ArticlePDF Available

Antecedents of Team Creativity: An Examination of Team Emotional Intelligence, Team Trust and Collaborative Culture

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

Teams represent a dominant approach to getting work done in a business environment. Creativity enables teams to solve problems and leverage opportunities through the integration of divergent thoughts and perspectives. Prior research indicates that a collaborative culture, which affects how team members interact and work together, is a critical antecedent of team creativity. This study explores other antecedents of team creativity, namely, team emotional intelligence and team trust, and investigates the relationships among these precursors to creative effort. Using a survey of 82 student teams at a large university in the northeast United States, our findings suggest that team emotional intelligence promotes team trust. Trust, in turn, fosters a collaborative culture which enhances the creativity of the team. Cognitive trust also moderates the relationship between collaborative culture and team creativity. Implications of these results for managers and academics are discussed.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Antecedents of Team Creativity: An
Examination of Team Emotional
Intelligence, Team Trust and
Collaborative Culturecaim_574 332..345
Gloria Barczak, Felicia Lassk and Jay Mulki
Teams represent a dominant approach to getting work done in a business environment.
Creativity enables teams to solve problems and leverage opportunities through the integration
of divergent thoughts and perspectives. Prior research indicates that a collaborative culture,
which affects how team members interact and work together, is a critical antecedent of team
creativity. This study explores other antecedents of team creativity, namely, team emotional
intelligence and team trust, and investigates the relationships among these precursors to
creative effort. Using a survey of 82 student teams at a large university in the northeast United
States, our findings suggest that team emotional intelligence promotes team trust. Trust, in
turn, fosters a collaborative culture which enhances the creativity of the team. Cognitive trust
also moderates the relationship between collaborative culture and team creativity. Implica-
tions of these results for managers and academics are discussed.
Introduction
In today’s business environment, much work
is interdependent and so teams are a domi-
nant means to getting work done. Research
shows that firms value the ability of individu-
als to work together (Kichuk & Wiesner, 1997).
As well, in many organizations, creative
capital is considered its greatest asset (Florida
& Goodnight, 2005). In fact, some argue that
the future success of many businesses relies on
their ability to tap into the creative potential of
their teams (Florida & Goodnight, 2005; Rego
et al., 2007). For this article, we use Chen’s
(2007) definition of teams as a group of indi-
viduals where ‘talent, energy and skills are
integrated into a team, and this collective
capacity to innovate becomes greater than the
sum of individual contributions’ (p. 239).
So, how does an organization enhance the
creativity of its teams? Prior research indicates
that the quality of collaboration has a positive
impact on creativity and team performance
(Hoegl & Gemuenden, 2001; DeCusatis, 2008).
Similarly, emotional intelligence has been
touted as essential to the performance of a
team (Druskat & Wolff, 2001a; Goleman,
Boyatzis & McKee, 2002; Rego et al., 2007).
Both individual and team emotional intelli-
gence enhances a team’s ability to communi-
cate with one another, to be receptive to
diverging opinions and to utilize emotion to
improve team decision making. Additionally,
interpersonal (team) trust is one of the impor-
tant elements for teamwork and is based both
on emotional bonds and perceived competen-
cies of individual members. In fact, Rigby,
Gruver and Allen (2009) studied teamwork in
the most innovative firms in the United States
and identified trust as one of the seven impor-
tant characteristics that fosters successful part-
nership among diverse members of a team.
When members trust each other it makes them
feel less vulnerable, thus facilitating channel-
ling energy on creating and discovering rather
than defending (Gibb, 1978). Researchers state
that in the current organizational environment
of declining power of reciprocal obligations
and hierarchical controls, trust is key to
holding employees together as a cohesive unit
(Kasper-Fuehrer & Ashkanasy, 2001; Bijlsma &
Koopman, 2003).
The purpose of this study is to explore
the relationship between team emotional
332 CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
Volume 19 Number 4 2010
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8691.2010.00574.x
© 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
intelligence, team trust and their impact on the
team’s collaborative culture and creativity (see
Figure 1). From a practical perspective, we
focus on understanding the effect, if any, of
team emotional intelligence on team trust and
the impact of team trust on the team’s collabo-
rative culture and creativity. In addition, we
study the impact of trust in enhancing the rela-
tionship between collaborative culture and the
creativity of teams. Collaborative culture is
a team’s shared values and beliefs about
the organizations’ support for adaptability,
open communication, and encouragement of
respect, teamwork, risk taking and diversity
(Lopez, Peon & Ordas, 2004). Team creativity
refers to teams producing novel ideas and
solutions to maintain the firm’s competitive
edge (Amabile, 1997).
The contributions of this research are three-
fold. First, this study includes team emotional
intelligence as a critical team characteristic.
Although recent literature suggests that emo-
tional intelligence is essential to team effec-
tiveness (Druskat & Wolff, 2001a; Goleman,
Boyatzis & McKee, 2002), empirical research
on team emotional intelligence is scant (for
exceptions, see Druskat & Wolff, 2001a;
Goleman, Boyatzis & McKee, 2002; Jordan &
Troth, 2004). Second, this research represents
the first empirical study of the relationship
between emotional intelligence and trust in a
team context. Finally, this study goes beyond
existing research by investigating the relation-
ships among team emotional intelligence,
team trust and a collaborative culture as pre-
cursors to creativity. Because team trust and a
collaborative culture can be influenced by
managers, the findings of this study should
provide useful recommendations for enhanc-
ing trust among team members, creating a
collaborative culture, and ultimately, team
creativity.
Theoretical Framework
and Hypotheses
Team Emotional Intelligence
Ashforth and Humphrey (1995) argue that
emotion is inseparable from an organization’s
internal work environment, thereby making
the application of emotional intelligence to
the work setting particularly compelling
(Goleman, 1995). Many emotions grow out of
social interactions (Kemper, 1978); thus,
emotion is a pervasive influence in teams and
is fundamental to how team members interact
and work together (Druskat & Wolff, 2001b).
Team emotional intelligence is the ‘ability of a
group to develop a set of norms that manage
emotional processes’ (Druskat & Wolff, 2001b,
p. 133). These norms facilitate team member
collaboration and cohesiveness, behaviours
essential to team effectiveness (Druskat &
Wolff, 2001b). Jordan and Lawrence (2009)
Figure 1. Proposed Model
ANTECEDENTS OF TEAM CREATIVITY 333
Volume 19 Number 4 2010
© 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
describe team emotional intelligence as com-
posed of four dimensions: ‘awareness of own
emotions, awareness of other’s emotions, man-
agement of own emotions and management of
other’s emotions’ (p. 454). Team emotional
intelligence has been shown to lead to stronger
relationships with co-workers (Jordan & Troth,
2004), better information exchange and deci-
sion making (Pelled, Eisenhardt & Xin, 1999),
and decreased team conflict (Jehn & Mannix,
2001; Jordan & Troth, 2004).
Team Trust
Consistent with other researchers, Rousseau
et al. (1998) propose that trust is a psychologi-
cal state comprising the intention to accept
vulnerability based upon positive expectations
of the intentions or behaviour of another. In
other words, trust is an expectation that others
will behave as expected and not be opportu-
nistic (Jarvenpaa, Knoll & Leidner, 1998).
McAllister (1995) states that ‘ “available
knowledge” and “good reasons” serve as
foundations for trust decisions, the platform
from which people make leaps of faith’ (p. 26).
Thus, the decision to trust reflects two dimen-
sions, affect-based and cognitive, prevalent in
the literature and supported by ample empiri-
cal evidence in organizational research (Jef-
fries & Reed, 2000). Researchers generally have
adopted McAllister’s (1995) definition of inter-
personal trust to define trust among team
members. For example, in their study of trust
in virtual teams, Kanawattanachai and Yoo
(2002) define trust among team members as
‘the extent to which a person is confident in,
and willing to act on the basis of, the words,
actions, and decisions of another’ (p. 43).
In line with this, our study explores two
kinds of interpersonal trust important in team
dynamics: affective and cognitive trust. Affec-
tive trust is the confidence one places in a team
member based on one’s feelings of caring and
concern illustrated by that co-worker (McAl-
lister, 1995). Cognitive trust is based on one’s
willingness to rely on a team member’s exper-
tise and reliability (McAllister, 1995; Johnson
& Grayson, 2005).
In social units, such as work teams, both
affective and cognitive trust increase the
ability of team members to work together.
Working together implies greater co-operation
and information sharing which are expected in
turn, to lead to higher team performance
(Larson & LaFasto, 1989). According to Whit-
ener et al. (1998) teams require more trust
(than individuals) because of the high degree
of interdependence required to complete their
tasks.
