; team intrinsic motivation, median
rwg = .81, ICC(1) = .20, ICC(2) = .60; and transformational leadership,
median rwg = .80, ICC(1) = .25, ICC(2) = .67. Overall, these results met
or exceeded the levels of reliability and agreement obtained in previous
research (e.g., Farh et al., 2010). Thus, we aggregated the individual
responses to the team level.
3.4. Analyses
Owing to the multilevel nature of the data, with teams nested within
organizations, we conducted hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) analy-
ses to test our hypotheses (Raudenbush, Bryk, Cheong, Congdon, & Toit,
2004). Given that the teams came from different organizations, we in-
cluded an intercept-only model at the organization level in all analyses
to control for any possible confounding effects of company-level factors
on the relationships we tested. Thus, we had two-level models, with
teams at Level 1 and organizations at Level 2.
To examine the indirect effect of cognitive diversity on team creativ-
ity via team intrinsic motivation, we used the “product of coefficient”
approach (MacKinnon, Lockwood, & Williams, 2004). Specifically, we
used the bootstrap sampling method (bootstrap sample size = 5000)
to generate asymmetric confidence intervals (CIs) for the indirect effect.
The bootstrapped CI approach can generate a more accurate estimation
of the indirect effect compared with traditional methods such as Sobel's
(1982) test because it produces asymmetric CIs for the indirect
effect using the respective distribution of the two regression coefficients
Table 2 summarizes the results for HLM analyses. Hypothesis 1
proposed that cognitive diversity would be positively related to team
creativity. Consistent with H1, cognitive diversity was positively related
to team creativity (γ = .30, p b .05), as shown in Model 4 in Table 2.
Hypothesis 2 predicted that cognitive diversity would be positively
related to team intrinsic motivation. The result in Model 1 in Table 2
shows that cognitive diversity was positively associated with team
intrinsic motivation (γ = .33, p b .05), supporting H2.
Hypothesis 3 stated that team intrinsic motivation would mediate
the relation between cognitive diversity and team creativity. First, as
shown above, cognitive diversity was significantly related to team
intrinsic motivation. Second, when both team intrinsic motivation and
cognitive diversity were included in the regression, only team intrinsic
motivation was significant (γ = .34, p b .05; see Model 5 in Table 2),
but cognitive diversity was not (γ = .19, n.s.), suggesting that team
intrinsic motivation fully mediated the relation between cognitive
diversity and team creativity. Furthermore, the bootstrapping test
indicated that the indirect effect of cognitive diversity on team creativity
via team intrinsic motivation was significant (99% confidence interval
CI = [.07, .16], not containing zero). So H3 was supported.
Hypothesis 4 proposed that transformational leadership would
moderate the relationship between cognitive diversity and team intrin-
sic motivation. Model 3 in Table 2 illustrates that the interaction term of
cognitive diversity and transformational leadership is significant (γ =
.42, p b .01). As shown in Fig. 2, simple slope results indicated that the
relation between cognitive diversity and team intrinsic motivation is
negative and significant when transformational leadership is low
(γ = −.31, p b .05), but positive and significant when transformational
leadership is high (γ = .27, p b .05). Thus, H4 was supported.
Hypothesis 5 predicted a first-stage moderation effect, such that
transformational leadership moderates the indirect effect of cognitive
diversity on team creativity via team intrinsic motivation. We examined
the first-stage moderation model using the procedure of Edwards and

Table 1
Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations, and Reliabilities.

Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

1. Team size 6.77 2.13 –

2. Team tenure 5.91 4.00 .35 –
3. Task interdependence 5.26 .81 −.06 .05 –
4. D1 (0 = others, 1 = basic research) .10 .30 .24 .08 −.08 –
5. D2 (0 = others, 1 = applied research) .18 .39 .09 −.12 −.09 −.15 –
6. D3 (0 = others, 1 = new project) .56 .50 −.11 −.03 .19 −.37 −.53 –
7. Age diversity .13 .07 .34 .09 .06 −.07 .05 .07 –
8. Gender diversity .25 .22 .04 .00 −.11 .08 −.12 .03 .23 –
9. Organizational tenure diversity 4.01 2.39 .38 .16 .24 .01 .08 .03 .69 .25 –
10. Cognitive diversity 5.09 .52 .18 .03 −.03 .22 −.02 −.09 .05 −.27 .01 (.90)
11. Transformational leadership 4.83 .69 −.03 .01 .35 −.15 −.10 .19 .08 −.25 .00 .33 (.97)
12. Team intrinsic motivation 4.51 .69 −.02 −.08 .47 −.12 .00 .15 −.03 −.21 −.06 .23 .74 (.94)
13. Team creativity 5.37 .66 .18 .03 .12 −.14 .08 .25 .04 −.21 .08 .25 .41 .40 (.82)

Note: (N = 62 teams). Reliabilities are in parentheses. For all correlation above |.25|, p ≤ .05; and above |.33|, p ≤ .01.
