Social Capital

1080995
research-article2022
HUM0010.1177/00187267221080995Human RelationsStollberger et al.
human relations
human relations
2023, Vol. 76(6) 871–900
Untangling the team social capital– © The Author(s) 2022
team innovation link: The role of Article reuse guidelines:

proportional task conflict as well as sagepub.com/journals-permissions
https://doi.org/10.1177/00187267221080995
DOI: 10.1177/00187267221080995
group- and differentiated individual- journals.sagepub.com/home/hum
focused transformational leadership
Jakob Stollberger
VU Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Amer Ali Al-Atwi

Al Muthanna University, Iraq
David De Cremer
National University of Singapore, Singapore
Abstract
Findings from prior research on the relationship between a team’s social network
architecture and team innovation have been inconclusive. Integrating social network
theory with input–process–output models of team innovation, our research aims to
reconcile the mixed findings in the literature by introducing a novel process perspective
as well as highlighting a relevant contingency factor to untangle the team social capital–
team innovation link. We propose that team social capital, operationalized as bridging
and bonding social capital, negatively influences team innovation via team proportional
task conflict, which is the level of task conflict teams experience proportional to the
general level of team conflict (i.e. task, relationship and process conflict). In addition,
we expected group and differentiated individual-focused transformational leadership
to buffer the negative indirect effect of team social capital on team innovation via
team proportional task conflict. Results from time-lagged data collected from research
and development teams in Iraq revealed that teams with bonding and bridging social
Corresponding author:
Jakob Stollberger, School of Business and Economics, VU Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1105, Amsterdam,
1081 HV, The Netherlands.
Email: j.stollberger@vu.nl
872 Human Relations 76(6)
capital are less innovative because they experience less proportional task conflict.
Furthermore, group-focused transformational leadership buffered the negative indirect
relationship of team bridging social capital on team innovation via proportional task
conflict. Theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed.
Keywords
team innovation, team proportional task conflict, team social capital, transformational
leadership
Introduction
Innovation, defined as development and implementation of novel and useful processes,
products or procedures (West, 2002), is a highly prized good because it ensures the com-
petitiveness and long-term survival of organizations (Anderson et al., 2014; Eisenbeiss
et al., 2008). It is no surprise then that managers are eager to develop their teams’ innova-
tive potential (Barsh et al., 2008). Extant research points to one promising approach in
this regard by highlighting that the workplace social networks within which employees
are embedded can be a catalyst for team innovation as they offer access to more diverse
informational resources (see Van Knippenberg, 2017). Understanding the social network
dynamics of team innovation requires the study of patterns and structures of social rela-
tionships and their effects on teamwork. A construct that captures such network dynam-
ics is team social capital (Han, 2018). Team social capital, defined as the set of resources
available to a team through social relationships (Oh et al., 2006), can be classified into
two distinct types: team bridging social capital and team bonding social capital (Han
et al., 2014; Oh et al., 2004, 2006).
So far, a small number of studies have examined the effects of both team bridging (i.e.
the structure of the team’s external social network) and team bonding social capital (i.e.
the intensity of informal social relations among team members; Han et al., 2014) on team
innovation but yielded inconsistent findings. On the one hand, studies suggest that either
internal bonding (Chen, 2009; Obstfeld, 2005) or external bridging social capital (Burt,
2004; Soda et al., 2021) are more important for determining a team’s creative and inno-
vative potential. On the other hand, bonding and bridging social capital have been shown
to either not directly influence team creativity as well as innovation (Han et al., 2014;
Lee, 2010), or to even harm generative innovation (Carnabuci and Diószegi, 2015;
Dokko et al., 2014). These empirical inconsistencies provide the impetus for our research
as they demonstrate that there are gaps in our understanding of how and when team social
capital affects team innovation, which may obscure the true nature of the team social
network–team innovation relation.
To address these questions, we draw from social network theory (SNT; Burt, 1992;
Burt et al., 2013) and input–process–output (IPO) models of team innovation (Stollberger
et al., 2019; Van Knippenberg, 2017) to propose that team proportional task conflict
(PTC; the level of task conflict in relation to the general level of conflict within a team;
Jehn and Chatman, 2000) will help untangle the team social capital–team innovation
link. SNT proposes that the structure of a team’s social network can be used as an
Stollberger et al. 873
indicator of its access to information (Burt, 1992). Accordingly, members of teams with
bonding social capital tend to be characterized by homophily (i.e. an association with
similar others; Lawrence and Shah, 2020) concerning their access to information, mean-
ing they only have access to similar and, thus, redundant information (Burt, 1992; Ertug
et al., 2022). Conversely, members of teams with bridging social capital have weak ties
to dissimilar others and hence greater access to non-redundant information that adds to,
rather than overlaps with, a team’s existing knowledge pool (Burt et al., 2013).
We additionally draw from IPO models of team innovation (Stollberger et al., 2019;
Van Knippenberg, 2017) to identify the team process that connects team social capital to
team innovation. In line with SNT, Van Knippenberg’s IPO model (2017) acknowledges
that a team’s access to informational resources determines team innovation, but also
highlights information elaboration, or the extent to which teams engage in information
exchange and integration, as a crucial team process. Similarly, the IPO model by
Stollberger et al. (2019) emphasizes the relevance of knowledge exchange and integra-
tion for team innovation but discusses team conflict as a more comprehensive team pro-
cess in this respect. In contrast to information elaboration, team conflict, consisting of
task conflict (TC; i.e. exchanging and scrutinizing informational resources to improve
team task completion), as well as relationship (RC; i.e. interpersonal disagreements in
teams) and process conflict (PC; i.e. team task coordination-related disputes; Jehn, 1995;
Jehn and Chatman, 2000) more comprehensively represents cognitive (TC), affective
(RC) and logistical (PC) team processes concerned with social and informational
exchanges (Behfar et al., 2011). Because contemporary perspectives conceptualize team
conflict as a complex profile involving the consideration of all individual conflict types
and their interdependencies (Jehn and Chatman, 2000; O’Neill and McLarnon, 2018),
we propose PTC as a team process that connects team social capital to team innovation.
We focus on PTC as a functional conflict profile because it facilitates psychological
safety and constructive controversy (O’Neill et al., 2018a) that should promote team
innovation (Stollberger et al., 2019).
Relying on SNT, we expect both team bonding and bridging capital to negatively
relate to PTC. Specifically, the homophily concerning access to redundant information
flows in teams with bonding social capital creates a homogenous, agreed-upon knowl-
edge pool that is likely to reduce levels of TC (Ertug et al., 2022). Likewise, strong bonds
with similar others tends to facilitate intra-group trust (Coleman, 1988), thereby reducing
the potential for RC to occur (Han, 2018). Yet, because greater similarity among team
members can make it difficult to establish an informal hierarchy and impose a process
structure (Dong et al., 2022), we propose that team bonding social capital promotes PC.
Given that the resulting team conflict profile consists of low TC and RC as well as high
PC, team bonding social capital should negatively predict PTC. Similarly, although
teams with bridging social capital have access to external, non-redundant information,
their weaker ties to the focal team should lead to PC when members introduce new ideas
as those often involve changes to existing team processes (Alguezaui and Filieri, 2010).
Existing PC has been shown to trigger interpersonal animosity among members and
beget RC (e.g. Greer et al., 2008), which inhibits cognitive functioning, distracts team
members from the task and prevents TC (Behfar et al., 2011). Combined, because team
bridging social capital relates to a conflict profile consisting of low TC, as well as high
PC and RC, we posit that it hampers PTC. Given the relevance of PTC for team innova-
tion (e.g. O’Neill et al., 2018a), we further propose that PTC mediates the team social–
team innovation relationship.
Moreover, we argue that the negative relation between team social capital and PTC
is attenuated by group- and differentiated individual-focused transformational leader
behaviours (Bass, 1985; Wu et al., 2010). Owing to the aforementioned undesirable
relational and informational repercussions of team social capital, knowledge exchange
and integration via PTC is unlikely to occur seamlessly, thus requiring further inter-
vention and facilitation from team leaders. Here, IPO models of team innovation
(Stollberger et al., 2019; Van Knippenberg, 2017) suggest that leadership represents a
crucial context factor that motivates information elaboration in teams. We propose
that transformational leadership may support a team’s knowledge integration efforts
by regulating team dynamics that result from bridging and bonding ties, thereby ena-
bling functional team conflict in the shape of PTC to emerge. Specifically, we argue
that the display of group-focused transformational leader behaviours, including inspi-
rational motivation and idealized influence, encourages members to pursue a com-
mon team vision, which may serve to avoid PC and thereby support the integration
and implementation of new ideas typically generated by teams with bridging social
capital. In turn, displays of differentiated individual-focused transformational leader
behaviours, such as intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration, should
spark the generation and voicing of new ideas that diverge from established approaches
associated with TC for teams with bonding social capital that would otherwise strug-
gle to do so.
Our research contributes to the literature on team social capital and team innovation
in three ways. First, by examining PTC as an underlying pathway connecting team social
capital and team innovation, we highlight that a team’s network ties do not exist in a
social vacuum but are likely to have consequences for internal team processes such as
team conflict. In doing so, we adopt a complexity approach to team conflict that has the
potential to more comprehensively capture conflict patterns in teams and go beyond past
research that has investigated various facets of the team conflict – team innovation rela-
tion individually (e.g. Hülsheger et al., 2009). Second, by proposing that the team social
capital–PTC link depends on transformational leader behaviours, we advance our under-
standing of how leadership can regulate team innovation processes. Specifically, we con-
tribute to the team social capital literature by demonstrating the crucial role of leadership
(see, for example, Chang, 2017) while at the same time responding to a call to decon-
struct transformational leadership (Van Knippenberg and Sitkin, 2013) by engaging in a
more fine-grained analysis of the correlates of group- and differentiated individual-
focused transformational leadership behaviours on team innovation. Finally, because we
collected data in Iraq, we provide an additional contextual contribution to the literature.
Most social network research in organizations has either been conducted in North
America, Europe or Asia (e.g. Carnabuci and Diószegi, 2015; Han et al., 2014; Oh et al.,
2004), making Middle Eastern data comparatively rare. Therefore, we test the generaliz-
ability of predominantly western theory to the Middle East as an underresearched study
context.
Theoretical background and hypothesis development