In a team that is made up of members with
different goals and perspectives, the potential
for misunderstanding, conflict and miscom-
munication is great. Emotionally intelligent
teams are more likely to overcome these
potential problems due to their strong norms
and ability to be aware of and manage emo-
tions (Druskat & Wolff, 2001b; Jordan &
Lawrence, 2009). For example, a team that sup-
ports the norm of interpersonal understanding
knows when a team member is having a
problem. While members continue to respect
and appreciate that individual’s expertise, by
trusting one another, s/he can rely on col-
leagues to help and understand when needed.
In sum, trust is created in emotionally intelli-
gent teams as stated in the following hypoth-
esis (Druskat & Wolff, 2001b; Williams, 2007).
H1: Team emotional intelligence is positively
related to (a) affective and (b) cognitive team
trust.
Collaborative Culture
Schein (2004) defines an organizational culture
as employees’ shared assumptions and beliefs
about the organization and its environment.
Lopez, Peon and Ordas (2004) define a
collaborative culture as one that values team-
work, communication, respect and empower-
ment, and leverages the knowledge of
individuals resulting in organizational learn-
ing. In a collaborative culture, team members
are encouraged to embrace change, offer dif-
fering viewpoints, and discuss problems
openly leading to constructive collaboration
and consensus. Team members are guided by
a common objective and work together effec-
tively by sharing knowledge and learning
from one another. A collaborative culture
encourages total involvement of team
members because of the mutual respect, care
and support of each other (Bstieler &
Hemmert, 2010).
It would seem that emotionally intelligent
teams are better able to create a collaborative
culture. This is because teamwork depends
on employees’ abilities to understand each
other’s emotions, as well as the ability to regu-
late their own emotions to fit the task and situ-
ation. Research shows that team members’
emotions shape their attitudes and behaviours
which in turn impact unit and organizational
performance (Avey, Wernsing & Luthans,
2008). Team members’ ability to identify and
choose the best course of action is stronger
when they are aware of their own and others’
emotions and have the ability to control and
channel the emotions appropriately (Rozell,
Pettijohn & Parker, 2004).
334 CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
Volume 19 Number 4 2010 © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Teams with higher levels of emotional
intelligence are better able to inspire support
and confidence in fellow team members. This,
in turn, helps to create a collaborative work
environment free of negative criticism, ridi-
cule or fear, leading to better communication
and reduced conflict (Rego et al., 2007). Those
teams with higher levels of emotional intelli-
gence have the ability to monitor and regu-
late their emotions, and their sensitivity to
others’ emotions helps not only in motivating
themselves but also in building rapport with
others (Dulewicz & Higgs, 2000). In addition,
managing emotions enables teams to handle
conflicts without compromising common
team objectives and focus. They are more
likely to be tolerant of divergent viewpoints
thereby preventing discord from becoming a
potential road block in their progress towards
a common goal leading to a more collabora-
tive environment (Suliman & Al-Shaikh,
2007). Thus, we propose the following
hypothesis.
H2: Team emotional intelligence is positively
associated with a team’s collaborative culture.
Team Trust and Collaborative Culture
High levels of trust allow teams to function
smoothly and achieve objectives (Wicks,
Berman & Jones, 1999); it holds interdepen-
dent relationships together; and it helps to
facilitate collaboration (Calton & Lad, 1995;
Hosmer, 1995). Mutual trust increases the
motivation to devote resources to shared goals
(Dirks & Ferrin, 2001).
It has been proposed that to generate and
share knowledge team members must trust
the other team members with whom they are
working (Adler, 2001). For example, members
need to be able to trust that other team
members will do their work effectively and
efficiently. If this trust does not exist, it can
impede the work of individual members as
well as the work of the project itself. Without
trust, political behaviour can emerge in the
team, pitting individuals with different per-
spectives against each other which can lead to
attempts to sabotage or undermine the efforts
of other team members. In sum, trust is a criti-
cal ingredient in collaborative relations (Adler,
2001).
With a trusting environment, there is an
acknowledgement of connectedness with
co-workers, team spirit and work team
co-operation (Strutton, Pelton & Lumpkin,
1993). Teams that illustrate team trust are
likely to be more tolerant and accepting of
divergent ideas and viewpoints. A team
member who feels that his/her viewpoint is
being heard is more likely to trust team
members (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; McAllister,
1995). Thus, teams who trust one another are
more likely to have members who work closely
with each other and engage in meaningful
give-and-take around problems and issues,
elements that are critical to creating effective
outcomes. Trust acts as a facilitator and pro-
motes interpersonal relationships prompting
people to seek and give help leading to a more
collaborative culture (Russ et al., 1998; Abrams
et al., 2003; Middel, Boer & Fisscher, 2006).
Thus, trust is a critical ingredient in develop-
ing collaborative relationships between
members of teams (Hattori & Lapidus, 2004).
Supporting the third hypothesis, Evans and
Wolf (2005) state that when employees trust
each other, they create a collaborative culture
and thus are more likely to collaborate
together in a productive manner.
H3: Team trust (affective and cognitive) is posi-
tively associated with a team’s collaborative
culture.
Team Trust, Collaborative Culture and
Team Creativity
Creative teams are valued in organizations
as they produce novel ideas and solutions
to maintain the firm’s competitive edge.
However, team ideas are not considered cre-
ative just because they are new or novel; they
need to have potential use for the firm (Rego
et al., 2007). Researchers recognize that people
are the primary source of creative ideas in
firms. Amabile (1998) stated that creativity is
dependent upon organizational conditions
such as freedom of ideas, features of the team,
supervisory support and encouragement.
Research indicates that when team members
have high levels of interpersonal communica-
tion, support, and clarity of purpose, team
members tend to be very creative and innova-
tive (Jaskyte, 2008).
Creative teams are known for their ability to
identify and exploit unique opportunities by
using imaginative strategies to procure and
orchestrate resources across functional groups
(Chen, 2007). Both team trust and a collabora-
tive culture enable better communication,
information sharing, focus and greater
co-operation (Larson & LaFasto, 1989; Strut-
ton, Pelton & Lumpkin, 1993; Calton & Lad,
1995; Littler, Leverick & Bruce, 1995; Whitener
et al., 1998), thereby leading to greater creative
efforts. In addition, collaboration itself has
been found to lead to creative outcomes
(DeCusatis, 2008). However, recent research
has found that repeated collaboration may
negatively affect a team’s creativity (Skilton &
ANTECEDENTS OF TEAM CREATIVITY 335
Volume 19 Number 4 2010
© 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Dooley, 2010). Despite this recent finding, we
argue that team members with higher levels of
trust are better able to focus, communicate and
support each other leading to increased team
creativity. Likewise, a collaborative culture
fosters employee and team motivation to be
more creative. The following hypotheses
explore these two antecedents of team
creativity.
H4: Team trust (affective and cognitive) is posi-
tively associated with team creativity.
H5: A collaborative culture is positively associ-
ated with team creativity.
The proposed model presents a direct rela-
tionship between a collaborative culture and
team creativity (H5). Given that team trust is a
critical antecedent of both of these constructs
(Hattori & Lapidus, 2004; Evans & Wolf, 2005;
DeCusatis, 2008), we expect that the direct
relationship between collaborative culture
and creativity will be stronger when team
members are more trusting of each other. That
is, when team members trust each other they
are more likely to work closely together, share
knowledge and allocate resources to shared
goals (Wicks, Berman & Jones, 1999; Dirks &
Ferrin, 2001), thus increasing the extent to
which the team has a collaborative culture.
Likewise, trusting team members have better
communication, are supportive of each other
and motivate each other to pursue shared
objectives leading to more creative outcomes
(Jaskyte, 2008). Therefore, team trust is
hypothesized as a moderator of collaborative
culture and team creativity.
H6: Team trust (affective and cognitive) moder-
ates the relationship between collaborative
culture and team creativity.
Methodology
Sample
A sample of undergraduate students of a
major university in the northeastern United
States was used for this study. Students
formed teams and worked closely to com-
plete a class project that represented a major
portion of their course grade. The student
teams had members of both genders and con-
sisted of a mix of sophomore, junior and
senior year students. Questionnaires were
distributed to the students during the class
period in 12 different sections during autumn
2009. All student teams were involved in
semester-long projects that developed mar-
keting plans, real-world marketing research
projects or an in-depth analysis of some
aspect of marketing depending on which
course they were enrolled in. Members work
together researching and discussing informa-
tion such as customer profiles, marketing
environment and competition that are
required for the project. All team members
take part in developing the final report and
presenting it to the class and the instructor.