3236 X.-H.(F.) Wang et al. / Journal of Business Research 69 (2016) 3231–3239

Table 2 Table 3
Hierarchical Linear Modeling Results. Moderated Indirect effects for Team Creativity Across Levels of Transformational
Leadership.
Dependent Variable
Moderator Level Conditional Confidence
Predictors Team Intrinsic Team
indirect effect interval (95%)
Motivation Creativity
Transformational leadership Low −.10⁎ [−.29, −.01]
M1 M2 M3 M4 M5
High .09⁎ [.01, .25]
Intercept 1.98⁎⁎ 2.96⁎⁎ 3.09⁎⁎ 2.90⁎ 2.70⁎ Difference between low and high .19⁎⁎ [.04, .34]
Control variables
⁎ p b .05.
Team size .03 .03 .04 .06 .05
⁎⁎ p b .01.
Team tenure −.02 −.02 −.02 .00 .01
Task interdependence .44⁎⁎ .25⁎⁎ .20⁎⁎ .05 −.09
D1 (0 = others, 1 = basic research) −.22 .03 .17 −.08 −.01 5. Discussion
D2 (0 = others, 1 = basic research) .14 .21 .28 .47 .43
D3 (0 = others, 1 = new project) .13 .07 .10 .55⁎⁎ .51⁎
Age diversity .61 −.46 −.86 −.85 −1.02 5.1. Theoretical contributions
Sex diversity −.08 .16 .16 −.35 −.33
Organizational tenure diversity −.07⁎⁎ −.04 −.03 −.01 .03 The present study contributes to the extant literature in several
Cognitive diversity .33⁎ .03 −.02 .30⁎ .19 important ways. First, the diversity literature has mainly focused on
Transformational leadership .65⁎⁎ .69⁎⁎
Cognitive diversity × Transformational .42⁎⁎
readily-detected diversity attributes, such as tenure, age, educational,
leadership or functional diversity (Van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007). A key
Team intrinsic motivation .23 .43 .10 .34⁎⁎ assumption of these studies is that readily-detected diversity reflects
△R2 within-organizationa .64 .57 .90 .18 .09 cognitive diversity. However, several scholars have pointed out that
△R2 between-organizationa 125.10 99.84 93.42 .69 .95
the assumption may not always hold in reality (Kilduff et al., 2000;
Deviance 1.98⁎⁎ 2.96⁎⁎ 3.09⁎⁎ 127.86 125.83
Lawrence, 1997), such that surface-level diversity may not always
Note. N = 62 teams and 14 organizations.
bring in complementary knowledge and perspectives to the team. Our
⁎ p b .05,
⁎⁎ p b .01. One-tailed tests were used for predicted directional effects. study responds to Jackson et al.'s (2003) call for more research that
a
These are R-square difference compared to previous model. Model 1 and 2 were directly measures deep-level diversity such as cognitive diversity
compared with the null model. (i.e., differences in thinking styles, knowledge, skills, values, and
beliefs). Moreover, our findings suggest that Hoever et al. (2012) and
Kurtzberg's (2005) experimental results can be generalized to real
working teams in organizational settings. Also, our replication for the
effects of cognitive diversity on team creativity occurred in an interna-
Lambert (2007). The moderated path analytic procedures indicated that tional context, where the country's prevailing social norms and expecta-
the path linking cognitive diversity and team intrinsic motivation, tions for fitting in were quite different from Hoever et al. (2012) and
which is the first stage of the indirect effect of cognitive diversity on Kurtzberg's (2005) investigation of the Western organizations.