To understand how and when team social capital relates to team innovation, our theoriz-
ing integrates SNT (Burt, 1992; Burt et al., 2013) with IPO models of team innovation
(Stollberger et al., 2019; Van Knippenberg, 2017). One of the key tenets of SNT is the
notion that a team’s social network structure determines members’ access to information.
Typically, teams with bonding (bridging) social capital tend to have greater access to
redundant (non-redundant) information (Burt et al., 2013).
Historically, research on social networks implied beneficial consequences, such as
greater trust or innovation, of team social capital with little consideration for the social
and organizational context said network structures are embedded in (Tasselli et al.,
2015). Thus, current theorizing solely highlights certain potentialities that can accrue
from a team’s social network structure but lacks detail on how these potentialities are
realized given the influence of relevant team context factors (Borgatti and Halgin, 2011).
However, IPO models of team innovation (Stollberger et al., 2019; Van Knippenberg,
2017) would allow for more specific predictions regarding social and organizational con-
text factors that may play a crucial role in realizing the potential of a team’s network
structures. In the context of the IPO framework (McGrath, 1964), team inputs refer to
resources available to individuals (e.g. team members’ personality), groups (e.g. task
structure) and organizations (e.g. external demands) that teams can draw upon to per-
form more effectively. Processes are actions performed by team members (e.g. team
conflict) or emergent states (e.g. participative safety) that facilitate work progress.
Outputs, in turn, describe the results of teamwork as a consequence of team inputs and
processes (e.g. team innovation). IPO models specifically focusing on team innovation
(Stollberger et al., 2019; Van Knippenberg, 2017) extend the theoretical scope of SNT
because they not only acknowledge the role of informational resources for team innova-
tion but also additionally highlight team processes focusing on knowledge exchange and
integration, such as team conflict, as a crucial mechanism to realize the informational
potentialities that social network structures offer.
In addition to this, IPO models of team innovation also specify when team inputs such
as team social capital influence relevant team processes by emphasizing the role of leader-
ship. Specifically, leaders may act as motivators and foster greater knowledge exchange
and integration as part of the team processes (Van Knippenberg, 2017). Stollberger et al.
(2019) explicitly highlight the role of transformational leadership to effectively regulate
team processes and thereby enabling team innovation. Taken together, based on our inte-
gration of SNT with IPO models of team innovation, in the following we develop a theo-
retical model that specifies how and when team social capital (input) can undermine team
innovation (output) via PTC (process), and the crucial role of transformational leadership
in regulating a team’s conflict dynamics. Figure 1 depicts the proposed theoretical model.
Team social capital and team innovation: The mediating

role of team PTC
Research on team social capital and team innovation has been inconclusive (Zheng,
2010). Some studies reported results in line with SNT (Burt, 1992; Burt et al., 2013)
Figure 1. Theoretical model of how team social capital is associated with team innovation.
H = Hypothesis.
whereby bridging social capital promotes team innovation and bonding social capital
does not (e.g. Burt, 2004; Soda et al., 2021). However, a non-trivial number of studies
reported either null effects (Han et al., 2014; Lee, 2010) or even negative team social
capital–team innovation relations (Carnabuci and Diószegi, 2015; Dokko et al., 2014).
SNT scholars (Borgatti and Halgin, 2011; Tasselli et al., 2015) explain such inconclusive
results by suggesting that prior social network research overlooked the crucial role of the
social and organizational context in realizing the informational potentialities that come
with a team’s network structure. This hiatus is surprising because theorizing and research
on team innovation consistently demonstrated the crucial role of the team context for the
quality of team innovation efforts (Hülsheger et al., 2009; Stollberger et al., 2019).
Integrating SNT with IPO models of team innovation, we propose that adopting a
team conflict lens may elucidate the social context within which the informational poten-
tialities of team social capital may be realized and could thus serve to reconcile disparate
findings concerning the team social capital–team innovation relation. The team conflict
literature distinguishes between three different conflict types: task conflict (TC) involves
awareness of differences in viewpoints and opinions about the team’s task (Behfar et al.,
2011; Jehn, 1995); relationship conflict (RC; De Dreu and Weingart, 2003) concerns ten-
sion and animosity among co-workers about interpersonal issues; and process conflict
(PC; Jehn et al., 2008; Shah and Jehn, 1993) implies disagreements over the logistics of
task accomplishment, such as the distribution of tasks, responsibilities and resources.
Previous meta-analyses (Hülsheger et al., 2009; O’Neill et al., 2013), however, surpris-
ingly found all three conflict types to be unrelated to team innovation. Because these
meta-analytic results stand in stark contrast to findings of individual studies suggesting
a positive effect of TC (e.g. De Dreu, 2006; De Dreu and West, 2001), and a negative
effect of RC and PC (e.g. Farh et al., 2010) on team innovation, several scholars have
called for further research on the team conflict–team innovation link (Hülsheger et al.,
2009; O’Neill et al., 2013).
Responding to these calls, we adopt a complexity perspective by examining PTC (i.e.
the level of team TC proportional to the general level of team conflict; Jehn and Chatman,
2000) as a linchpin connecting team social capital with team innovation. Traditionally,
team conflict research was conducted in line with the separation perspective, which
assumes that different types of conflict affect team outcomes independently of each
other, thus permitting the individual examination of each type of conflict (e.g. TC) with-
out considering the effect of the remaining two conflict types (e.g. RC and PC; Janssen
et al., 1999). In contrast, the complexity perspective acknowledges the existence of con-
flict profiles, thereby implying that different team conflict types can co-occur and jointly
influence team outcomes (e.g. Jehn and Chatman, 2000). According to the complexity
perspective, examinations of the independent contributions of distinct conflict types to
team outcomes are insufficient because the potential co-occurrence of other types is not
considered (O’Neill et al., 2018b). Conflict profiles can be distinguished according to
whether they exert a functional or dysfunctional influence on team outcomes (O’Neill
et al., 2018b). Functional conflict profiles are those in which TC is high proportional to
the general level of team conflict, whereas dysfunctional conflict profiles involve high
PC and/or high RC proportional to the general level of team conflict (O’Neill and
McLarnon, 2018). We specifically focused on examining PTC in our research because
(a) it denotes a functional conflict profile, and (b) TC has consistently been proposed as
the sole conflict type promotive of team innovation (Hülsheger et al., 2009; O’Neill
et al., 2018b). Importantly, because we focus on conflict profiles that acknowledge inter-
dependencies among individual conflict types (i.e. TC, RC and PC), in the following our
approach to hypothesis development adopts an additive, sum-of-its-parts logic when for-
mulating predictions concerning antecedents and consequences of PTC.
Relying on SNT that predicts team social capital to come with certain informational
potentialities, we expect both team bonding and bridging capital to negatively relate to
PTC. Specifically, although bonding social capital plays an important role in the team-
internal exchange of information and the development of implicit knowledge associated
with work duties (Han et al., 2014; Hansen, 1999), the quality of said information is such
that most members will have similar ideas making team-internal information flows
largely redundant (Burt et al., 2013). As a result, we believe that TC is likely to be
reduced for teams with bonding social capital as this would necessitate saliently different
viewpoints with regards to work tasks and a willingness to engage in constructive debate
on divergent viewpoints (Jehn, 1995). Similarly, because teams with bonding social capi-
tal are homophilous (i.e. similar specifically in regard to their access to information),
they have high levels of intra-team trust (Ertug et al., 2022) and are thus less likely to
engage in RC. Moreover, Coleman (1988) suggested that bonding relationships ensure
compliance with rules and norms that determine what behaviour is more or less desirable
in a given team context. To avoid sanctions for rule-breaking, team members thus tend to
shy away from engaging in RC, which is typically considered inappropriate (Curşeu
et al., 2012). Taken together, we believe that team bonding social capital is negatively
related to RC. Yet, homophilous teams have also been found to experience difficulties
when it comes to establishing an informal hierarchy and process structure (Dong et al.,
2022), presumably because that would involve the introduction of process-based dis-
similarity among team members. This, however, is particularly important for research
and development (R&D) teams, such as those in our study because the nature of R&D
involves the often-unequal subdivision of roles, responsibilities and resources along the
lines of work tasks either concerned with creativity or implementation (Elkins and Keller,
2003). Consequently, team bonding social capital should promote PC.
Following from the above line of reasoning, we conclude that team bonding social
capital should elicit a team conflict profile with lower levels of TC and RC, but higher
levels of PC. However, because high PTC requires a combination of high TC relative to
the general level of team conflict, we hypothesize that team bonding social capital nega-
tively relates to PTC:
Hypothesis 1: Team bonding social capital is negatively related to PTC.
Similarly, according to SNT (e.g. Burt et al., 2013) teams with bridging social capital
have greater access to external, non-redundant information, and repeated team-external
exchanges with others also offer members greater insight into other teams, thereby ena-
bling them to observe different team processes, practices and strategies from those
employed in their own focal team (Seibert et al., 2001). Given these advantages, bridging
social capital has previously been associated with generative information exchanges in
teams that foster innovation (Burt, 2004; Soda et al., 2021), which may imply that bridg-
ing ties are promotive of TC. At the same time, however, empirical evidence also exists
that challenges this notion, as studies additionally reveal either null or negative effects of
bridging social capital on generative team processes (Dokko et al., 2014; Han et al.,
2014).
Adopting a complexity perspective on team conflict, it becomes apparent how the
positive consequences of bridging social capital for team-internal generative processes
can be altered and indeed reversed by the team conflict profile that emerges in response
to information brought in by members from external sources. Specifically, bridging
social capital may increase the likelihood for team members to offer new ideas on how
to establish team-internal hierarches, or on the best way to distribute tasks and resources,
which may deviate from existing team practices and thus promote PC (Han, 2018). In
line with the complexity perspective on team conflict (e.g. O’Neill and McLarnon,
2018), greater PC will spiral into RC because process-related disputes easily descend
into interpersonal animosity, thereby creating a vicious cycle of dysfunctional conflict
(Behfar et al., 2008; Greer et al., 2008). RC in conjunction with PC, in turn, will inhibit
members’ cognitive functioning as dysfunctional conflict distracts from work tasks,
ultimately hampering a team’s information processing and exchange capability and pre-
venting effective TC (Behfar et al., 2008; O’Neill et al., 2018b).1 Combined, we predict
that team bridging social capital will promote PC and RC as well as inhibit TC. In so
doing, bridging social capital should give rise to a dysfunctional team conflict profile
and thus exhibit a negative relationship with PTC. Based on the above rationale, we
hypothesize:
Hypothesis 2: Team bridging social capital is negatively related to PTC.
Furthermore, and in line with IPO models of team innovation (Stollberger et al., 2019;
Van Knippenberg, 2017), we additionally expect PTC to be positively related to team
innovation. According to Van Knippenberg (2017), informational resources and potenti-
alities, such as those inherent in team social capital (Borgatti and Halgin, 2011), will only
predict team innovation if teams have effective knowledge exchange and integration
processes in place. Building on this notion, Stollberger et al. (2019) suggest that team
conflict, particularly TC, captures these crucial team processes relevant for team innova-
tion to ensue. More specifically, disagreements about task-related issues characteristic of
TC reveal diverse alternatives regarding task completion, evoke divergent thinking and
encourage teams to reassess the task at hand (e.g. Jehn, 1995), all of which are important
factors for generating new ideas among team members (Farh et al., 2010). In a similar
vein, TC has also been highlighted to be helpful at the stage of idea implementation if
constructive disagreements arise on how to put creative ideas into practice (Stollberger
et al., 2019). However, as mentioned above, the sole reliance on TC to represent informa-
tion exchange and integration processes in teams is suboptimal because other team con-
flict types (i.e. RC and PC) can co-occur and jointly influence team outcomes (Jehn and
Chatman, 2000; O’Neill and McLarnon, 2018). Thus, we examine how PTC as a func-
tional conflict profile relates to team innovation.
Relying on IPO models of team innovation (Stollberger et al., 2019; Van Knippenberg,
2017), we suggest that PTC should promote team innovation for two reasons. First, we
surmise that if TC is meaningfully higher proportional to a team’s general level of con-
flict, such a conflict profile may foster a psychologically safe environment where criti-
cal engagement and risk taking are encouraged and team members do not fear a negative
backlash owing to PC and/or RC (Edmondson, 1999). Second, Stollberger et al. (2019)
note that the positive consequences of TC for team innovation should only be realized
to the extent that team conflict patterns allow for constructive controversy; that is, the
open-minded discussion of opposing views for mutual benefit (Tjosvold, 1991). We
believe that constructive controversy is only possible if dysfunctional conflict dynamics
owing to high PC and/or RC do not undermine a compromising and integrative team
approach to task-related disagreements. In support of our argumentation, recent research
suggests that a TC-dominant team conflict profile, such as PTC, promotes both psycho-
logical safety and constructive controversy in teams (O’Neill et al., 2018a). Thus, we
predict:
Hypothesis 3: PTC is positively related to team innovation.
Combined, across Hypotheses 1–3 our argumentative logic delineates a process