Students were informed about the study
purpose and were asked to provide their
responses about his/her team as it related to
their class project. Participation was voluntary.
A total of 467 responses were collected. After
deleting incomplete surveys, 422 responses
representing 82 teams were analysed. The
number of team members ranged from four
to seven. Females accounted for 53 per cent
of the respondents and 47 per cent were
males. The age of the respondents ranged
from 17 to 24 years with a mean of 20.33
years (SD =1.16). About half of the students
were sophomores (47.2 per cent), seniors
accounted for 23 per cent and juniors formed
29.8 per cent.
Measures
All constructs included in this study were
operationalized with published scales that
have demonstrated good psychometric prop-
erties in earlier studies. The items were
Likert-type 7- point scales with 1 indicating
total disagreement and 7 indicating complete
agreement with the statements. The measures
were aggregated by team. Interpersonal trust
was measured with McAllister’s (1995) scale
used in research of interpersonal trust in
organizations. This 11-item scale measures
affective as well as cognitive dimensions of
trust. Creativity was measured with an 8-item
scale from Rego et al. (2007) that measured
the creativity of teams. Collaborative culture
was measured with an 8-item scale used by
Lopez, Peon and Ordas (2004), who define
their collaborative culture scale as a measure
of a culture whose members foresee changes,
support dialogue and encourage respect,
teamwork, risk and diversity. Team emotional
intelligence was measured using the scale
developed by Jordan and Lawrence (2009).
This is a four-dimensional scale (awareness of
own emotion, management of own emotion,
awareness of others’ emotions, and manage-
ment of others’ emotions) with four items for
each dimension. The survey respondents
were also asked to provide their team name/
number (as an identifier to aggregate team
members), number of members in the team,
class and section in addition to age and
gender.
336 CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
Volume 19 Number 4 2010 © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Control Variables
Three control variables that have the potential
to influence team effectiveness were included
in the analysis. Research has shown that age
and functional diversity have a link to collabo-
ration and creativity (Weingart, Todorova &
Cronin, 2008; Verworn, 2009). Age of the team
was measured by asking each respondent
to provide their age. Means were calculated
for each team and then aggregated. Func-
tional diversity was measured by asking
students to indicate the number of business
concentrations (e.g., marketing, finance,
accounting, etc.) represented on their team.
Team size has been found to be positively
related to innovation (West et al., 2003), which
incorporates creativity, but negatively related
to communication and decision making
(Smith et al., 1994). Team size was measured
by asking the respondents to report the
number of members on their project team.
Analysis
Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was per-
formed on all scales to assess their dimension-
ality (Anderson & Gerbing, 1987). Results of
the EFA analysis on interpersonal trust
showed that scale-items loaded on two factors:
affective and cognitive trust. Cross-loading
items and items with factor loadings less than
0.50 were removed. Retention of scale items
with the highest factor loadings during the
scale purification process is used by research-
ers to increase the amount of common vari-
ance among the items (Peterson, 2000; Bhuian,
Menguc & Borsboom, 2005). This process
resulted in three items each for affective and
cognitive dimensions that explained 83.2 per
cent of the variance of the trust construct.
Exploratory factor analysis of team emotional
intelligence clearly showed the four distinct
dimensions (76 per cent of emotional intelli-
gence explained). Both collaborative culture
and creativity scales were one-dimensional.
Scale items used in the analysis and the factor
loadings are shown in Appendix 1.
All independent variables were standard-
ized to reduce the potential for multi-
collinearity. This was particularly critical since
the four dimensions of the emotional intelli-
gence scale were highly correlated to one
another. Table 1 shows the correlation matrix
and descriptive statistics for all the measures
used in the model along with reliability
statistics for the constructs. Correlations
among the constructs were significant and in
the right direction providing support for the
hypotheses.
Table 1. Correlations and Descriptive Statistics
AWR MGT AWRO MGTO AFF COG COLL CREAT AGE MEM DIV
AWR EI- Awareness of own emotions 0.93
MGT EI-Management of own emotions 0.40 0.78
AWRO EI- Awareness of others’ emotions 0.51 0.36 0.89
MGTO EI-Management of others’ emotions 0.66 0.37 0.63 0.89
AFF Trust- Affective 0.69 0.36 0.37 0.64 0.84
COG Trust- Cognitive 0.47 0.47 0.29 0.61 0.52 0.94
COLL Collaborative Culture 0.32 0.30 0.14 0.31 0.43 0.46 0.89
CREAT Team Creativity 0.26* 0.18 0.19 0.34 0.40 0.54 0.85 0.95
AGE Age 0.15 0.18 0.13 0.09 0.08 0.01 0.06 0.01 1.00
MEM Number of Members in Team -0.13 0.10 0.07 0.01 0.06 -0.14 -0.14 -0.05 0.22 1.00
DIV Team Diversity 0.07 -0.05 -0.06 -0.02 -0.02 -0.11 0.06 0.02 0.79 -0.01 1.00
Mean 4.55 5.77 4.83 4.85 5.30 5.45 5.40 5.29 20.33 4.69
Standard Deviation 0.93 0.47 0.67 0.64 0.76 0.93 0.83 0.89 1.16 0.84
Cronbach’s aon the diagonal. Bold correlations are significant at 0.01 level (two-tailed).
ANTECEDENTS OF TEAM CREATIVITY 337
Volume 19 Number 4 2010
© 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Results
The hypotheses were tested using hierarchal
moderated regression analysis using SPSS 17
(Bell, Menguc & Stefani, 2004). As stated
before, average age of the team, number of
members in the team and team diversity were
used as control variables. Following the proce-
dure established by previous research, we sys-
tematically tested three models (Bell, Auh &
Smalley, 2005). First, the dependent variables
(DV) were regressed on the control variables
(CV). Second, DV was regressed on CV plus
the predictor (IV) variables to test for main
effects. Finally, a test for moderation was con-
ducted by regressing the dependent variable
on CV, IV and the interaction variables. All the
models were tested for multi-collinearity by
calculating the variance inflation factor (VIF)
for each of the regression coefficients. Results
show that multi-collinearity is not impacting
the results as VIF values ranged from 1.19 to
3.45 and were well below the threshold value
of 10 (Bell, Menguc & Stefani, 2004). The model
resulting from our analyses is shown in
Figure 2.
Team Emotional Intelligence and
Team Trust
Affective trust and cognitive trust were
regressed on the control variables and the four
dimensions of emotional intelligence
as predictor variables. Model 1 (see Table 2)
shows the results of the regression of affective
trust on the control variables and predictor
variables – the four dimensions of team emo-
tional intelligence, namely, awareness of own
emotions, management of own emotions,
awareness of others’ emotions and manage-
ment of others’ emotions. Hypotheses H1a
was partially supported as the beta coefficients
for awareness of own emotions and manage-
ment of others’ emotions were positive and
statistically significant while the coefficients
for management of own emotions and aware-
ness of others’ emotions were not significant.
Similar regression analysis for cognitive
trust shows that management of own emo-
tions and management of others’ emotions
were significant in explaining cognitive trust
among members thus providing partial
support for H1b (see Table 2, Model 2).
Regression coefficients for awareness of own
emotions and awareness of others’ emotions
were not significant.
Collaborative Culture
Collaborative culture as a dependent variable
was first regressed on the control variables. In
the second step, collaborative culture was
regressed on the control variables, the four
dimensions of emotional intelligence and the
two dimensions of trust (see Table 2, Model 3).
Results show that only the two dimensions of
trust had positive and significant regression
coefficients, thus providing support for H3.
None of the team emotional intelligence
dimensions were significantly related to col-
laborative culture, thereby providing no
support for H2.