team creativity, significantly varied as a function of transformational Second, this study provides insights regarding the mechanism un-
leadership (i.e., the 99% confidence interval of the first-stage modera- derlying the positive relationship between team cognitive diversity
tion effect was [.10, .19], not containing zero). As shown in Table 3 and team creativity. Drawing on cognitive evaluation theory (Deci &
and Fig. 3, the results of the simple slope test indicated that the indirect Ryan, 1980), we extended intrinsic motivation to the group level,
effect of cognitive diversity on team creativity via team intrinsic motiva- and found that team intrinsic motivation mediated the relationship
tion is positive and significant when transformational leadership is high between team cognitive diversity and team creativity. Our results lend
(γ = .09, p b .05), but negative and significant when transformational support to Amabile's (1983, 1993, 1996) theory of creativity, which con-
leadership is low (γ = −.10, p b .05). These results support H5, except tends that intrinsic motivation is the major mechanism through which
for the significant negative indirect effect of cognitive diversity when contextual factors influence creativity. Our findings are also important
transformational leadership is low. for developing and refining diversity and creativity theories about the

Fig. 2. Transformational leadership as a moderator of the relationship between cognitive diversity and team intrinsic motivation.
 X.-H.(F.) Wang et al. / Journal of Business Research 69 (2016) 3231–3239
Fig. 3. Transformational leadership as a moderator of the mediated relationship between cognitive diversity and team creativity via team intrinsic motivation.
motivation mechanism through which cognitive diversity affects team
creativity. In addition, by extending individual intrinsic motivation to
the team level, our study echoes the argument of Chen and Kanfer
(2006) that research on team motivation may be advanced by general-
izing individual-level motivation theories to the team level.
Third, perhaps the most important finding of our study is that trans-
formational leadership serves as a boundary condition for the effects of
cognitive diversity on team intrinsic motivation and for the indirect
effects of cognitive diversity on team creativity via team intrinsic motiva-
tion. Specifically, we observed that the intrinsic motivation of team
members increases as teams become more cognitively diverse only
when team leaders show high transformational leadership; team intrin-
sic motivation, in turn, results in higher levels of team creativity. More
importantly, when transformational leadership is low, cognitive diversity
is negatively related to team intrinsic motivation, and the indirect effect
of cognitive diversity on team creativity via team intrinsic motivation is
negative. One possible explanation for this finding is that in the absence
of transformational leadership, team members may neither possess a
shared understanding of collective goals nor place their self-interest
ahead of the collective interest (Van Knippenberg et al., 2004). As a result,
cognitive diversity may be perceived as a threat to individual ideas and
ambitions. Moreover, without a leader's intellectual stimulation and en-
couragement for innovation, team members may not realize the necessi-
ty of openly discussing different and opposing ideas with one another
and may be less motivated to share their views on problems and issues
at hand. In these situations, cognitive diversity may result in tension
and conflicts among team members as well as cause members to view
their daily job as less enjoyable and exciting (Jehn, Northcraft, & Neale,
1999; Mohammed & Angell, 2004), thus reducing team creativity.
It is also noteworthy that team intrinsic motivation mediates the
effect of cognitive diversity on team creativity in a non-linear manner.
Although researchers agree on the mediating role of intrinsic motiva-
tion in the relationship between antecedents of creativity and creative
outcomes (Amabile, 1996; Shalley et al., 2004), these mediation mech-
anisms seem to be more complicated. For example, Shin and Zhou
(2003) found that individual intrinsic motivation partially mediates
the relationship between transformational leadership and individual
creativity. Shalley and Perry-Smith (2001) observed no significant
mediation for intrinsic motivation in the relationship between expected
evaluation and creativity. One possible explanation for these complex,
non-linear results is that the mediation mechanism associated with in-
trinsic motivation may be affected by other factors (Amabile & Mueller,
2008). Our findings support this notion by demonstrating that cognitive
diversity interacts with transformational leadership to influence the
3237
mediation effects of team intrinsic motivation on the relationship
between cognitive diversity and team creativity.
5.2. Managerial implications
Our study offers several practical implications for organizations and
team leaders. First, organizations may not always be able to build teams
with diverse educational or functional backgrounds to take on creativity
challenges, because it can be costly and even unrealistic in some circum-
stances. Nevertheless, to enhance team creativity, organizations should
ensure that their teams are composed of team members with different
cognitive attributes such as abilities, knowledge bases, beliefs, and
values. These members can then bring in a broader repertoire of
informational resources and expertise to ignite creative ideas through
brainstorming and constructive conflict (Sutton & Hargadon, 1996).
In addition, team leaders should be aware of the importance of
leadership behaviors in motivating cognitively diverse team members
to be creative. Team leaders should display a set of transformational
leadership behaviors to realize the potential of cognitive diversity.