perspective (see Sparrowe and Mayer, 2011) and emphasizes the role of PTC as an
explanatory link between team social capital and team innovation. Taken together, the
negative effects of team bonding and bridging capital on PTC (i.e. Hypotheses 1–2), as
well as the positive PTC–team innovation link (i.e. Hypothesis 3) imply that team
social capital exhibits a negative indirect effect on team innovation via PTC. We thus
propose the following set of hypotheses:
Hypothesis 4: PTC mediates the influence of team bonding social capital on team
innovation, such that team bonding social capital is negatively related to PTC, which
in turn is positively related to team innovation.
Hypothesis 5: PTC mediates the influence of team bridging social capital on team
innovation, such that team bridging social capital is negatively related to PTC, which
in turn is positively related to team innovation.
Team social capital and team innovation: The moderating

role of group- and differentiated individual-focused
transformational leader behaviours
Our theoretical arguments thus far can explain the negative effects of team social capital
on team innovation found in previous studies (Carnabuci and Diószegi, 2015; Dokko
et al., 2014). However, as of yet, they do not speak to the full spectrum of findings
reported in the extant literature that also include null effects (Han et al., 2014; Lee, 2010)
and positive relationships between team social capital and team innovation (Burt, 2004;
Obstfeld, 2005). One reason may be that team social capital merely reflects the proximal
social context without considering other relevant organizational context factors that
could equally exert influence over team conflict patterns (Tasselli et al., 2015). Integrating
SNT (e.g. Burt et al., 2013) with IPO models of team innovation (Stollberger et al., 2019;
Van Knippenberg, 2017) we propose that group- and differentiated individual-focused
transformational leadership (TFL) reflects a potent but heretofore unconsidered context
factor that can attenuate the team social capital–PTC relation and thereby influence team
innovation. Van Knippenberg (2017) proposes that (non-)redundant informational
resources as a function of a team’s available social capital are more likely to translate
into team innovation if motivators exist within the wider team or organizational environ-
ment that effectively facilitate knowledge exchange and integration processes. Echoing
this point, Stollberger et al. (2019) specifically highlight the utility of TFL in influencing
the team input (e.g. team social capital)–team process (e.g. PTC) relation and, in so
doing, regulating team innovation processes. Based on our integrative framework, we
suggest that group- and differentiated individual-focused TFL will modulate the team
social capital–PTC relation because each set of TFL behaviours will be more effective in
realizing the potentialities of teams with a certain network structure and associated social
capital, thereby fostering PTC and team innovation.
Specifically, we propose that differentiated individual-focused TFL has the potential
to generate ideational divergence in teams with bonding social capital and associated
redundant information flows and, in so doing, stimulate greater PTC and subsequent
team innovation. One of the main challenges facing leaders of teams with bonding social
capital is how to facilitate idea generation and exchange given the relative dearth of
original ideas in such teams (Burt, 1992; Martinez and Aldrich, 2011). Individual-
focused TFL as a term includes TFL behaviours that are aimed at followers as individuals
and include intellectual stimulation (i.e. creative stimulation that encourages followers to
challenge prior assumptions concerning work tasks) and individualized consideration
(i.e. a concern regarding followers’ individual needs and development; Kark and Shamir,
2002). In a team context, the within-unit variation of said individual-focused behaviours
has been established as a distinct leadership style (see, for example, Kunze et al., 2016;
Wu et al., 2010; Zhang et al., 2015). As such, differentiated individual-focused TFL is
preferable at the team level over mean individual-focused TFL because employees are
unlikely to attribute and connect positive individualized treatment by a leader to their
collective engagement in teamwork, thus making it less likely that team processes will
benefit from mean individual-focused TFL (Kunze et al., 2016).2 A high level of differ-
entiated individual-focused TFL therefore implies that team leaders behave differently
towards different team members. For instance, in line with followers’ capabilities and
needs, such leaders would intellectually stimulate some (e.g. those with the greatest crea-
tive potential) more than others, as well as display individualized consideration to some
(e.g. those prone to engage in dysfunctional conflict) more than to others (Wu et al.,
2010). Consequently, such leadership will (a) encourage some followers to come up with
and voice divergent ideas, facilitating TC, as well as (b) address concerns of other fol-
lowers and enable them to openly discuss divergent viewpoints without engaging in PC
or RC, thereby promoting greater PTC among team members.
In line with our theoretical rationale, research shows that differentiated individual-
focused TFL can disrupt existing team dynamics (Zhang et al., 2015), which may pro-
mote team processes that facilitate the development and implementation of new ideas
(Eisenbeiss et al., 2008). In the context of the present study, we thus believe that differ-
entiated individual-focused TFL will attenuate the negative indirect relationship between
team bonding social capital and team innovation via PTC. Based on this rationale, we
hypothesize:
Hypothesis 6: The relationship between team bonding social capital and team innova-
tion via PTC will be less negative for teams with high as opposed to low levels of
differentiated individual-focused TFL.
Furthermore, we argue that the display of group-focused TFL encourages followers to