Figure 2. Final Model
338 CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
Volume 19 Number 4 2010 © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Table 2. Regression Results
Dependent Variables Model 1 Affective Trust Model 2 Cognitive Trust Model 3 Collaborative Culture
Team Diversity btpbtp btp
Control Variables
(Constant) 1.98 0.05 2.69 0.01 2.73 0.08
Age 0.13 0.86 0.39 0.13 0.02 0.99 -0.12 -0.59 0.56
Number of Members in Team 0.08 0.83 0.41 0.08 -1.22 0.23 -0.11 -0.88 0.38
Team Diversity -0.15 -1.03 0.31 -0.15 -0.66 0.52 0.21 1.08 0.29
Independent Variables
EI- Awareness of Own Emotions 0.46 4.05 0.00 0.05 0.42 0.68 -0.07 -0.41 -0.68
EI- Management of Own Emotions 0.13 1.36 0.18 0.33 3.00 0.00 0.07 0.49 0.63
EI- Awareness of Others’ Emotions -0.16 -1.41 0.16 -0.23 -1.78 0.08 0.05 0.32 0.75
EI- Management of Others’ Emotions 0.40 3.24 0.00 0.61 4.37 0.00 -0.21 -1.05 0.30
Affective Trust 0.43 2.48 0.02
Cognitive Trust 0.33 2.17 0.03
ANTECEDENTS OF TEAM CREATIVITY 339
Volume 19 Number 4 2010
© 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Team Creativity
Moderated hierarchical regression was used to
test the hypotheses linking creativity to the
two dimensions of trust and collaborative
culture. As before, regression was first con-
ducted with the control variables. The second
regression was done with affective trust, cog-
nitive trust and collaborative culture to test for
main effects (see Table 3). The results indicate
that cognitive trust and collaborative culture
are significant predictors of creativity while
affective trust is not significant, providing
partial support for H4 and full support for H5.
In view of these results, in the final step,
only the moderating effect of cognitive trust on
the relationship between collaborative culture
and creativity was tested. The results for mod-
eration show that cognitive trust enhances the
effect of a collaborative culture on creativity,
thereby supporting H6.
Discussion and Implications
The results of this study present a more
nuanced and complex picture of the anteced-
ents of a team’s creative output. Specifically,
our results indicate that emotionally intelligent
teams create both cognitive and affective team
trust. Team trust, in turn, helps build a collabo-
rative culture which leads to higher levels of
team creativity. As well, cognitive trust
enhances creativity by moderating the rela-
tionship between collaborative culture and
team creativity.
The positive influence of particular ele-
ments of team emotional intelligence on both
cognitive and affective trust highlights the
importance of team emotional intelligence in
creating team trust. Cognitive trust is based on
a member’s perception of the reliability and
competence of his/her peers. When team
members exhibit professional behaviour by
managing their own emotions and those of
their colleagues, such as being deliberate in
their decision making by examining all sides
of the argument, they are likely to be trusted
and relied on for their competence and ability.
On the other hand, affective trust is based on
emotional bonds resulting from interpersonal
care and concern for each other. When team
members are aware of his/her own emotions
and are able to manage others’ emotions, they
can empathize and provide support thereby
creating affective team trust.
Table 3. Regression Results
Dependent Variable Team Creativity
btp
Control Variables
(Constant) 3.46 0.00
Age –0.01 –0.12 0.90
Number of Members in Team 0.09 1.44 0.15
Team Diversity 0.00 0.04 0.97
Independent Variables
Affective Trust –0.13 –1.85 0.07
Cognitive Trust 0.24 3.39 0.00
Collaborative Culture 0.84 12.74 0.00
Control Variables
(Constant) 3.67 0.00
Age –0.04 –0.37 0.72
Number of Members in Team 0.11 1.78 0.08
Team Diversity 0.03 0.29 0.78
Independent Variables
Affective Trust –0.11 –1.59 0.12
Cognitive Trust 0.31 4.16 0.00
Collaborative Culture 0.76 10.46 0.00
Collaborative Culture x Cognitive Trust 0.15 2.31 0.03
340 CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
Volume 19 Number 4 2010 © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
The lack of evidence to support a direct rela-
tionship between team emotional intelligence
and a collaborative culture suggests that
awareness and management of emotions is not
necessary for team members to collaborate.
However, that does not mean that emotional
intelligence is not important in teams. As
noted above, team emotional intelligence
creates trust, both affective and cognitive,
among team members, which in turn, leads to
a collaborative culture. Thus, both emotional
intelligence and trust are critical for effective
teamwork.
Our findings support prior research that
shows that team collaboration requires trust
(Bierly, Stark & Kessler, 2009). Team members’
trust is based on individuals’ confidence that
the actions of the members will be beneficial
and not detrimental. Thus, the level of trust
affects individual and team behaviours. In a
trusting environment, individuals are more
willing to take a risk by sharing information
and co-operating with their team members
(Mayer, Davis & Schoorman, 1995) thereby
creating a sense of collaboration (Russ et al.,
1998; Abrams et al., 2003; Hattori & Lapidus,
2004).
Our finding that cognitive trust positively
impacts team creativity suggests that
members’ perceptions that their peers are reli-
able and competent is vital to enhancing the
creativity of the team. This concurs with
research that shows that knowledge and skill
about one’s function is critical to creativity
(Amabile, 1997; Taggar, 2002). High cognitive
trust teams are perceived to have members
with strong functional as well as interpersonal
capabilities which can create a feeling that the
team can jointly make decisions, take risks and
share ideas without fear of criticism (West,
1990) resulting in a creative solution to their
task. The result that affective trust does not
influence team creativity implies that the
bonds of caring and concern for each other,
though useful to collaboration, are not instru-
mental to enhancing team creativity. This
supports research which indicates that com-
passion is not an element of creativity
(Amabile, 1997; Taggar, 2002).
Finally, results of this study support prior
research indicating that collaborative culture is
a strong predictor of creativity (DeCusatis,
2008). Results also show that the existence of
cognitive trust among members enhances this
relationship. Collaborative teams are known to
be open to others’ suggestions, allow team
members to take risks and are willing to con-
sider diverse viewpoints; all of the qualities
necessary for creative efforts. When team
members trust each other to be competent and
reliable, they are even more willing to exhibit
those behaviours leading to an even more cre-
ative solution.
Implications for Managers
This study, though based on student teams,
offers several potential implications for man-
agers. First, the finding that emotional intelli-
gence is a predictor of team trust suggests that
managers need to assess the emotional intelli-
gence of each subordinate in order to deter-
mine his/her level of emotional intelligence.
Once this is accomplished, activities such as
training in emotional intelligence, could be
undertaken to improve individual and team
capabilities. Also, assessments of emotional
intelligence could be used with job candidates,
particularly those applying for positions which
require substantial teamwork.
Second, the impact of trust on a collabora-
tive culture and cognitive trust on creativity
reinforces that trust is a critical element of
teams that managers need to pay attention to.
To build and sustain trust, managers need to
create situations for both formal and informal
communication among team members (Jarv-
enpaa, Knoll & Leidner, 1998). For example, a
kick-off meeting at the beginning of a project
can help team members to get to know each
other and start to build relationships that can
ultimately lead to a creative approach to the
task.
Finally, the positive impact of cognitive trust
on the relationship between a team’s collabo-
rative culture and creativity suggests that
managers need to recognize the importance of
team members’ perceptions of the reliability
and competence of their colleagues. To aid
these perceptions, it is obviously most useful
to hire functionally competent individuals.
However, functional competence is not suffi-
cient for cognitive trust. Individuals need to
also possess skills such as working with
others, being reliable and dependable, doing
whatever is needed to accomplish the task,
and being flexible (Barczak & Wilemon, 2003).
Implications for Researchers
This research expands our knowledge of the
antecedents of team creativity. Specifically, this
study represents the first empirical study of
the relationship between team emotional intel-
ligence and affective and cognitive trust in a
team context. Moreover, it explores a more
complex relationship among precursors of
team creativity, namely team emotional intelli-
gence, team trust and a collaborative culture
than prior research. Finally, this research
investigates emotional intelligence as an
important team characteristic.
ANTECEDENTS OF TEAM CREATIVITY 341
Volume 19 Number 4 2010
© 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Limitations and Future Research
The study uses cross-sectional data and hence
causality of the relationships between predic-
tor and criterion variables should not be
implied from results of this study. Theory and
previous research of the constructs used in
the study have been used in interpreting the
findings. Use of a convenience sample of stu-
dents could be another limitation in terms of
practical implications, even though student
teams are known to provide useful insights
into the dynamics of team work and creativ-
ity (Chiocchio & Essiembre, 2009; Qiu et al.,
2009). Future research could examine our
model with teams and team leaders working
on real business issues to ascertain if the
relationships we found with our student
sample hold true. In relation, the study used
team creativity as the dependent variable
rather than a more practical measure of per-
formance. Our future research will use
student teams who are working on a project
for a corporate client and, thus, will incorpo-
rate actual performance metrics, thereby
enhancing the value of our research to man-
agers. Finally, to minimize social desirability
bias, respondents were guaranteed anonym-
ity and responses were collected by a student
volunteer instead of their own instructor. We
also tested for common method bias using
the method advocated by Lindell and
Whitney (2001) and found that common
method bias was not a threat to the study
findings.
References
Abrams, L.C., Cross R., Lesser E. and Levin, D.Z.