Specifically, they need to articulate a shared group vision, communicate
high expectations in terms of creativity to followers, stimulate followers
to attempt innovative ideas, and provide necessary coaching and
mentoring to help followers develop creativity-relevant skills. Such
leadership behaviors can serve as catalysts to help transform the cogni-
tive diversity of team members into higher team intrinsic motivation,
which in turn contributes to higher team creativity. Managers should
also be cautioned that without transformational leadership behaviors,
cognitive diversity may dampen team intrinsic motivation by introduc-
ing tension and conflicts among members, which then diminishes team
creativity.
5.3. Limitations and future research
This study has several limitations. First, we used a cross-sectional
research design, which precludes any conclusions of causality. Future
research should adopt a longitudinal or experimental design to detect
the causal effects of cognitive diversity on creativity. Second, it should
be noted that we did not examine actual diversity among members in
any specific cognitive attributes. Instead, we measured team members'
perceived diversity in a variety of different attributes. Our approach is
appropriate for our sample. This is because members in real working
teams usually perceive diversity in more than one dimension, and
diversity in different dimensions is more likely to provide different
perspectives and divergent ideas than diversity in one dimension
3238 X.-H.(F.) Wang et al. / Journal of Business Research 69 (2016) 3231–3239
(Shin et al., 2012; Van der Vegt & Janssen, 2003). However, it would be
interesting for future study to compare which type of diversity (actual
vs. perceived) has a stronger influence on team creativity.
Third, we relied on supervisor ratings rather than objective mea-
sures of team creativity. Although this is a common practice in creativity
research (Zhou & Shalley, 2003), future research should employ
objective creativity measures to ensure the robustness of the results.
Fourth, we only focused on the motivational states of teams. We theo-
rize that team intrinsic motivation may result in smoother and more
productive team processes, but we did not measure any team process
variables. Future studies should further investigate whether team in-
trinsic motivation has a positive effect on team processes, such as social
integration (Harrison et al., 2002) or the elaboration of task-related
information (Van Knippenberg et al., 2004). This line of inquiry will
help us better understand the interplay between team motivational
states and processes.
This study contributes to our knowledge of how and when cognitive
diversity can be transmitted into team creativity. Our study also empiri-
cally validates team intrinsic motivation as a mechanism that accounts
for the relationship between cognitive diversity and team creativity. In
addition, this research emphasizes the importance of transformational
leadership, which determines whether cognitive diversity has a positive
or negative indirect effect on team creativity via team intrinsic motiva-
tion. We hope that this study will stimulate future endeavors to advance
our understanding of the relationship among team diversity, team
motivation, and team creativity.
References
Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualiza-
tion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(2), 357–376.
Amabile, T. M. (1993). Motivational synergy: Toward new conceptualizations of
intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in the workplace. Human Resource
Management Review, 3(3), 185–201.
Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity.
Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Amabile, T. M., & Mueller, J. (2008). Studying creativity, its processes, and its antecedents:
An exploration of the componential theory of creativity. In J. Zhou, & C. Shalley (Eds.),
Handbook of organizational creativity (pp. 33–64). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (2004). Multifactor leadership questionnaire: Manual and sampler
set (3rd ed.). Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden.
Baer, M., Leenders, R. T. A. J., Oldham, G. R., & Vadera, A. K. (2010). Win or lose the battle
for creativity: The power and perils of intergroup competition. Academy of
Management Journal, 53(4), 827–845.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1997). Collective efficacy. In A. Banudra (Ed.), Self-efficacy: The exercise of
control (pp. 477–525). New York: Freeman.
Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Brislin, R. W. (1986). The wording and translation of research instruments. In W. J.
Lonner, & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Field methods in cross-cultural research (pp. 137–164).
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Chan, D. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at dif-
ferent levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 83(2), 234–246.
Chen, G., & Kanfer, R. (2006). Towards a systems theory of motivated behavior in work
teams. Research in Organizational Behavior, 27, 223–267.
Chiang, Y. -H., Hsu, C. -C., & Hung, K. -P. (2014). Core self-evaluation and workplace
creativity. Journal of Business Research, 67, 1405–1413.
Choi, J. N. (2007). Group composition and employee creative behaviour in a Korean
electronics company: Distinct effects of relational demography and group diversity.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80(2), 213–234.
De Dreu, C. K. W., & West, M. A. (2001). Minority dissent and team innovation: The
importance of participation in decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(6),
1191–1201.
De Dreu, C. K. W., Nijstad, B. A., & Van Knippenberg, D. (2008). Motivated information
processing in group judgment and decision making. Personality and Social
Psychology Review, 12(1), 22–49.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1980). The empirical exploration of intrinsic motivational
processes. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology. Vol. 13.