pursue a common team vision and thus contributes to resolving PC and RC, thereby
creating a more coherent team dynamic within which teams can effectively engage in
PTC and achieve greater team innovation. Although leaders of teams with bridging
social capital will find that members have sufficient non-redundant information available
to engage in TC, the high likelihood for PC to occur, spiral into RC and undermine the
team’s cognitive capabilities means that leaders need to find a way to resolve PC and RC
for TC and, when viewed altogether, for PTC to effectively contribute to team innova-
tion. Group-focused TFL, such as inspirational motivation (i.e. inspirational appeals that
motivate followers to reach ambitious goals and strengthen their confidence) and ideal-
ized influence (i.e. charismatic displays that reflect the leader’s values, sense of mission
and purpose, and moral orientation) reflects leader behaviour that views the team as a
whole and treats members in the same fashion; thus, the target of leader influence is the
team rather than individual team members (Kark and Shamir, 2002; Wu et al., 2010). A
high level of group-focused TFL can enhance the salience of a common team identity in
the self-concepts of members, which, in turn, should increase the likelihood of team
members to engage in cooperative behaviour and work towards a team’s mission and
goals rather than pursuing their own agenda (Kark and Shamir, 2002; Wu et al., 2010).
Consequently, we believe leaders displaying group-focused TFL pre-empt occurrences
of PC and RC in teams with weak internal ties and realize the informational potentialities
that accrue from bridging social capital. In so doing, group-focused TFL enables TC, and
ultimately promotes PTC and subsequent team innovation.
Providing indirect empirical evidence for our theoretical claims, prior research
showed that group-focused TFL promotes team identification (Wu et al., 2010) and that
greater team identification alleviates team conflict because it fosters greater trust among
members (Han and Harms, 2010). We thus hypothesize:
Hypothesis 7: The relationship between team bridging social capital and team innova-
tion via PTC will be less negative for teams with high as opposed to low levels of
group-focused TFL.
Methods
Sample and procedures
Our survey data were collected from 45 R&D departments in organizations located in
Iraq in three waves. In the first wave (T1), we collected the data on team social capital
(bonding and bridging social capital) and team members’ perceptions of transforma-
tional leadership behaviours. In the second wave (T2), one month later, we assessed
team members’ experienced task, relationship and PC. In the third wave (T3), con-
ducted one month after T2, department heads completed questionnaires to assess team
innovation.
Concerning our study procedure, we initially discussed the objectives and procedures
of our research with R&D department heads in the organizations participating in the
study. After this, we distributed paper–pencil surveys to the department heads and team
members, asking them to respond individually in a confidential manner across the three
aforementioned waves of our study. Of an initial 352 questionnaires distributed across 46
R&D departments as part of the T1 wave, 337 useable questionnaires (T1 response rate:
95%) were returned. At the start of the second wave, T2 questionnaires were distributed
to the 337 individuals who responded to the T1 survey of which 324 questionnaires were
completed and returned (T2 response rate: 96%). In the final wave, 45 department heads
completed and returned questionnaires evaluating their team’s innovation performance
(T3 response rate: 100%). The final sample therefore consisted of 324 members across
45 R&D teams.
The organizations participating in the study were drawn from a variety of industries
including chemical and petrochemical (22.2%), engineering (22.2%), food and beverage
(17.8%), construction (22.2%) and textiles (15.6%). The department size ranged from
3–14 members. In terms of demographics, the sample was predominantly male (76.2%),
the mean age was 39.07 years (SD = 6.14) and the average organizational tenure was
10.56 years (SD = 5.67). Among study participants, 3.1% held a master’s degree, 60.8%
had a bachelor’s degree, 23.5% held a diploma and 12.6% had other certificates, for
example from vocational school.
Each organization was asked to identify the R&D departments’ heads and to provide
a list of the members of each department. This information is necessary to assess bonding
and bridging ties. We translated scales for this study from English into Arabic following
the backtranslation procedure recommended by Brislin (1980). Our data collection
approach involving multiple sources (i.e. team members and leaders) across three waves
should alleviate concerns regarding common method variance in the current study
(Podsakoff et al., 2012).
Measures
Team bonding social capital (T1). To measure team bonding social capital, respondents
were asked to list the initials of their departmental colleagues and to select a value from
0 to 4 (0 = never, 1 = seldom, 2 = sometimes, 3 = very often, 4 = always) reflecting
how frequently they exchanged information and support with them (Han et al., 2014).
Consistent with previous studies (e.g. Han et al., 2014; Oh et al., 2004), team bonding
social capital was measured as a team’s tie density defined as the average strength of
connection between a team’s internal ties, and operationalized as the sum of the values
of all team member ties divided by the number of possible team member ties (Hanneman
and Riddle, 2005).
Team bridging social capital (T1). We measured team bridging social capital by asking
respondents to select up to 10 individuals (using initials) in the organization from outside
their departments who had helped them by means of providing information, advice and
ideas. Consistent with previous research (e.g. Han et al., 2014; Oh et al., 2004), Blau’s
(1977) index of heterogeneity was used to measure team bridging social capital. The
heterogeneity index reflects the diversity of a team’s external ties. Heterogeneity = (1–
ΣP2i), where P is the proportion of social ties to other departments in the organization.
Group-focused transformational leadership (T1). To measure this construct, we used a

12-item subscale from the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ-5X; Bass and
Avolio, 1990) that assessed the following three sub-dimensions of TFL: attributive ideal-
ized influence, behavioural idealized influence and inspirational motivation. All items
were rated on a five-point Likert-type scale from 0 (‘Not at all’) to 4 (‘Frequently, if not
always’). Following Wu et al. (2010), our study revised the wording of the items to be
consistent with a work group referent (e.g. ‘Our group leader emphasizes the importance
of having a collective sense of mission when working in the group as a whole’). Consist-
ent with previous research (e.g. Wu et al., 2010; Zhang et al., 2015), we used an overall
group-focused transformational leadership construct (α = 0.98) by averaging scores of
the sub-dimensions and aggregating those to the team level.
Differentiated individual-focused transformational leadership (T1). We measured differenti-

ated individual-focused TFL by using two subscales: individualized consideration and
intellectual stimulation. These two subscales had eight items (four items each per sub-
scale) and were drawn from the MLQ-5X (Bass and Avolio, 1990). The response scale
for this construct ranged from 0 (‘Not at all’) to 4 (‘Frequently, if not always’). We kept
the original individual referent for item wording without revision (e.g. ‘My group leader
challenges me to re-examine critical assumptions to question whether they are appropri-
ate’) and, in line with prior studies (e.g. Wu et al., 2010; Zhang et al., 2015), treated dif-
ferentiated individual-focused TFL as a configural group property. Doing so involved
operationalizing the construct as a coefficient of variation, which is calculated by divid-
ing the within-group standard deviation of the individual-focused TFL measure by the
within-group mean score of the same variable (see Wu et al., 2010). We combined the
two aforementioned dimensions into one factor to form the differentiated individual-
focused TFL construct (α = 0.97).
Team PTC (T2). Eight items developed by Jehn (1995) were used to measure TC and RC
(four items each per subscale). A sample item for TC is ‘How frequently are there con-
flicts about ideas in your work unit?’ A sample item for RC is ‘How much are personality
conflicts evident in your work unit?’ PC is measured using three items developed by
Shah and Jehn (1993). A sample item for PC is ‘How frequently do members of your
group disagree about the way to complete a group task?’ These three subscales used a
five-point Likert scale (1 = None, 5 = A lot). Alpha reliabilities for the subscales were
0.94 (TC), 0.88 (RC) and 0.83 (PC), respectively. Following the approach of Jehn and
Chatman (2000), we operationalized PTC as the ratio of the level of TC proportional to
the general level of conflict within the team (task, relationship and PC) using the follow-
ing equation: PTC = TC / (TC + RC + PC).
Team innovation (T3). Team innovation was measured by using a 22-item scale devel-
oped by Eisenbeiss et al. (2008). This measure is consistent with the innovation litera-
ture (e.g. West, 2002), which suggests that innovation measures should include items
assessing both idea generation and idea implementation as well as focus on quantity and
quality of innovations. For each item, the department heads were asked to indicate, on
a seven-point scale ranging from 1 (e.g. no new ideas implemented) to 7 (e.g. many new
ideas implemented) how innovative their department was. Sample items were ‘To what
extent does your department develop ideas concerning new working methods or tech-
niques?’ and ‘To what extent are the ideas concerning new targets or objectives imple-
mented?’ (α = 0.99).
Control variables. Several control variables were included in our analyses to account for
alternative explanations. First, we controlled for team size because innovation-related
team processes are demonstrably influenced by a team’s size (e.g. Curral et al., 2001).
Second, following Oh et al. (2004: 867), the total number of team ties (the sum total of
bonding and bridging ties) was included as control variable to account for the ‘extensivity’
of the respective networks, thus allowing for capturing the unique effects of bonding and
bridging ties. Third, we controlled for the team’s aggregated positive (α = 0.95) and
negative (α = 0.85) affectivity by using the 20-item Positive and negative affect schedule
(PANAS) (Watson et al., 1988; e.g. ‘interested’ and ‘enthusiastic’ for positive affectivity
as well as ‘hostile’ and ‘irritable’ for negative affectivity), rated on a Likert scale from 1
(‘Not at all’) to 5 (‘Extremely’) since positive affectivity may facilitate team innovation
by fostering members’ cognitive flexibility and willingness to adopt others’ views whereas
negative affectivity is likely to narrow members’ horizon and receptivity to different per-
spectives, thus making team innovation less likely (Amabile et al., 2005). Fourth, we
controlled for aggregated openness to experience measured with a two-item scale (α =
0.70, e.g. ‘I see myself as someone who has an active imagination’) rated on a Likert scale
from 1 (‘Strongly disagree’) to 5 (‘Strongly agree’) (Rammstedt and John, 2007) given
the strong association between an openness to diverse experiences with creativity (Feist,
1998) as well as its relevance for innovative behaviour (Madrid et al., 2014).
Justification for aggregation of predictors of team innovation