(2003) Nurturing Interpersonal Trust in
Knowledge-Sharing Networks. The Academy of
Management Executive, 17, 64–77.
Adler, P.S. (2001) Market, Hierarchy, and Trust: The
Knowledge Economy and the Future of Capital-
ism. Organization Science, 12, 215–34.
Amabile, T. M. (1997) Motivating Creativity in
Organizations: On Doing What You Love and
Loving What You Do. California Management
Review, 40, 39–58.
Amabile, T.M. (1998) How to Kill Creativity: Keep
Doing What You’re Doing. Or If You Want to
Spark Innovation, Rethink How You Motivate,
Reward andAssign Work to People. Harvard Busi-
ness Review, September–October, 76–87.
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1987) On the
Assessment of Unidimensional Measurement:
Internal and External Consistency, and Overall
Consistency Criteria. Journal of Marketing
Research, 24, 432–7.
Ashforth, B.E. and Humphrey, R.H. (1995) Emotion
in the Workplace: A Reappraisal. Human Rela-
tions, 48, 97–125.
Ashforth, B.E. and Mael, F. (1989) Social Identity
Theory and Organization. Academy of Management
Review, 14, 20–39.
Avey, J.B., Wernsing, T.S. and Luthans, F. (2008) Can
Positive Employees Help Positive Organizational
Change? Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 44,
48–70.
Barczak, G. and Wilemon, D. (2003) Team Member
Experiences in New Product Development:
Views from the Trenches. R&D Management, 33,
463–79.
Bell, S.J., Menguc, B. and Stefani, S.L. (2004) When
Customers Disappoint: A Model of Relational
Internal Marketing and Customer Complaints.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 32,
112–26.
Bell, S.J., Auh, S. and Smalley, K. (2005) Customer
Relationship Dynamics: Service Quality and Cus-
tomer Loyalty in the Context of Varying Levels of
Customer Expertise and Switching Costs. Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, 33, 169–83.
Bhuian, S.N., Menguc, B. and Borsboom, R. (2005)
Stressors and Job Outcomes in Sales: A Triphasic
Model Versus a Linear-Quadratic-Interactive
Model. Journal of Business Research, 58, 114–50.
Bierly, P., Stark, E. and Kessler, E. (2009) The Mod-
erating Effects of Virtuality on the Antecedents
and Outcome of NPD Team Trust. Journal of
Product Innovation Management, 26, 551–65.
Bijlsma, K. and Koopman, P. (2003) Introduction:
Trust Within Organizations. Personnel Review, 32,
543–55.
Bstieler, L. and Hemmert, M. (2010) Increasing
Learning and Time Efficiency in Interorganiza-
tional New Product Development Teams. Journal
of Product Innovation Management, 27, 485–99.
Calton, J. and Lad, L. (1995) Social Contracting as a
Trust-Building Process of Network Governance.
Business Ethics Quarterly, 5, 271–95.
Chen, M.H. (2007) Entrepreneurial Leadership and
New Ventures: Creativity in Entrepreneurial
Teams. Creativity and Innovation Management, 16,
239–49.
Chiocchio, F. and Essiembre, H. (2009) Cohesion
and Performance: A Meta-Analytic Review of
Disparities between Project Teams, Production
Teams, and Service Teams. Small Group Research,
40, 382–420.
DeCusatis, C. (2008) Creating, Growing and Sus-
taining Efficient Innovation Teams. Creativity and
Innovation Management, 2, 155–64.
Dirks, K.T. and Ferrin, D.L. (2001) The Role of Trust
in Organizational Settings. Organization Science,
12, 450–67.
Druskat, V.U. and Wolff, S.B. (2001a) Building the
Emotional Intelligence of Groups. Harvard Busi-
ness Review, 79, 80–90.
Druskat, V.U. and Wolff, S.B. (2001b) Group Emo-
tional Intelligence and Its Influence on Group
Effectiveness. In Cherniss, C. and Goleman, D.
(eds.) The Emotionally Intelligent Workplace.
Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 132–55.
Dulewicz, V. and Higgs, M. (2000) Emotional Intel-
ligence: A Review and Evaluation Study. Journal
of Managerial Psychology, 15, 341–72.
Evans, P. and Wolf, B. (2005) Collaboration Rules.
Harvard Business Review, July–August, 96–104.
342 CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
Volume 19 Number 4 2010 © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Florida, R. and Goodnight, J. (2005) Managing for
Creativity. Harvard Business Review, July–August,
124–31.
Gibb, J.R. (1978) Trust: A New View of Personal and
Organizational Development. Guild of Tutors Press,
Los Angeles, CA.
Goleman, D. (1995) Working with Emotional Intelli-
gence. Bantam Books, New York.
Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R. and McKee, A. (2002) The
Emotional Reality of Teams. Journal of Organiza-
tional Excellence, 21, 55–65.
Hattori, R.A. and Lapidus, T. (2004) Collaboration,
Trust and Innovative Change. Journal of Change
Management, 4, 97–104.
Hoegl, M. and Gemuenden, H.G. (2001) Teamwork
Quality and the Success of Innovative Projects: A
Theoretical Concept and Empirical Evidence.
Organization Science, 12, 435–49.
Hosmer, L. (1995) Trust: The Connecting Link
between Organizational Theory and Philosophi-
cal Ethics. Academy of Management Review, 20,
379–403.
Jarvenpaa, S., Knoll, K. and Leidner, D. (1998) Is
Anybody Out There? Antecedents of Trust in
Global Virtual Teams. Journal of Management Infor-
mation Systems, 14, 29–64.
Jaskyte, K. (2008) Employee Creativity in US and
Lithuanian Nonprofit Organizations. Nonprofit
Management and Leadership, 18, 465–83.
Jeffries, F.L. and Reed, R. (2000) Trust and Adapta-
tion in Relational Contracting. Academy of Man-
agement Review, 25, 873–82.
Jehn, K.A. and Mannix, E.A. (2001) The Dynamic
Nature of Conflict: A Longitudinal Study of Intra-
group Conflict and Group Performance. Academy
of Management Journal, 44, 238–51.
Johnson, D. and Grayson, K. (2005) Cognitive and
Affective Trust in Service Relationships. Journal of
Business Research, 58, 500–7.
Jordan, P.J. and Lawrence, S.A. (2009) Emotional
Intelligence in Teams: Development and Initial
Validation of the Short Version of the Work-
group Emotional Intelligence Profile (WEIP-S).
Journal of Management and Organization, 15, 452–
69.
Jordan, P.J. and Troth, A.C. (2004) Managing Emo-
tions during Team Problem Solving: Emotional
Intelligence and Conflict Resolution. Human Per-
formance, 17, 195–218.
Kanawattanachai, P. and Yoo, Y. (2002) Dynamic
Nature of Trust in Virtual Teams. Journal of Stra-
tegic Information Systems, 11, 187–213.
Kasper-Fuehrer, E.C. and Ashkanasy, N.M. (2001)
Communicating Trustworthiness and Building
Trust in Interorganizational Virtual Organiza-
tions. Journal of Management, 27, 235–54.
Kemper, T.D. (1978) A Social Interaction Theory of
Emotions. Wiley, New York.
Kichuk, S.L. and Wiesner, W.H. (1997) The Big Five
Personality Factors and Team Performance:
Implications for Selecting Successful Product
Design Teams. Journal of Engineering and Technol-
ogy Management, 14, 195–221.
Larson, C. and LaFasto, F. (1989) Teamwork. Sage,
Newbury Park, CA.
Lindell, M.K. and Whitney, D.J. (2001) Accounting
for Common Method Variance in Cross-Sectional
Research Designs. Journal of Applied Psychology,
86, 114–21.
Littler, D., Leverick, F. and Bruce, M. (1995) Factors
Affecting the Process of Collaborative Product
Development: A Study of UK Manufacturers of
Information and Communications Technology
Products. Journal of Product Innovation Manage-
ment, 12, 16–32.
Lopez, S.P., Peon, J.M.M. and Ordas, C.J.V. (2004)
Managing Knowledge: The Link between Culture
and Organizational Learning. Journal of Knowl-
edge Management, 8, 93–104.
Mayer, R., Davis, J. and Schoorman, F. (1995) An
Integrative Model of Organizational Trust.
Academy of Management Review, 20, 709–34.
McAllister, D.J. (1995) Affect and Cognition Based
Trust as Foundations for Interpersonal Coopera-
tion in Organizations. Academy of Management
Journal, 38, 24–59.