(pp. 39–80). New York: Academic Press.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human
behavior. New York: Springer.
Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. (2007). Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: A
general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychological Methods,
12(1), 1–22.
Eisenbeiss, S. A., Van Knippenberg, D., & Boerner, S. (2008). Transformational leadership
and team innovation: Integrating team climate principles. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 93(6), 1438–1446.
Farh, J. L., Lee, C., & Farh, C. I. C. (2010). Task conflict and team creativity: A question of
how much and when. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(6), 1173–1180.
Fay, D., Borrill, C., Amir, Z., Haward, R., & 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, 79(4), 553–567.
Gilson, L. L., Lim, H. S., Luciano, M. M., & Choi, J. N. (2013). Unpacking the cross-level effects of
tenure diversity, explicit knowledge, and knowledge sharing on individual creativity.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 86(2), 203–222.
Gumusluoglu, L., & Ilsev, A. (2009). Transformational leadership, creativity, and organiza-
tional innovation. Journal of Business Research, 62(461–473).
Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., Gavin, J. H., & Florey, A. T. (2002). Time, teams, and task per-
formance: Changing effects of surface-and deep-level diversity on group functioning.
Academy of Management Journal, 45(5), 1029–1045.
Hennessey, B. A., & Amabile, T. M. (2010). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 61,
569–598.
Hirst, G., Van Knippenberg, D., & Zhou, J. (2009). A cross-level perspective on employee
creativity: Goal orientation, team learning behavior, and individual creativity.
Academy of Management Journal, 52(2), 280–293.
Hoever, I. J., van Knippenberg, D., van Ginkel, W. P., & Barkema, H. G. (2012). Fostering
team creativity: Perspective taking as key to unlocking diversity's potential. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 97(5), 982–996.
Hülsheger, U. R., Anderson, N., & Salgado, J. F. (2009). Team-level predictors of innovation
at work: A comprehensive meta-analysis spanning three decades of research. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 94(5), 1128–1145.
Jackson, S. E., Joshi, A., & Erhardt, N. L. (2003). Recent research on team and organizational
diversity: SWOT analysis and implications. Journal of Management, 29(6), 801–830.
Jackson, S. E., May, K. E., & Whitney, K. (1995). Understanding the dynamics of diversity in
decision-making teams. In R. A. Guzzo, & E. Salas (Eds.), Team effectiveness and
decision making in organizations (pp. 204–261). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Jehn, K. A., Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. (1999). Why differences make a difference: A
field study of diversity, conflict, and performance in workgroups. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 44(4), 741–763.
Kearney, E., & Gebert, D. (2009). Managing diversity and enhancing team outcomes: The
promise of transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), 77–89.
Keller, R. T. (1992). Transformational leadership and the performance of research and
development project groups. Journal of Management, 18(3), 489–501.
Kilduff, M., Angelmar, R., & Mehra, A. (2000). Top management-team diversity and firm
performance: Examining the role of cognitions. Organization Science, 11(1), 21–34.
Kirkman, B. L., & Rosen, B. (1999). Beyond self-management: Antecedents and conse-
quences of team empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 42(1), 58–74.
Kurtzberg, T. R. (2005). Feeling creative, being creative: An empirical study of diversity
and creativity in teams. Creativity Research Journal, 17(1), 51–65.
Lawrence, B. S. (1997). Perspective-the black box of organizational demography.
Organization Science, 8(1), 1–22.
Levine, J. M., & Moreland, R. L. (1991). Culture and socialization in work groups. In L. B.
Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition
(pp. 257–279). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., & Williams, J. (2004). Confidence limits for the indirect
effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral
Research, 39(1), 99–128.
McGraw, K. O., & Fiala, J. (1982). Undermining the Zeigarnik effect: Another hidden cost
of reward. Journal of Personality, 50(1), 58–66.
McGraw, K. O., & McCullers, J. C. (1979). Evidence of a detrimental effect of extrinsic
incentives on breaking a mental set. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 15(3),
285–294.
Milliken, F. J., Bartel, C. A., & Kurtzberg, T. R. (2003). Diversity and creativity in
work groups: A dynamic perspective on the affective and cognitive processes
that link diversity and performance. In P. B. Paulus, & B. A. Nijstad (Eds.), Group
creativity: Innovation through collaboration (pp. 32–62). New York: Oxford University
Press.