To justify the aggregation of individual team members’ survey responses to the team
level (group-focused TFL, differentiated individual-focused TFL, TC, RC and PC), we
conducted inter-rater agreement (rwg) and intra-class correlation (ICCs) tests (Bliese,
2000; James et al., 1984). The mean rwg were .95, .71, .88, .93 and .94, respectively,
which indicated a high level of agreement regarding study variables among members
within groups (LeBreton and Senter, 2008). A series of one-way Analysis of variance
(ANOVAs) were performed to calculate ICCs. ICC1 of the five constructs exceeded the
accepted cutoff value (ICC(1) > 0.06 (Bliese, 2000), which indicated adequate levels of
between-group variability. The F ratios associated with the ICC1 value of all four varia-
bles were statistically significant at the .01 level. ICC2 of the five constructs were .97,
.41, .96, .93 and .96, respectively. Therefore, the results above provided sufficient justi-
fication for the aggregation of our study variables to the team level.
Analytical strategy
We tested our hypotheses using path analysis (Muthén and Muthén, 2017). Prior to
hypothesis testing, we z-standardized all study variables apart from the outcome team
innovation to facilitate the interpretation of results (Dawson, 2014). We subsequently
specified two path models. In Model 1, we tested our mediation hypothesis (i.e. H1–H5)
in which team bonding and team bridging social capital, differentiated individual- and
group-focused TFL, as well as control variables predicted PTC (i.e. the a-path).
Furthermore, PTC, bonding and bridging social capital, differentiated individual- and
group-focused TFL, as well as control variables were specified to predict team innovation
(i.e. the b-path). In Model 2, we tested our moderated mediation hypothesis (i.e. H6–H7)
by additionally entering interaction effects between team bonding social capital * differ-
entiated individual-focused TFL and between team bridging social capital * group-focused
TFL. To test the proposed moderated mediation model, we followed recommendations by
Preacher and colleagues (2007) and employed bias-corrected bootstrapping using 10,000
bootstrap resamples. Proof for a moderated mediation effect is obtained if the 95% boot-
strap confidence interval for the difference in the conditional indirect effects (e.g. at +/– 1
standard deviations of the moderator) excludes zero (Hayes, 2015).
Results
Prior to hypothesis testing, a series of confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) were con-
ducted to determine the distinctiveness of study variables. Although previous studies
with a comparable study design (Eisenbeiss et al., 2008; i.e. predictors assessed at the
individual level and the outcome team innovation rated by team leaders at the team level)
performed CFAs solely with individual-level constructs excluding team innovation, we
adopt a more contemporary approach and performed a two-level CFA whereby each
construct is included at the respective level it is measured (i.e. the individual or team
level), which should provide a more accurate overview of how well our measurement
models fits the data (Kim et al., 2016). Accordingly, at the individual level we included
variables pertaining to individual-focused TFL, group-focused TFL, TC, RC and PC. At
the team level, we included team innovation. Two-level CFA results demonstrated ade-
quate model fit (Hu and Bentler, 1999) for the first-order six-factor model (χ2(633) =
1129.39, p < .001, TLI = .96, CFI = .96, SRMR individual-level = .03, SRMR team-
level = .04, RMSEA = .05) as well as superior model fit compared with three alternative
models. Specifically, alternative model 1 combined group- and individual-focused TFL
(χ2(637) = 4153.71, p < .001, TLI = .69, CFI = .71, SRMR individual-level = .18,
SRMR team-level = .04, RMSEA = .13), alternative model 2 combined TC, RC and PC
(χ2(640) = 2542.48, p < .001, TLI = .83, CFI = .85, SRMR individual-level = .11,
SRMR team-level = .04, RMSEA = .10) and alternative model 3 combined group- and
individual-focused TFL, as well as TC, RC and PC into one factor (χ2(643) = 6227.75,
p < .001, TLI = .51, CFI = .55, SRMR individual-level = .22, SRMR team-level = .04,
RMSEA = .16). In sum, our two-level CFA results provide overall support for the dis-
tinctive factor structure of our study variables.
Hypothesis tests
Table 1 summarizes means, standard deviations and intercorrelations among study vari-
ables and Table 2 depicts path analysis results. Model 1 revealed that, although team
social capital does not directly predict team innovation ( β bonding capital = 0.16, t = 0.28,
ns; β bridging capital = 0.17, t = 0.62, ns), in line with Hypotheses 1–3 we found that both
team bonding ( β = −0.89, t = −6.07, p < .001) and team bridging social capital ( β =
−0.46, t = −3.21, p < .01) are negatively associated with PTC and that PTC is positively
related to team innovation ( β = 1.10, t = 2.79, p < .01). Our results further show that
PTC mediates the negative relationship between both team bonding social capital and
team innovation (indirect effect: –.98; 95% CI Low = −1.84; CI High = −.39) as well as
between team bridging social capital and team innovation (indirect effect: –.51; 95% CI
Low = −1.17; CI High = −.15), thereby supporting Hypotheses 4–5. Moreover, results
for Model 2 demonstrated that the interaction term between team bridging social capital
and group-focused TFL significantly predicted PTC ( β = 0.35, t = 3.56, p < .001).
Stollberger et al.
Table 1. Means, standard deviations and intercorrelations among study variables.
Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1. Team size 7.62 3.42 —
2. Total number of team ties 103 93.9 .87** —
3. Team positive affectivity 3.58 0.27 .16 .17 —
4. Team negative affectivity 1.97 0.30 −.09 −.08 −.12 —
5. Team openness to experience 3.43 0.50 .08 .16 −.18 −.18 —
6. Team bonding social capital 1.90 0.71 −.25 .14 −.06 .09 .13 —
7. Team bridging social capital 0.49 0.15 .18 .07 −.19 −.16 .28 −.17 —
8. Group-focused TFL 2.81 0.96 −.13 −.09 .06 .26 −.17 .07 −.45** —
9. Differentiated individual-focused TFL 0.39 0.19 .04 .16 .01 −.30* .38** .05 .34** −.58** —
10. Team proportional task conflict 0.45 0.12 −.06 −.09 −.11 −.03 −.24 −.49** −.31* −.09 .27 —
11. Team innovation 3.55 1.64 −.07 −.16 −.03 −.11 .04 −.42** −.04 −.01 .35* .65** —
N = 45 teams. *p < .05; **p < .01.

887
888
Table 2. Path analysis results.
Predictors Model 1 Model 2
Team proportional task Team in novation Team proportional task Team innovation
conflict conflict
β SE t ΔR² β SE t ΔR² β SE t ΔR² β SE t ΔR²

Team size −.26 .12 −2.22* .27 .32 0.83 −.21 .11 −1.80 .27 .32 0.83
Total number of team ties .01 .00 1.96 −.01 .01 −0.94 .01 .00 1.33 −.01 .01 −0.94
Team positive affectivity −.07 .10 −0.66 −.12 .19 −0.61 .04 .09 0.45 −.12 .19 −0.61
Team negative affectivity .05 .10 0.49 −.07 .19 −0.35 .14 .09 1.59 −.07 .19 −0.35
Team openness to experience −.24 .11 −2.10* .19 .26 0.74 −.15 .09 −1.79 .19 .26 0.74
Team bonding social capital −.89 .15 −6.07*** .16 .55 0.28 −.77 .18 −4.38*** .16 .55 0.28
Team bridging social capital −.46 .15 −3.21** .17 .27 0.62 −.30 .12 −2.46* .17 .27 0.62
Group-focused TFL −.09 .19 −0.45 .58 .35 1.66 −.26 .16 1.62 .58 .35 1.66
Differentiated individual-focused TFL .42 .16 2.62** .59 .42 1.39 .27 .15 1.79 .59 .42 1.39
Team proportional task conflict 1.10 .39 2.79** 1.10 .39 2.79**
Team bonding social capital X .14 .13 1.14
Differentiated individual-focused TFL
Team bridging social capital X .35 .10 3.56***
Group-focused TFL .72*** .59*** .85*** .59***
N 45 45 45 45
Notes: Path analysis results were derived from simultaneously testing all study hypotheses in one model. Values can be interpreted as standardized coefficients
because all predictors were z standardized; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.
Human Relations 76(6)
Figure 2. Moderating effect of group-focused transformational leadership on the relationship

between team bridging social capital and proportional task conflict.
Simple slope analyses (Aiken and West, 1991) revealed that the slope for low group-
focused TFL was significant and negative (–1 SD, β = −0.65, t = −4.21, p < .001),
whereas for teams experiencing high group-focused TFL there was no relationship
between bridging social capital and PTC (+1 SD, β = 0.05, t = 0.32, ns). The interac-
tion effect is illustrated in Figure 2. In a similar vein, moderated mediation analyses
showed that the negative indirect effect of team bridging social capital on team innova-
tion via PTC was present for teams with low (conditional indirect effect: –.72; 95% CI
Low = −1.44; CI High = −.24) but not high group-focused TFL (conditional indirect
effect: .06; 95% CI Low = −.21; CI High = .49), and that the difference was significant
(difference: .77; 95% CI Low = .17; CI High = 1.57). These results suggest that team
bridging social capital led to decreased team innovation via reduced PTC but only when
group-focused TFL was low. Taken together, these results support Hypothesis 6. Finally,
the interaction between team bonding social capital and differentiated individual-focused
TFL did not significantly predict PTC ( β = 0.14, t = 1.14, ns), which precluded a fur-
ther test for moderated mediation and, as a result, Hypothesis 7 does not receive
support.
Supplemental analyses
Additional analyses were conducted to examine whether direct effects of TFL (Lee et al.,
2020), curvilinear social capital effects (see, for example, Oh et al., 2004) or an interac-
tion effect between bridging and bonding social capital (Han et al., 2014) influence team
innovation via PTC. Although our decision to examine the moderating role of TFL is
theoretically informed by IPO models of team innovation (i.e. Stollberger et al., 2019),
most prior research tested direct effects of TFL on team innovation (Lee et al., 2020). We
therefore additionally examined the possibility of whether group- or differentiated indi-
vidual-focused TFL predicts team innovation via PTC. Results of Model 1 revealed a
positive relationship between differentiated individual-focused TFL ( β = 0.43, t =
2.59, p < .05) but not group-focused TFL ( β = −0.09, t = −0.43, ns) and PTC. Our
findings further showed that PTC mediates the positive relationship between differenti-
ated individual-focused TFL and team innovation (indirect effect: .47; 95% CI Low =
.10; CI High = 1.19). These results suggest that displaying differentiated individual-
focused TFL directly facilitates functional team conflict processes, such as PTC and, in
so doing, promotes team innovation. In contrast, group-focused TFL more indirectly
affects these interrelationships by buffering the negative effects of bridging social capital
on team innovation via PTC. Moreover, we neither found curvilinear team bonding
( β = −0.16, t = −1.14, ns) or team bridging social capital effects ( β = 0.12, t = 0.58,
ns) nor that a team bonding * team bridging social capital interaction ( β = 0.10, t =
0.40, ns) significantly predicted team PTC. In a similar vein, curvilinear team bonding
( β = 0.38, t = 1.17, ns) and team bridging social capital ( β = −0.22, t = −0.71, ns) as
well as a team bonding * team bridging social capital interaction ( β = 0.28, t = 0.78,
ns) terms were unrelated to team innovation. Importantly, our study results remained
substantively unaffected when controlling for these additional parameters found in previ-
ous studies.
Discussion
Integrating SNT (e.g. Burt et al., 2013) with IPO models of team innovation (Stollberger
et al., 2019; Van Knippenberg, 2017), we developed and tested a moderated mediation
model examining how and when team social capital influences team innovation.
Empirical results from a multisource, time-lagged survey of R&D teams in Iraq provided
support for a negative relationship between both team bridging and team bonding social
capital and team innovation via decreases in PTC. Moreover, group-focused TFL was
found to buffer team bridging capital’s negative influence on PTC and subsequent team
innovation, whereas differentiated individual-focused TFL failed to modulate the nega-
tive effect of team bonding social capital on team innovation via PTC.
Theoretical implications
Our research makes several noteworthy contributions to the literatures on social capital
and team innovation.
Contributions to the social capital literature. Our findings show that team social capital has no
direct effect on team innovation. Instead, our results reveal that both team bonding and team
bridging social capital is negatively related to team innovation via PTC. This finding extends
the thus far inconclusive social capital literature that has promoted positive, negative and
null effects of social capital on the effectiveness (Moore et al., 2018; Oh et al., 2004), crea-
tivity (Burt, 2004; Han et al., 2014; Perry-Smith, 2006; Soda et al., 2021; Zhou et al., 2009)
and innovative potential (Carnabuci and Diószegi, 2015; Dokko et al., 2014; Lee, 2010;
Obstfeld, 2005) of teams and individuals.
We suggest that one reason behind the discordant findings of prior research may be
that most studies have placed insufficient emphasis on the examination of underlying
mechanisms that explain how team social capital influences the creativity and innova-
tion of teams (see Maurer et al., 2011 for a similar argumentation). This point is also
echoed by recent theorizing on social networks (Tasselli et al., 2015), which suggests
that prior work neglected to sufficiently account for the embeddedness of social net-
works in their respective social and organizational context as well as the consequences
thereof.
Speaking to this issue, our findings demonstrate the importance of considering the
immediate team context to explain both negative and null effects reported in the extant
literature between team social capital and team innovation. Specifically, our findings
show that, although not exhibiting a direct relationship, both team bonding and bridging
social capital negatively relate to team innovation via decreases in PTC. High levels of
team bonding social capital are likely to increase the homogeneity of ideas in teams, cre-
ate redundant knowledge flows (Ertug et al., 2022) and make groupthink more likely
(Kijkuit and Van Den Ende, 2007), all of which reduces the potential for teams to engage
in PTC and to produce innovative solutions (O’Neill et al., 2018b; Stollberger et al.,
2019). High levels of team bridging social capital, in turn, may lead to challenges con-
cerning how to absorb and integrate diverse information obtained from outside sources
(Alguezaui and Filieri, 2010; Han et al., 2014). Such intra-team struggles are likely to
have an adverse effect on team innovation by increasing PC as well as RC and conse-
quently reduce the PTC teams engage in (O’Neill et al., 2018b). In addition, supplemen-
tal analyses showed the absence of curvilinear social capital effects or interactive effects
between team bonding and team bridging social capital reported in previous research
(e.g. Han et al., 2014; Zhou et al., 2009). Taken together, our study contributes to the
social capital literature by emphasizing the relevance of considering a process perspec-
tive regarding team social capital effects and, more specifically, by highlighting PTC as
an underlying mechanism that helps elucidate prior findings on team social capital and
team innovation.
Contributions to the team innovation literature. From the perspective of team innovation
research, our study extends the scope of IPO models of team innovation (Stollberger
et al., 2019; Van Knippenberg, 2017) in various ways. First, to the best of our knowledge,
our study is the first to examine social capital effects on team innovation after prior
research that has examined relationships with innovation at the organizational (Maurer
et al., 2011) and individual level (Carnabuci and Diószegi, 2015). Thus, our findings
serve to inform future discussions on the homology of social capital effects on innova-
tion across levels of analysis, which play an ‘integral role in the validation of multilevel
constructs and theories’ (Chen et al., 2005: 376). Our research thus contributes to the
team innovation literature because although a team’s social network characteristics have
previously been theorized to affect team innovation via relevant team processes (Stoll-
berger et al., 2019), an IPO examination of team social capital on team innovation includ-
ing the consideration of relevant underlying mechanisms has so far been lacking.
Second, by examining the moderating role of differentiated individual- and group-