Middel, R., Boer, H. and Fisscher, O. (2006) Con-
tinuous Improvement and Collaborative
Improvement: Similarities and Differences. Cre-
ativity and Innovation Management, 15, 338–47.
Pelled, L.H., Eisenhardt, K.M. and Xin, K.R. (1999)
Exploring the Black Box: An Analysis of Work
Group Diversity Conflict and Performance.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 1–28.
Peterson, R.A. (2000) A Meta-Analysis of Variance
Accounted for and Factor Loadings in Exploratory
Factor Analysis. Marketing Letters, 11, 261–75.
Qiu, T., Qualls, J., Bohlmann, J. and Rupp, D.E.
(2009) The Effect of Interactional Fairness on the
Performance of Cross-Functional Product Devel-
opment Teams: A Multilevel Mediated Model.
Journal of Product Innovation Management, 26, 173–
87.
Rego, A., Sousa, F., Pina e Cunha, M., Correia, A.
and Saur-Amaral, I. (2007) Leader Self-Reported
Emotional Intelligence and Perceived Employee
Creativity: An Exploratory Study. Creativity and
Innovation Management, 16, 250–64.
Rigby, D.K., Gruver, K. and Allen, J. (2009) Innova-
tion in Turbulent Times. Harvard Business Review,
87, 79–86.
Rousseau, D., Sitkin, S., Burt, R. and Camerer C.
(1998) Not So Different After All: Cross Discipline
View of Trust. Academy of Management Review, 23,
387–92.
Rozell, E.J., Pettijohn, C.E. and Parker, R.S. (2004)
Customer-Oriented Selling: Exploring the Roles
of Emotional Intelligence and Organizational
Commitment. Psychology and Marketing, 21, 405–
24.
Russ, F.A., McNeilly, K.M., Comer, J.M. and Light,
T.B. (1998) Exploring the Impact of Critical Sales
Events. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Man-
agement, 18, 19–34.
Schein, E.H. (2004) Organizational Culture and Lead-
ership. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Skilton, P.F. and Dooley, K.J. (2010) The Effects of
Repeat Collaboration on Creative Abrasion.
Academy of Management Review, 35, 118–34.
Smith, K.G., Smith, K.A., Olian, J.D., Smis, H.P.,
O’Bannon, D.P. and Scully, J.A. (1994) Top Man-
agement Team Demography and Process: The
Role of Social Integration and Communication.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 412–38.
ANTECEDENTS OF TEAM CREATIVITY 343
Volume 19 Number 4 2010
© 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Strutton, D., Pelton, L.E. and Lumpkin, J.R. (1993)
The Relationship between Psychological Climate
and Salesperson-Sales Manager Trust in Sales
Organizations. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales
Management, 13, 1–14.
Suliman, A.M. and Al-Shaikh, F.N. (2007) Emo-
tional Intelligence at Work: Links to Conflict and
Innovation. Employee Relations, 29, 208–20.
Taggar, S. (2002) Individual Creativity and Group
Ability to Utilize Individual Creative Resources:
A Multilevel Model. Academy of Management
Journal, 45, 315–30.
Verworn, B. (2009) Does Age Have an Impact on
Having Ideas? An Analysis of the Quantity and
Quality of Ideas Submitted to a Suggestion
System. Creativity and Innovation Management, 18,
326–34.
Weingart, L.R., Todorova, G. and Cronin, M.A.
(2008) Representational Gaps, Team Integration
and Team Creativity. In Academy of Management
Best Paper Proceedings. Academy of Management,
Briarcliff Manor, NY.
West, M.A. (1990) The Social Psychology of Innova-
tion in Groups. In West, M.A. and Farr, J.L. (eds.)
Innovation and Creativity at Work: Psychological and
Organizational Strategies. John Wiley & Sons,
Chichester, pp. 101–22.
West, M.A., Borrill, C.S., Dawson, J.F., Brodbeck, F.,
Shapiro, D.A. and Haward, B. (2003) Leadership
Clarity and Team Innovation in Health Care. The
Leadership Quarterly, 14, 393–410.
Whitener, E., Bordt, S., Korsgaard, M. and Werner, J.
(1998) Managers as Initiators of Trust: An
Exchange Relationship Framework for Under-
standing Managerial Trustworthy Behavior.
Academy of Management Review, 23, 513–30.
Wicks, A., Berman, S. and Jones, T. (1999) The Struc-
ture of Optimal Trust: Moral and Strategic
Implications. Academy of Management Review, 24,
99–116.
Williams, M. (2007) Building Genuine Trust
through Interpersonal Emotion Management: A
Threat Regulation Model of Trust and Collabora-
tion across Boundaries. Academy of Management
Review, 32, 595–621.
Gloria Barczak (g.barczak@neu.edu) is Pro-
fessor and Chair of the Marketing Group in
the College of Business Administration at
Northeastern University. Her research
focus is on the new product development
process and the use of teams for new
product development.
Felicia Lassk (f.lassk@neu.edu) is Associ-
ate Professor of Marketing and Faculty
Director of the Evening MBA Program in
the College of Business Administration at
Northeastern University. Her research
focus is in the area of personal selling and
emotional intelligence.
Jay Mulki (j.mulki@neu.edu) is an Assis-
tant Professor of Marketing in the College
of Business Administration at Northeastern
University. He brings both academic
research and business practice to his class-
room having spent more than 20 years in
business before leaving to pursue his aca-
demic interests. Professor Mulki’s primary
research interests are in the areas of per-
sonal selling and sales management and
services marketing.
Appendix 1
Scale Items used in the Study
Team Emotional Intelligence (Jordan and Lawrence, 2009) Standardized
Loading
Awareness of Own Emotions (AWR)
1. I can explain the emotions I feel to team members. 0.840
2. I can discuss the emotions I feel with team members. 0.850
3. If I feel down, I can tell team members what will make me feel better. 0.829
4. I can talk to other members of the team about the emotions I experience. 0.827
Management of Own Emotions (MGT)
5. I respect the opinion of team members, even if I think they are wrong. 0.658
6. When I am frustrated with fellow team members, I can overcome my
frustration.
0.742
7. When deciding on a dispute, I try to see all sides of a disagreement before
I come to a conclusion.
0.825
8. I give a fair hearing to fellow team members’ idea. 0.777
344 CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT
Volume 19 Number 4 2010 © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Appendix 1 Continued
Team Emotional Intelligence (Jordan and Lawrence, 2009) Standardized
Loading
Awareness of Others’ Emotions (AWRO)
9. I can read fellow team members ‘true’ feelings, even if they try to hide
them.
0.817
10. I am able to describe accurately the way others in the team are feeling. 0.761
11. When I talk to a team member I can gauge their true feelings from their
body language.
0.821
12. I can tell when team members don’t mean what they say. 0.807
Management of Others’ Emotions (MGTO)
13. My enthusiasm can be contagious for members of a team. 0.644
14. I am able to cheer team members up when they are feeling down. 0.760
15. I can get fellow team members to share my keenness for a project. 0.780
16. I can provide the ‘spark’ to get fellow team members enthusiastic. 0.791
Affective Trust (McAllister, 1995)
1. We have a sharing relationship. We can all freely share our ideas, feelings,
and hopes.
0.638
2. I can talk freely to my team members about difficulties I am having at
school and know that they will want to listen.
0.948
3. If I shared my problems with my team members, I know they would
respond constructively and caringly.
0.884
Cognitive Trust (McAllister, 1995)
1. Team members approach this project with professionalism and dedication. 0.905
2. Given my team members’ track records, I see no reason to doubt their
competence and preparation for the project.
0.910
3. I can rely on team members not to make our project more difficult by care-
less work.
0.909
Team Creativity (Rego et al., 2007)
1. My team members suggest new ways to achieve goals or objectives. 0.821
2. My team members come up with new and practical ideas to improve per-
formance.
0.882
3. My team members suggest new ways to increase quality. 0.865
4. My team members promote and champion ideas to others. 0.774
5. My team members exhibit creativity when given the opportunity to. 0.831
6. My team members develop adequate plans and schedules for the imple-
mentation of new ideas.
0.864
7. My team members have new and innovative ideas. 0.882
8. My team members come up with creative solutions to problems. 0.919
Collaborative Culture (Lopez, Peon & Ordas, 2004)
1. My team considers change to be natural and necessary. 0.706
2. My team considers individuals as an asset and tries to appreciate them
continuously.
0.828
3. Individuals who experiment and take reasonable risks are well-considered
by the team even if they are mistaken.