Mohammed, S., & Angell, L. C. (2004). Surface- and deep-level diversity in workgroups:
Examining the moderating effects of team orientation and team process on relation-
ship conflict. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(8), 1015–1039.
Morgeson, F. P., & Hofmann, D. A. (1999). The structure and function of collective
constructs: Implications for multilevel research and theory development. Academy
of Management Review, 24(2), 249–265.
Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contextual
factors at work. Academy of Management Journal, 39(3), 607–634.
Paulus, P. B. (2000). Groups, teams, and creativity: The creative potential of idea-generat-
ing groups. Applied psychology: An International Review, 49(2), 237–262.
Pelled, L. H., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Xin, K. R. (1999). Exploring the black box: An analysis of
work group diversity, conflict, and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44,
1–28.
Raudenbush, S. W., Bryk, A. S., Cheong, Y. F., Congdon, R. T., & Toit, M. D. (2004). HLM 6:
Hierarchical linear and nonlinear modeling. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software
International.
Shalley, C. E., & Perry-Smith, J. E. (2001). Effects of social-psychological factors on creative
performance: The role of informational and controlling expected evaluation and
modeling experience. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 84(1),
1–22.
Shalley, C. E., Zhou, J., & Oldham, G. R. (2004). The effects of personal and contextual
characteristics on creativity: Where should we go from here? Journal of
Management, 30(6), 933–958.
 X.-H.(F.) Wang et al. / Journal of Business Research 69 (2016) 3231–3239
Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The motivational effects of charismatic
leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization Science, 4(4), 577–594.
Shin, S. J., & Zhou, J. (2003). Transformational leadership, conservation, and creativity:
Evidence from Korea. Academy of Management Journal, 46(6), 703–714.
Shin, S. J., & Zhou, J. (2007). When is educational specialization heterogeneity related to
creativity in research and development teams? Transformational leadership as a
moderator. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(6), 1709–1721.
Shin, S. J., Kim, T. -Y., Lee, J. -Y., & Bian, L. (2012). Cognitive team diversity and individual
team member creativity: A cross-level interaction. Academy of Management Journal,
55(1), 197–212.
Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equa-
tion models. In S. Leinhardt (Ed.), Sociological methodology (pp. 290–312).
Washington DC: American Sociological Association.
Somech, A. (2006). The effects of leadership style and team process on performance and
innovation in functionally heterogeneous teams. Journal of Management, 32(1), 132–157.
Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions,
measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38(5), 1442–1465.
Sutton, R. I., & Hargadon, A. (1996). Brainstorming groups in context: Effectiveness in a
product design firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 685–718.
Thomas, K. W., & Velthouse, B. A. (1990). Cognitive elements of empowerment: An
“interpretive” model of intrinsic task motivation. Academy of Management Review,
15(4), 666–681.
Tierney, P., Farmer, S. M., & Graen, G. B. (1999). An examination of leadership and employee
creativity: The relevance of traits and relationships. Personnel Psychology, 52(3), 591–620.
3239
Van der Vegt, G. S., & Bunderson, J. S. (2005). Learning and performance in multidisciplin-
ary teams: The importance of collective team identification. Academy of Management
Journal, 48(3), 532–547.
Van der Vegt, G. S., & Janssen, O. (2003). Joint impact of interdependence and group
diversity on innovation. Journal of Management, 29(5), 729–751.
Van Knippenberg, D., & Schippers, M. C. (2007). Work group diversity. Annual Review of
Psychology, 58(5), 515–541.
Van Knippenberg, D., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Homan, A. C. (2004). Work group diversity and
group performance: An integrative model and research agenda. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 89(6), 1008–1022.
Wang, X. -H., & Howell, J. M. (2010). Exploring the dual-level effects of transformational
leadership on followers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(6), 1134–1144.
Williams, K. Y., & O'Reilly, C. A. (1998). Demography and diversity in organizations: A
review of 40 years of research. Research in Organizational Behavior, 20(20),
77–140.
Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin, R. W. (1993). Toward a theory of organizational
creativity. Academy of Management Review, 18(2), 293–321.
Yoshida, D. T., Sendjaya, S., Hirst, G., & Cooper, B. (2014). Does servant leadership foster
creativity and innovation? A multi-level mediation study of identification and
prototypicality. Journal of Business Research, 67, 1395–1404.
Zhou, J., & Shalley, C. E. (2003). Research on employee creativity: A critical review
and directions for future research. In J. Martocchio (Ed.), Research in personnel
and human resources management. Vol. 22. (pp. 165–217). Oxford, England:
Elsevier.