focused TFL, we further contribute to IPO models of team innovation (e.g. Stollberger
et al., 2019) that highlight leadership as a crucial contingency factor for team innovation
while at the same time recognizing the need for greater dimensional specificity when
examining TFL effects (Van Knippenberg and Sitkin, 2013). On the one hand, our find-
ings reveal that group-focused TFL buffers the negative effect of team bridging social
capital on team innovation via PTC. A possible explanation for this effect is that in teams
with many bridging ties and frequent inter-team exchange, group-focused leader behav-
iours such as idealized influence and inspirational motivation may serve to communicate
a common vision and reaffirm to team members that they all contribute to the same
goals, thus avoiding dysfunctional team conflict. On the other hand, we did not find a
similar moderated mediation effect for differentiated individual-focused TFL influenc-
ing the negative consequences of team bonding social capital. The culture of our study
context in Iraq may provide an alternative explanation for the ineffectiveness of differen-
tiated individual-focused TFL behaviours in curtailing the negative impact of team bond-
ing social capital. Lord and Maher (1991) were the first to highlight that prototypical
behavioural expectations towards leaders, or implicit leadership theories, matter for
leadership effectiveness and their content depends on the respective national cultural
context (House et al., 2002). Given that Middle Eastern countries such as Iraq score
highly on collectivism and associate loyalty and cohesiveness with their work relation-
ships (House et al., 2002; Javidan et al., 2006), leadership, including displays of differ-
entiated individual-focused TFL, may prove ineffective in counteracting the effects of
bonding social capital because the reverence of a tight-knit collective may be perceived
as culturally appropriate. Similarly, culture may play a role in how conflict is handled
(Feitosa et al., 2018). Specifically, collectivistic countries, such as Iraq, prefer a more
collaborative (as opposed to a dominating) conflict handling style (Gunkel et al., 2016).
Additionally, in supplemental analyses we explored whether the display of TFL
behaviours more directly affects PTC and team innovation independently of a team’s
social network architecture. Our results demonstrated that differentiated individual-
focused TFL but not group-focused TLF promoted team innovation via increases in PTC.
Because differentiated individual-focused TFL selectively caters to and develops team
members’ needs and abilities in the interest of team performance, such leader behaviours
may provide teams with necessary intellectual and/or personal resources to effectively
resolve their task-related disagreements themselves (Wu et al., 2010). In so doing, dif-
ferentiated individual-focused TFL may foster team innovation by empowering team
members to engage in functional team conflict such as PTC, which is in line with prior
evidence on TFL, creativity and innovation (Eisenbeiss et al., 2008; Lee et al., 2020).
Practical implications
Our research offers implications for organizational practice insofar as it emphasizes the
need for managers to be aware of and counteract the potential disadvantages of their team’s
social network dynamics for team innovation. According to our findings, one possible way
to promote team innovation is to discourage bonding social capital, facilitate the benefits
of bridging social capital and train group-focused transformational leader behaviours.
First, in order to prevent the development of teams with high bonding social capital
and associated redundant information flows, managers interested in fostering team inno-
vation may facilitate the development of shared team norms that revolve around open-
ness to change. Alternatively, managers can hire new team members and, as a result,
change the team’s composition to stimulate novel idea generation and implementation
(Choi and Thompson, 2005).
Second, to promote team bridging social capital, potential new hires should be
selected based on how highly they score on the personality traits self-monitoring, extra-
version, openness to experience and conscientiousness as such individuals have been
shown to be more adept at creating bridging ties, either in the shape of broader friendship
(openness to experience) or advice networks (extraversion), or both (self-monitoring,
conscientiousness; Fang et al., 2015). Organizations could employ psychometric testing
procedures to identify those applicants with a favourable personality profile and recruit
them into teams with a view to increasing their bridging social capital.
Third, from a theoretical perspective we proposed PC to be the most immediate con-
sequence of teams with both bonding and bridging social capital, which then, through
complex interdependencies among the remaining team conflict types, negatively relates
to PTC. Practically, this suggests that there is an opportunity to pre-empt a dysfunctional
conflict spiral by counteracting PC if it occurs early in a team’s time together (Greer
et al., 2008). This could be done by engaging teams in conflict management training that
should be informed by the conflict resolution preferences of the cultural context organi-
zations are operating in (i.e. preferences for dominating, integrating, avoiding or oblig-
ing conflict resolution; Gunkel et al., 2016).
Fourth, organizations could encourage their managers to attend leadership develop-
ment workshops in order for them to train situationally specific displays of group-focused
transformational leadership (Day et al., 2014). This is relevant because from our study’s
findings it follows that group-focused transformational leader behaviours such as ideal-
ized influence serve to mitigate the negative effects of bridging social capital and likely
promote external knowledge integration.
Limitations and future research directions