0.774
4. The preservation of different points of view is encouraged. 0.819
5. Everybody’s opinions and contributions are respected. 0.778
6. Problems are discussed openly, to avoid finding culprits. 0.694
7. Collaboration and co-operation among team members is encouraged. 0.805
8. All team members are aware of instructor expectations. 0.618
ANTECEDENTS OF TEAM CREATIVITY 345
Volume 19 Number 4 2010
© 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
... There are a myriad of empirical studies demonstrating that team emotional intelligence (i.e., "the ability of a group to develop a set of norms that manage emotional processes so as to cultivate trust, group identity, and group efficacy" (Druskat & Wolff, 2001a)) enhances team performance and creativity (Akgün et al., 2015;Barczak et al., 2010;Brattström et al., 2012;Chang et al., 2012;De Jong et al., 2016;Lee & Wong, 2019;Parke et al., 2015;. Empirical results reveal that a team's emotional intelligence promotes interpersonal trust, which, in turn fosters a collaborative culture that enhances team creativity (Akgün et al., 2015;Barczak et al., 2010;De Jong et al., 2016;. ...
... There are a myriad of empirical studies demonstrating that team emotional intelligence (i.e., "the ability of a group to develop a set of norms that manage emotional processes so as to cultivate trust, group identity, and group efficacy" (Druskat & Wolff, 2001a)) enhances team performance and creativity (Akgün et al., 2015;Barczak et al., 2010;Brattström et al., 2012;Chang et al., 2012;De Jong et al., 2016;Lee & Wong, 2019;Parke et al., 2015;. Empirical results reveal that a team's emotional intelligence promotes interpersonal trust, which, in turn fosters a collaborative culture that enhances team creativity (Akgün et al., 2015;Barczak et al., 2010;De Jong et al., 2016;. Interpersonal trust can be defined as an individual's willingness to accept vulnerability based upon positive expectations of the intentions or behavior of another (Rousseau et al., 1998). ...
... Affective and cognitive trust items will be averaged to a combined interpersonal trust index (Barczak et al., 2010). Post assessments ...
Preprint
Full-text available
Organizational research demonstrates that team interpersonal trust enhances team performance and creativity. Design thinking offers many interactive team events such as warm-up games that are aimed at increasing team trust and collaboration. While effective in practice, little is understood about the underlying brain mechanisms that facilitate interpersonal trust during these activities. In this chapter, we present a novel interpersonal trust activity centered around human emotions that is designed to enhance interpersonal trust in both in-person and virtual (zoom) team interactions. We hypothesize that participating in an interpersonal trust activity prior to a collaborative design task will increase interpersonal trust and the creativity level of the collaborative outcome (i.e., creative product/innovation). We present our scientific approach for testing this hypothesis by applying the methods of functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) hyperscanning in both in-person and virtual (video) team interactions. A better understanding of the neural signatures underlying an interpersonal trust activity will allow design thinking practitioners and educators to design novel and effective design thinking activities and interactions that can positively impact team trust and collaboration.
... GC is assessed with six items. These items are adopted from well-known scholars such as [55,68]. The sample item is "Members of the green product development project propose new green ideas to improve environmental performance". ...
... Members of the green product development project propose new green ideas to improve environmental performance. [55,68] 2. Members of the green product development project suggest new ways to achieve environmental goals. 3. Members of the green product development project promote and champion new green ideas to others. ...
Article
Full-text available
This study investigated the strengths of internal and external environmental challenges to the Green Innovation Strategy (GIS). This study tried, also, to observe GBIS’ predictive power of on Green Organizational Identity (GOI), Green Innovation (GI) and Green Creativity (GC). The researchers gathered the cross-sectional data from the top managers of Saudi Arabia’s manufacturing industries. We employed a Structural Equation Model (SEM) to obtain the outcomes to form the data. This study’s findings demonstrate that external pressures, such as Policy Pressure (PP) and Market Pressure (MP) and internal driving forces such as Innovation Resources (IR) and Innovation Capability (IC), have a positive and significant effect on GIS. This study’s findings demonstrate, also, that GIS has a positive and significant effect on GOI, GI and GC. Finally, this study’s findings show that GOI is a considerable predictor of GI and GC. This study’s findings provide the path for policymakers to formulate Environmental Regulations (ER) and laws regarding pressure and incentive regulations. Finally, and more particularly in the context of Gulf countries, this study’s findings contribute to the literature on green management, innovation and Environmental Management (EM).
... The literature summarized above highlights how the quality of the internal [65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74] and external relationships [34,[75][76][77][78][79][80][81][82][83][84] generates direct benefits on the well-being of the workers and on local sustainable development [85][86][87], but also indirect benefits on financial [19,51,[88][89][90][91][92][93][94][95][96] as well as economic corporate performance [97]. This last point requires further consideration, specifically with regard to CSR's ethical foundations. ...
Article
Full-text available
ESG frameworks have progressively become central in economic and policy choices. This is why it is of utmost importance to build a shared and accepted framework to define what we really mean by ESG overcoming the “minimalist” Do Not Significantly Harm (DNSH) principle and moving toward the full achievement of the more ambitious substantial contribution (SC) principle, oriented to the maximization of the social and environmental impact of value creation. To move forward in this direction, our work proposes a relational approach for the assessment of ESG factors focusing in particular on the social pillar. Our conceptual and theoretical proposal argues that, in order to increase the value of that pillar, it is necessary to assess both the internal and external relationships of the firm from an impact perspective, improving at the same time the multidimensional well-being of workers and the capacity to create sustainable development in the local community. The main factors companies should consider to achieve these goals are related to the domains of sense of community, empowerment, good practices of mutual aid and degree of participation at individual, team, organization, and territorial levels that can trigger gift giving, reciprocity and trust, overcoming standard social dilemmas and producing superadditive outcomes together with high social and environmental impact. Starting from these elements, this work proposes a set of indicators and metrics, based on an original methodology to measure and assess the commitment of a firm to increasing social factors. This methodology is particularly suitable for SMEs and start-up companies.
... Our understanding of how to cultivate effective student teams has been advanced in large part by an extensive literature stream that illuminates the components and dynamics of effective student teams. This literature is usefully integrated in Deeter-Schmelz et al.'s (2002) framework, which conceptualizes effective teamwork as an interplay between individual traits and behaviors, team-level processes, and team outputs, all of which affect team performance (Barczak et al., 2010;Deeter-Schmelz et al., 2002;Kreie et al., 2007). ...
Article
Full-text available
Teamwork skills are important contributors to classroom learning outcomes and graduate employability. Although much has been reported in the literature about the components and characteristics of effective marketing student teams, less is known about how such knowledge is conceptualized and cultivated by frontline marketing instructors. This study applies a perspective of tacit theory to in-depth interviews with frontline instructors in undergraduate marketing courses. Our findings, summarized in a framework of adaptive cultivation of effective teams (ACET), highlight how instructors perceive effective teamwork as a dynamic interaction between three interwoven components of team effectiveness (team composition, team member behavior, and team culture) and adjust their interventions across these components. Overall, this study uncovers instructors’ tacit theories of cultivating effective marketing student teams, and how these tacit theories impact in-class practices.
... A trusting relationship usually attracts a more open, fluid, unfiltered communication with "fewer dysfunctional sequences" (Graeff 1998:68), which leads to greater satisfaction on the part of the interaction partners (Schweer / Thies 2003:77). Trust therefore has a positive influence on, for example, knowledge sharing (Wiewiora et al. 2014), creativity (Barczak et al. 2010), and team performance (DeOrtentiis et al. 2013). Trust seems to be more difficult to develop online, even if it remains possible to achieve the perception of closeness without being physically together (Mason / Carr 2021:13f ). ...
Article
Full-text available
Megacities is a simulation game which uses the Internet as a transnational virtual space for developing intercultural competence, thereby fostering intercultural dialogue. The experience of over a hundred people of several nationalities in this simulation game is at the core of this study, which aims to understand how individuals succeed in creating a genuine 'Miteinander' despite language barriers, the constraints of virtual communication, and expected cultural differences. 'Miteinander' is a German word which combines the concept of collaboration with that of cohesion. The introduction of this term allows us to further clarify the focus of this investigation, which aims to observe how a diverse group becomes a team in an online environment. This study is a qualitative one and its corpus is composed of reflection sheets in which participants share the feelings, thoughts and perceptions they had before, during, and after their experience in the game Megacities. The analysis of the data revealed that participants had similar fears and perceptions, despite their diversity. Out of their reflections, an interplay of factors related to individual, social, and technical-organizational dimensions emerges. Two factors which have a particularly high impact on the process of building trust and creating culture are looked at in depth in this paper: language and the virtual setting of communication.