Like any research, our study has a number of potential limitations that, once identified,
can help inform future research. In line with most social network research (e.g. Carnabuci
and Diószegi, 2015; Maurer et al., 2011; Zhou et al., 2009), our cross-sectional design
prevents us from drawing definite causal conclusions. Future research with a longitudi-
nal or experimental design is required to firmly establish causality with respect to our
proposed interrelationships. Furthermore, we focused on PTC and TFL as mediator and
moderator of the team social capital–team innovation link over other potential processes
(e.g. psychological safety; Stollberger et al., 2019) and boundary conditions (e.g. authen-
tic and servant leadership; Hughes et al., 2018) for two reasons. First, we examined PTC
because team conflict is regarded as one of the key processes facilitating knowledge
integration for greater creativity and innovation in teams (e.g. De Dreu, 2006; O’Neill
et al., 2018b), thus making PTC the most appropriate candidate for our study of team
social capital as this reflects informational resources that need to be successfully
integrated into teamwork. Second, although other leadership styles, such as authentic or
servant leadership, have also been related to team innovation (Hughes et al., 2018), the
predominantly moral approach these leadership styles embody (Lemoine et al., 2018)
means that they exert their influence more indirectly by affecting social exchange and
social learning processes as opposed to team conflict. Regardless, examining the rele-
vance of explanatory mechanisms and boundary conditions other than those reported in
this research represents a fruitful avenue for future research. Finally, although on the
small side, our sample size of 45 teams is greater than that of similar studies (Eisenbeiss
et al., 2008; Han et al., 2014; West and Anderson, 1996) and Koopman and colleagues
(2015) demonstrated that the bootstrapping procedure we used reduces Type I error and
statistical power concerns.
Conclusion
Our results highlight the importance of considering underlying mechanisms and contin-
gencies of team social capital effects with respect to team innovation and the related
utility of a complexity approach to social network research. Such an integrative approach
is useful to reconcile prior research findings and identify new ways of looking at team
innovation. We hope that our approach will inspire future researchers to further explore
the social team dynamics of innovation.
Acknowledgement
We would like to thank Michael A West for his insightful contributions to previous drafts of this
article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this
article.
ORCID iDs
Jakob Stollberger https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9642-7321
Amer Ali Al-Atwi https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1799-0066
Notes
1 Although other research has shown that PC (but not RC) is positively associated with TC
(Greer et al., 2008; yet also see Behfar et al., 2011 for contradictory evidence), this is unlikely
to represent effective TC that promotes constructive information exchange because too much
of the team’s information processing resources would have had to be diverted towards dealing
with PC and RC (Behfar et al., 2008; O’Neill et al., 2018b). For this reason, team conflict pro-
file scholars (O’Neill and McLarnon, 2018; O’Neill et al., 2018b) argue that a conflict profile
where all conflict types are high is very unlikely to occur, which informs our theorizing in this
respect.
2 Further arguments include that differentiated individual-focused TFL behaviours reflect a
leader’s efforts to optimally cater to followers’ needs and abilities in the interest of team
performance (Kark and Shamir, 2002; Wu et al., 2010), which is the core purpose of
individual-focused TFL in stark contrast to the notion of equitably caring for and develop-
ing every follower (Avolio and Bass, 1995). Furthermore, methodologically speaking, con-
structs of interest need to be specified at their appropriate level of analysis to avoid inferential
errors associated with multilevel fallacies (e.g. ecological fallacy; Rousseau, 1985). Applied
to this research, team-level TFL behaviours, such as differentiated individual-focused TFL,
should be used to meaningfully predict outcomes at the team level of analysis. Finally, our
results were substantively unaffected when controlling for mean individual-focused TFL in
our analyses.
References
Aiken LS and West SG (1991) Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Sage.
Alguezaui S and Filieri R (2010) Investigating the role of social capital in innovation: Sparse ver-
sus dense network. Journal of Knowledge Management 14(6): 891–909.
Amabile TM, Barsade SG, Mueller JS, et al. (2005) Affect and creativity at work. Administrative
Science Quarterly 50(3): 367–403.
Anderson N, Potocnik K and Zhou J (2014) Innovation and creativity in organizations: A state-of-
the science review, prospective commentary, and guiding framework. Journal of Management
40(5): 1297–1333.
Avolio BJ and Bass BM (1995) Individual consideration viewed at multiple levels of analysis:
A multi-level framework for examining the diffusion of transformational leadership. The
Leadership Quarterly 6(2): 199–218.
Barsh J, Capozzi MM and Davidson J (2008) Leadership and innovation. McKinsey Quarterly 1:
36–47.
Bass BM (1985) Leadership and Performance beyond Expectation. New York: Free Press.
Bass BM and Avolio BJ (1990) Transformational Leadership Development: Manual for the
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist Press.
Behfar KJ, Mannix EA, Peterson RS, et al. (2011) Conflict in small groups: The meaning and
consequences of process conflict. Small Group Research 42(2): 127–176.
Behfar KJ, Peterson RS, Mannix EA, et al. (2008) The critical role of conflict resolution in teams:
A close look at the links between conflict type, conflict management strategies, and team
outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology 93(1): 170–188.
Blau PM (1977) Inequality and Heterogeneity. New York: Free Press.
Bliese PD (2000) Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for
data aggregation and analysis. In: Klein KJ and Kozlowski SWJ (eds) Multi-Level Theory,
Research, and Methods in Organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 349–381.
Borgatti SP and Halgin DS (2011) On network theory. Organization Science 22(5): 1168–1181.
Brislin RW (1980) Translation and content analysis of oral and written material. In: Triandis HC
and Berry JW (eds) Handbook of Cross-Cultural Psychology. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon,
398–444.
Burt RS (1992) Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Burt RS (2004) Structural holes and good ideas. American Journal of Sociology 110(2): 349–399.
Burt RS, Kilduff M and Tasselli S (2013) Social network analysis: Foundations and frontiers on
advantage. Annual Review of Psychology 64(1): 527–547.
Carnabuci G and Diószegi B (2015) Social networks, cognitive style, and innovative performance:
A contingency perspective. Academy of Management Journal 58(3): 881–905.
Chang ML (2017) On the relationship between intragroup conflict and social capital in teams: A
longitudinal investigation in Taiwan. Journal of Organizational Behavior 38(1): 3–27.
Chen M-H (2009) Guanxi networks and creativity in Taiwanese project teams. Creativity and
Innovation Management 18(4): 269–277.
Chen G, Bliese PD and Mathieu JE (2005) Conceptual framework and statistical procedures for
delineating and testing multilevel theories of homology. Organizational Research Methods
8(4): 375–409.
Choi HS and Thompson L (2005) Old wine in a new bottle: Impact of membership change on
group creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 98(1): 121–132.
Coleman JS (1988) Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology
94: 95–120.
Curral LA, Forrester RH, Dawson JF, et al. (2001) It’s what you do and the way that you do it:
Team task, team size, and innovation-related group processes. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology 10(2): 187–204.
Curşeu PL, Janssen SE and Raab J (2012) Connecting the dots: Social network structure, conflict,
and group cognitive complexity. Higher Education 63(5): 621–629.
Day DV, Fleenor JW, Atwater LE, et al. (2014) Advances in leader and leadership development: A
review of 25 years of research and theory. The Leadership Quarterly 25(1): 63–82.
Dawson JF (2014) Moderation in management research: What, why, when, and how. Journal of
Business and Psychology 29(1): 1–19.
De Dreu C (2006) When too little or too much hurts: Evidence for a curvilinear relationship
between task conflict and innovation in teams. Journal of Management 32(1): 83–107.
De Dreu CKW and Weingart LR (2003) Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and
team member satisfaction: A meta analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology 88(4): 741–749.
De Dreu CKW and West M (2001) Minority dissent and team innovation: The importance of par-
ticipation in decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology 86(6): 1191–1201.
Dokko G, Kane AA and Tortoriello M (2014) One of us or one of my friends: How social iden-
tity and tie strength shape the creative generativity of boundary-spanning ties. Organization
Studies 35(5): 703–726.
Dong M, Jiao J and Xia J (2022) Consequences of homophily: Does social status similarity enhance
project performance? Asian Business & Management 21: 58–81.
Edmondson AC (1999) Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative
Science Quarterly 44(2): 350–383.
Eisenbeiss SA, Van Knippenberg D and Boerner S (2008) Transformational leadership and
team innovation: Integrating team climate principles. Journal of Applied Psychology 93(6):
1438–1446.
Elkins T and Keller RT (2003) Leadership in research and development organizations: A literature
review and conceptual framework. The Leadership Quarterly 14(4): 587–606.
Ertug G, Brennecke J, Kovács B, et al. (2022) What does homophily do? A review of the conse-
quences of homophily. Academy of Management Annals 16(1): 38–69.
Fang R, Landis B, Zhang Z, et al. (2015) Integrating personality and social networks: A meta-
analysis of personality, network position, and work outcomes in organizations. Organization
Science 26(4): 1243–1260.
Farh J, Lee C and Farh CIC (2010) Task conflict and team creativity: A question of how much and
when. Journal of Applied Psychology 95(6): 1173–1180.
Feist GJ (1998) A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity. Personality and
Social Psychology Review 2(4): 290–309.
Feitosa J, Grossman R and Salazar M (2018) Debunking key assumptions about teams: The role of
culture. American Psychologist 73(4): 376–389.
Greer LL, Jehn KA and Mannix EA (2008) Conflict transformation: A longitudinal investigation
of the relationships between different types of intragroup conflict and the moderating role of
conflict resolution. Small Group Research 39(3): 278–302.
Gunkel M, Schlaegel C and Taras V (2016) Cultural values, emotional intelligence, and conflict
handling styles: A global study. Journal of World Business 51(4): 568–585.
Han G and Harms PD (2010) Team identification, trust and conflict: A mediation model.
International Journal of Conflict Management 21(1): 20–43.
Han J (2018) Team-bonding and team-bridging social capital: Conceptualization and implications.
Team Performance Management: An International Journal 24(1): 17–42.
Han J, Han J and Brass DJ (2014) Human capital diversity in the creation of social capital for team
creativity. Journal of Organizational Behavior 35(1): 54–71.
Hanneman RA and Riddle M (2005) Introduction to Social Network Methods. Riverside, CA:
University of California.
Hansen MT (1999) The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge
across organisational subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly 44(1): 82–111.
Hayes AF (2015) An index and simple test of linear moderated mediation. Multivariate Behavioral
Research 50(1): 1–22.
House R, Javidan M, Hanges P, et al. (2002) Understanding cultures and implicit leadership theo-
ries across the globe: An introduction to project GLOBE. Journal of World Business 37(1):
3–10.
Hu L and Bentler PM (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling 6(1): 1–55.
Hughes DJ, Lee A, Tian AW, et al. (2018) Leadership, creativity, and innovation: A critical review
and practical recommendations. The Leadership Quarterly 29(5): 549–569.
Hülsheger UR, Anderson N and Salgado JF (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.
James LR, Demaree RG and Wolf G (1984) Estimating within groups interrater reliability with and
without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology 69(1): 85–98.
Janssen O, Van De Vliert E and Veenstra C (1999) How task and person conflict shape the role
of positive interdependence in management teams. Journal of Management 25(2): 117–142.
Javidan M, Dorfman PW, De Luque MS, et al. (2006) In the eye of the beholder: Cross cultural
lessons in leadership from project GLOBE. Academy of Management Perspectives 20(4):
67–90.
Jehn KA (1995) A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict.
Administrative Science Quarterly 40(2): 256–282.
Jehn KA and Chatman JA (2000) The influence of proportional and perceptual conflict composi-
tion on team performance. International Journal of Conflict Management 13(1): 56–74.
Jehn K, Greer L, Levine S, et al. (2008) The effects of conflict types, dimensions, and emergent
states on group outcomes. Group Decision and Negotiation 17: 465–495.
Kark R and Shamir B (2002) The dual effect of transformational leadership: Priming relational
and collective selves and further effects on followers. In: Avolio BJ and Yammarino FJ (eds)
Transformational and Charismatic Leadership: The Road Ahead. Bingley: Emerald, 6–94.
Kijkuit B and Van Den Ende J (2007) The organizational life of an idea: Integrating social net-
work, creativity and decision-making perspectives. Journal of Management Studies 44(6):
863–882.
Kim ES, Dedrick RF, Cao C, et al. (2016) Multilevel factor analysis: Reporting guidelines and a
review of reporting practices. Multivariate Behavioral Research 51(6): 881–898.
Koopman J, Howe M, Hollenbeck JR, et al. (2015) Small sample mediation testing: Misplaced con-
fidence in bootstrapped confidence intervals. Journal of Applied Psychology 100(1): 194–202.
Kunze F, De Jong SB and Bruch H (2016) Consequences of collective-focused leadership and dif-
ferentiated individual-focused leadership: Development and testing of an organizational-level
model. Journal of Management 42(4): 886–914.
Lawrence BS and Shah NP (2020) Homophily: Measures and meaning. Academy of Management
Annals 14(2): 513–597.
LeBreton JM and Senter JL (2008) Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability and inter-
rater agreement. Organizational Research Methods 11(4): 815–852.
Lee A, Legood A, Hughes D, et al. (2020) Leadership, creativity and innovation: A meta-analytic
review. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 29(1): 1–35.
Lee J (2010) Heterogeneity, brokerage, and innovative performance: Endogenous formation of
collaborative inventor networks. Organization Science 21(4): 804–822.
Lemoine GJ, Hartnell CA and Leroy H (2018) Taking stock of moral approaches to leadership:
An integrative review of ethical, authentic, and servant leadership. Academy of Management
Annals 13(1): 148–187.
Lord RG and Maher KJ (1991) Leadership and Information Processing: Linking Perceptions and
Performance. Boston, MA: Unwin Hyman.
McGrath JE (1964) Social Psychology: A Brief Introduction. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Madrid HP, Patterson MG and Birdi KS (2014) The role of weekly high-activated positive mood,
context, and personality in innovative work behavior: A multilevel and interactional model.
Journal of Organizational Behavior 35(2): 234–256.
Martinez M and Aldrich H (2011) Networking strategies for entrepreneurs: Balancing cohesion
and diversity. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research 17(1): 7–38.
Maurer I, Bartsch V and Ebers M (2011) The value of intra-organizational social capital: How it
fosters knowledge transfer, innovation performance, and growth. Organization Studies 32(2):
157–185.
Moore CB, Payne GT, Autry CW, et al. (2018) Project complexity and bonding social capital in
network organizations. Group and Organization Management 43(6): 936–970.
Muthén LK and Muthén BO (2017) Mplus User’s Guide (Eighth Ed). Muthén & Muthén.
Obstfeld D (2005) Social networks, the tertius lungens orientation and involvement in innovation.
Administrative Science Quarterly 50(1): 100–130.
Oh H, Chung M-H and Labianca G (2004) Group social capital and group effectiveness. Academy
of Management Journal 47(6): 860–875.
Oh H, Labianca G and Chung M-H (2006) A multilevel model of group social capital. Academy of
Management Review 31(3): 569–582.
O’Neill TA and McLarnon MJW (2018) Optimizing team conflict dynamics for high performance
teamwork. Human Resource Management Review 28(4): 378–394.
O’Neill TA, Allen NJ and Hastings SE (2013) Examining the ‘pros’ and ‘cons’ of team conflict:
A team-level meta-analysis of task, relationship, and process conflict. Human Performance
26(3): 236–260.
O’Neill TA, McLarnon MJW, Hoffart G, et al. (2018a) The multilevel nomological net of team
conflict profiles. International Journal of Conflict Management 29(1): 24–46.
O’Neill TA, McLarnon MJW, Hoffart GC, et al. (2018b) The structure and function of team con-
flict state profiles. Journal of Management 44(2): 811–836.
Perry-Smith JE (2006) Social yet creative: The role of social relationships in facilitating individual
creativity. Academy of Management Journal 49(1): 85–101.
Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB and Podsakoff NP (2012) Sources of method bias in social sci-
ence research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology 65:
539–569.
Preacher KJ, Rucker DD and Hayes AF (2007) Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses:
Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research 42(1): 185–227.
Rammstedt B and John OP (2007) Measuring personality in one minute or less: A 10-item short
version of the Big Five Inventory in English and German. Journal of Research in Personality
41(1): 203–212.
Rousseau DM (1985) Issue of level in organizational research: Multilevel and cross-level perspec-
tives. Research in Organizational Behavior 7: 1–37.
Seibert SE, Kraimer ML and Liden RC (2001) A social capital theory of career success. Academy
Shah P and Jehn K (1993) Do friends perform better than acquaintances? The interaction of friend-
ship, conflict, and task. Group Decision and Negotiation 2: 149–166.
Soda G, Mannucci PV and Burt R (2021) Networks, creativity, and time: Staying creative through
brokerage and network rejuvenation. Academy of Management Journal 64(4): 1164–1190.
Sparrowe RT and Mayer KJ (2011) Publishing in AMJ – part 4: Grounding hypotheses. Academy
Stollberger J, West MA and Sacramento CA (2019) Innovation in work teams. In: Paulus PB and
Nijstad BA (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Group Creativity and Innovation. New York:
Oxford University Press, 231–252.
Tasselli S, Kilduff M and Menges JI (2015) The microfoundations of organizational social net-
works: A review and an agenda for future research. Journal of Management 41(5): 1361–1387.
Tjosvold D (1991) Team Organization: An Enduring Competitive Advantage. Chichester: Wiley.
Van Knippenberg D (2017) Team innovation. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and
Organizational Behavior 4: 211–233.
Van Knippenberg D and Sitkin SB (2013) A critical assessment of charismatic–transformational
leadership research: Back to the drawing board? Academy of Management Annals 7(1): 1–60.
Watson D, Clark LA and Tellegen A (1988) Development and validation of brief measures of posi-
tive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
54(6): 1063–1070.
West MA (2002) Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: An integrative model of creativity and
innovation implementation in work groups. Applied Psychology: An International Review
51(3): 355–387.
West MA and Anderson N (1996) Innovation in top management teams. Journal of Applied
Psychology 81(6): 680–693.
Wu JB, Tsui AS and Kinicki AJ (2010) Consequences of differentiated leadership in groups.
Academy of Management Journal 53(1): 90–106.
Zhang XA, Li N, Ullrich J, et al. (2015) Getting everyone on board: The effect of differentiated
transformational leadership by CEOs on top management team effectiveness and leader-rated
firm performance. Journal of Management 41(7): 1898–1933.
Zheng W (2010) A social capital perspective of innovation from individuals to nations: Where
is empirical literature directing us? International Journal of Management Reviews 12(2):
151–183.
Zhou J, Shin SJ, Brass DJ, et al (2009). Social networks, personal values, and creativity: Evidence
for curvilinear and interaction effects. Journal of Applied Psychology 94(6): 1544–1552.
Jakob Stollberger is an Associate Professor in Organizational Behaviour at the School of Business

and Economics, Vrije Univeriseit Amsterdam. His research examines topics such as leadership
and innovation, the intersection between work and family, and the role of AI in the future of work.
He has published his work in journals such as Journal of Applied Psychology, Human Relations
and Journal of Organizational Behavior. [Email: j.stollberger@vu.nl]
Amer Ali Al-Atwi is a Professor of Organizational Behaviour at Al Muthanna University. He
received his PhD in organizational behaviour from Baghdad University in 2012. His research
focuses broadly on leadership, organizational misbehaviour, organizational identification and
issues in social network. Al-Atwi’s academic work has been published in international scholarly
journals such as Journal of Organizational Behavior, International Business Review and Group &
Organization Management. [Email: amer@mu.edu.iq]
David De Cremer is Provost Chair and Professor in Management and Organization at NUS
Business School where he is also the director and founder of the Centre on AI Technology for
Humankind (AiTH). He is a best-selling author (Huawei: Leadership, Culture and Connectivity
and Leadership by Algorithm: Who Leads and Who Follows in the AI Era?) and his research focus
is on organizational justice, trust, leadership, behavioural business ethics and a human-centred
approach to AI. His research has been published, among others, in Academy of Management
Journal, Academy of Management Annals, Academy of Management Perspectives, Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Journal of Applied Psychology, Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, Psychological Science, Harvard Business Review, and Nature Human
Behavior. [Email: bizddc@nus.edu.sg]

Social Capital

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Social Capital

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1080995

team innovation link: The role of Article reuse guidelines:

focused transformational leadership

Amer Ali Al-Atwi

Theoretical background and hypothesis development

Team social capital and team innovation: The mediating

Hypothesis 1: Team bonding social capital is negatively related to PTC.

Hypothesis 2: Team bridging social capital is negatively related to PTC.

Hypothesis 3: PTC is positively related to team innovation.

Combined, across Hypotheses 1–3 our argumentative logic delineates a process

Team social capital and team innovation: The moderating

Furthermore, we argue that the display of group-focused TFL encourages followers to

Group-focused transformational leadership (T1). To measure this construct, we used a

Differentiated individual-focused transformational leadership (T1). We measured differenti-

Justification for aggregation of predictors of team innovation

Table 1. Means, standard deviations and intercorrelations among study variables.

N = 45 teams. *p < .05; **p < .01.

Table 2. Path analysis results.

Predictors Model 1 Model 2

β SE t ΔR² β SE t ΔR² β SE t ΔR² β SE t ΔR²

Figure 2. Moderating effect of group-focused transformational leadership on the relationship

Second, by examining the moderating role of differentiated individual- and group-

Limitations and future research directions

Jakob Stollberger is an Associate Professor in Organizational Behaviour at the School of Business

You might also like