... In virtual teams, mutual trust also plays a crucial role in facilitating coordination, information collaboration, and knowledge sharing [35,36,37]. Mutual trust promotes a team environment that fosters collaboration [38]. In eSports teams, mutual trust among team members is even more critical than teams in other organizational settings. ...
Preprint
Full-text available
How does the team formation relates to team performance in professional video game playing? This study examined one aspect of group dynamics - team switching - and aims to answer how changing a team affects individual and collective performance in eSports tournaments. In this study we test the hypothesis that switching teams can be detrimental to individual and team performance both in short term and in a long run. We collected data from professional tournaments of a popular first-person shooter game {\itshape Counter-Strike: Global Offensive (CS:GO)} and perform two natural experiments. We found that the player's performance was inversely correlated with the number of teams a player had joined. After a player switched to a new team, both the individual and the collective performance dropped initially, and then slowly recovered. The findings in this study can provide insights for understanding group dynamics in eSports team play and eventually emphasize the importance of team cohesion in facilitating team collaboration, coordination, and knowledge sharing in teamwork in general.
... Therefore, developmental culture can foster team service innovation. In partial support of the above discussion, Barczak et al. (2010) reported that team creativity is promoted by collaborative culture. Accordingly, we hypothesize the following: ...
Purpose Service innovation benefits hospitality organizations’ service quality and competitive advantages. However, how and when team culture amplifies team service innovation is still not fully comprehended. Thus, this study aims to reveal the mediation and moderation mechanisms behind the team-level culture and service innovation nexus. Design/methodology/approach This study used both quantitative and qualitative methods to validate the research model. The authors collected data from leaders and their members working in the hospitality sector in China. Findings The results demonstrated the positive nexus of developmental culture and team service innovation. This nexus was sequentially mediated by aggregated creative role identity and aggregated creative self-efficacy and was also strengthened by task interdependence. Practical implications The results indicated that hospitality practitioners should consistently instill the values of developmental culture into their members to trigger their teams’ service innovative endeavors. They should also design more tasks requiring intensive teamwork and encourage members to complete these tasks collaboratively. Originality/value This study advances the understanding of the direct, mediating and moderating effects behind team service innovation.
Article
Researchers have displayed considerable interest in how and when team cognitive diversity leads to improved or impaired team innovation. When addressing this issue, scholars have adopted the information/decision making and social categorization theoretical perspectives. In contrast, we draw on conservation of resources (COR) theory when examining the cognitive diversity and team innovation relationship. We argue that in a team environment, cognitive diversity may result in the threat of losing valuable resources. This threat, in turn, encourages team members to engage in resource replenishment through the use of different humor styles (i.e., affiliative, self-enhancing, aggressive, self-defeating). We argue that, with such resource replenishment, four team-level humor styles emerge and mediate the relationship between cognitive diversity and team innovation. In addition, we expect team emotional intelligence to moderate the relationships between cognitive diversity and team humor styles. Our model has important theoretical implications for team diversity, humor, emotional intelligence, and innovation research. Plain language summary: Team cognitive diversity can be defined as the extent to which team members differ in their ideas, perspectives, or values. Cognitive diversity is important for teams to cultivate innovation although it may also result in relationship conflicts and the formation of subgroups in a team. Our paper views cognitive diversity as a signal that drives team members to use humor to cope with diversity. This may then result in different humor styles (i.e., affiliative, self-enhancing, aggressive, self-defeating) that characterize the way the team uses humor. For instance, while working in a cognitively diverse team, team members might make a joke about work that the whole team laughs together (i.e., affiliative humor). However, some members might use sarcasm to insult others who are different from the group norms (i.e., aggressive humor). We argue that the team humor styles will influence team innovation, which in turn will link cognitive diversity with team innovation. Moreover, we suggest that team emotional intelligence will influence the extent to which the four team humor styles link cognitive diversity and team innovation.
Article
Full-text available
This study aimed to identify the level of emotional intelligence and its impact on the cooperative work skills of public school principals, as well as examining the levels of their cooperative work skills practices. And its relationship to gender variables, and administrative experience. The study sample consisted of 53 public school principals, and the descriptive analytical approach was adopted in data collection, analysis and interpretation. The results showed that school principals had moderate levels of emotional intelligence, with a decrease in the abilities of emotional awareness, assertiveness and public relations. The study also revealed an average level of cooperative work skills practice, with low levels of empowerment skills practice. There are no statistically significant differences in the average emotional intelligence and the level of practice of cooperative work skills for the school principal due to the variables of gender and administrative experience. While there were statistically significant differences in the ability to adapt due to the gender variable for school principals. The results showed differences in the areas: the ability to withstand stress, control emotions, conflict resolution skills, communication and meeting management, attributed to the variable of administrative experience in favor of more experienced school principals. The study confirmed the existence of a positive and moderate correlation between emotional intelligence and collaborative work skills.
Article
Purpose There is no innovation without ideas. More than ever before, these ideas are increasingly difficult to express in a changing environment ripe with emotions. Today's organizations need to understand why their employees may or may not develop, voice and implement innovative ideas in the face of this emotional tension. Current literature focuses on external factors that empower employees to innovate. This research attempts to shift the focus to the individual by investigating the relationship between emotional intelligence, openness to experience and innovation voicing behavior. Design/methodology/approach This study employs a quantitative survey among 288 US-based workers to test a mediated model of emotional intelligence, openness to experience and innovation-focused promotive voice. The authors assessed both the measurement and structural models through partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM), while controlling for a range of variables with the potential to confound construct measurements. Findings The findings validated the positive effect of emotional intelligence on openness to experience, while also finding a significant impact of openness to experience on innovation-focused promotive voice. More importantly, evidence suggests that openness to experience mediates the relationship between emotional intelligence and innovation focused promotive voice. Originality/value These findings shed new light on why employees might start the innovation process by developing and, ultimately, voicing innovative ideas. Further, this new insight focuses on the impact of intrapersonal factors as it relates to innovation and attempts to fill a gap in what is known about innovative behavior.
Article
Kumar and Dillon recently presented a conceptual, overall consistency criterion that represents a sufficient condition for consistency. In commenting on their article, the authors (1) clarify the interrelated nature of internal consistency and external consistency, (2) show that the “bogus perfect fit” example is itself “bogus” in that it cannot occur in either theory or practice, (3) underscore that the specific overall consistency criterion formula defined by Kumar and Dillon cannot be applied in practice, whereas the internal consistency and external consistency criteria can, and (4) caution against using within-block factor analyses as recommended by Kumar and Dillon, and instead advocate the use of confirmatory factor analysis with multiple-indicator measurement models for assessing unidimensionality. In an addendum, the authors discuss their position on unidimensionality and its assessment, contrasting it with the Kumar and Dillon position on unidimensionality and consistency.
Article
Cross-sectional studies of attitude-behavior relationships are vulnerable to the inflation of correlations by common method variance (CMV). Here, a model is presented that allows partial correlation analysis to adjust the observed correlations for CMV contamination and determine if conclusions about the statistical and practical significance of a predictor have been influenced by the presence of CMV. This method also suggests procedures for designing questionnaires to increase the precision of this adjustment.
Article
Numerous researchers have proposed that trust is essential for understanding interpersonal and group behavior, managerial effectiveness, economic exchange and social or political stability, yet according to a majority of these scholars, this concept has never been precisely defined. This article reviews definitions from various approaches within organizational theory, examines the consistencies and differences, and proposes that trust is based upon an underlying assumption of an implicit moral duty. This moral duty—an anomaly in much of organizational theory—has made a precise definition problematic. Trust also is examined from philosophical ethics, and a synthesis of the organizational and philosophical definitions that emphasizes an explicit sense of moral duty and is based upon accepted ethical principles of analysis is proposed. This new definition has the potential to combine research from the two fields of study in important areas of inquiry.
Article
Research reveals that emotional intelligence is an important factor in predicting performance in teams. In this article, we initially outline a theoretical model for examining emotional intelligence in teams. Using this model, we test a short version (16 items) of the self-report Workgroup Emotional Intelligence Profile (WEIP). Evidence from three studies supports this model. Two samples of 620 and 217 employees support the hypothesized structure of the WEIP-S. Four distinct constructs were derived: Awareness of own emotions; Management of own emotions; Awareness of others' emotions; and Management of others' emotions. The WEIP-Short Version (WEIP-S) scale, therefore, is based on abilities that are vital during the interaction of team members. Data from 99 employees provide evidence of test–retest stability for the WEIP-S across three time periods. Limitations and potential uses in management research for this short-version scale are discussed.