Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Team Creativity/Innovation in Culturally Diverse
Teams: A Meta-Analysis
Wang, J., Cheng, G.H.L., Chen, T., Leung, K.
University of Nottingham Ningbo China, 199 Taikang East Road, Ningbo,
315100, Zhejiang, China.
First published 2019
This work is made available under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 International License:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
The work is licenced to the University of Nottingham Ningbo China
under the Global University Publication Licence:
https://www.nottingham.edu.cn/en/library/documents/research-
support/global-university-publications-licence.pdf
1
Team Creativity/Innovation in Culturally Diverse Teams: A Meta-Analysis
Keywords: cultural diversity, surface- versus deep-level, team creativity, team innovation, meta-
analysis
TEAM CREATIVITY/INNOVATION IN CULTURALLY DIVERSE TEAMS 2
Abstract
This meta-analysis investigates the direction and strength of the relationship between diversity in
culturally diverse teams and team creativity/innovation. We distinguish the effects of two
diversity levels (i.e., surface- versus deep-level) in culturally diverse teams and examine the
moderators suggested by the socio-technical systems framework (i.e., team virtuality and task
characteristics in terms of task interdependence, complexity, and intellectiveness). Surface-level
diversity in culturally diverse teams is not related to team creativity/innovation, while deep-level
diversity in culturally diverse teams is positively related to team creativity/innovation. Moreover,
surface-level diversity in culturally diverse teams and team creativity/innovation are negatively
related for simple tasks, but unrelated for complex tasks. Deep-level diversity in culturally
diverse teams and team creativity/innovation are positively related for collocated teams and
interdependent tasks, but unrelated for non-collocated teams and independent tasks. We discuss
the theoretical and practical implications.
TEAM CREATIVITY/INNOVATION IN CULTURALLY DIVERSE TEAMS 3
Team Creativity/Innovation in Culturally Diverse Teams: A Meta-Analysis
The globalization of business has led to rising cultural diversity in the workplace in many
regions of the world. Multicultural teams, in which members come from different countries or
ethnic groups with differences in mental models, modes of perception, and approaches to
problems (Stahl, Maznevski, Voigt, & Jonsen, 2010), have become prevalent. Cultural diversity
is regarded as a mixed blessing for teams (van Knippenberg, De Dreu, & Homan, 2004).
Multicultural teams can achieve high team performance mainly through enhancing team
creativity/innovation—the only positive immediate team outcome of cultural diversity proposed
in Stahl et al.’s (2010) meta-analysis. Cultural diversity provides diverse information that is a key
ingredient for team creativity/innovation (Adler, 1986; Stahl et al., 2010), which is “the process,
outcomes, and products of attempts to develop and introduce new and improved ways of doing
things” by a team of employees (Anderson, Potočnik, & Zhou, 2014, p. 1298). This possible
strength of cultural diversity is a chief reason that many multinationals utilize multicultural
teams (Gibson, Huang, Kirkman, & Shapiro, 2014; Hajro, Gibson, & Pudelko, 2017; Lisak, Erez,
Sui, & Lee, 2016). However, cultural diversity also incurs social costs such as cultural identity
problems and difficulties in intercultural interaction (Leung & Wang, 2015), which may offset
the creative potential of diverse groups (Giambatista & Bhappu, 2010). Therefore, the effect of
cultural diversity on team creativity/innovation must be investigated to understand how to
leverage cultural diversity.
The association between cultural diversity and team creativity/innovation has attracted
considerable research attention. Primary studies have reported varied correlations for this
relationship (e.g., Gibson & Gibbs, 2006; Li, Lin, Tien, & Chen, 2017; Schilpzand, Herold, &
Shalley, 2011; Stringfellow, 1998). Prior meta-analytic reviews, which are based on limited
TEAM CREATIVITY/INNOVATION IN CULTURALLY DIVERSE TEAMS 4
samples (k ≤ 8), have also reported mixed findings, with pooled effect sizes ranging from −.18 to
.16 (Bell, Villado, Lukasik, Belau, & Briggs, 2011; Stahl et al., 2010; van Dijk, van Engen, &
van Knippenberg, 2012). These observations indicate a strong need to investigate the moderators
that affect the direction and strength of this relationship (van Knippenberg & Mell, 2016).
The current meta-analysis examines the direction and strength of the association between
diversity in culturally diverse teams and team creativity/innovation with a larger database (47
samples). We consider the surface- versus deep-level distinction of diversity in culturally diverse
teams and examine how both diversity levels are associated with team creativity/innovation.
Moreover, on the basis of the socio-technical systems framework for cultural diversity and team
creativity (Leung & Wang, 2015), we investigate the moderating effects of team virtuality and
task characteristics (task interdependence, complexity, and intellectiveness) on the associations
of surface- and deep-level diversity in culturally diverse teams with team creativity/innovation.
We thus provide a nuanced picture of how the association between diversity in multicultural
teams and team creativity/innovation varies.
Theory Development and Hypotheses
Team Creativity/Innovation in Culturally Diverse Teams
Culture is “the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of
one human group from another” (Hofstede, 1980, p. 25). It includes a set of motives, values,
beliefs, and identities that guide how its members should or should not behave (House, Hanges,
Javidan, Dorfman, & Gupta, 2004). Culture can be viewed as a multilevel system, ranging from
team culture, to organizational culture, and to national culture (Erez, 2011), and a source of
social identity for its members (Leung & Bond, 2004). This study focuses on national culture,
which is based on countries or ethnicities, because many countries nowadays have several ethnic
TEAM CREATIVITY/INNOVATION IN CULTURALLY DIVERSE TEAMS 5
cultures, and many ethnic cultures span across more than one country (Leung, Bhagat, Buchan,
Erez, & Gibson, 2005; Tung, 1993). Moreover, the shared elements (e.g., language, historic
period, and geographic location) can provide standards for perceiving, believing, evaluating, and
acting among people in the same country or ethnic group (Triandis, 1996). Thus, the term
cultural diversity is concerned with surface-level differences in country- and ethnicity-based
cultural backgrounds, as well as deep-level differences in values, perspectives, and cognitive
frameworks possessed by people from different countries/ethnicities. Thus, this term includes
surface- and deep-level diversity in culturally diverse teams.
Following previous meta-analyses (e.g., Byron & Khazanchi, 2012; Byron, Khazanchi, &
Nazarian, 2010), we include team creativity and innovation studies. Creativity is concerned with
idea generation, whereas innovation involves idea generation and its subsequent implementation
(Anderson et al., 2014; Hughes, Lee, Tian, Newman, & Legood, 2018). While innovation
involves a convergent process of idea implementation, both creativity and innovation emphasize
a divergent process of idea generation that can benefit from a broad pool of perspectives supplied
by diversity in multicultural teams. Despite their differences, creativity and innovation have been
regarded as two closely related and overlapped concepts. Researchers have argued that their
conceptual boundaries are unclear (Anderson et al., 2014). Many empirical studies that have
distinguished creativity and innovation end up combining them because of their high correlations
(van Knippenberg, 2017). Therefore, our meta-analysis does not distinguish them but treats team
creativity/innovation as the exclusive focal dependent variable.
According to the categorization–information elaboration model (CEM) (van Knippenberg
et al., 2004), diversity in multicultural teams has negative and positive effects on team
creativity/innovation. CEM cautions that multicultural teams may not leverage diversity due to
TEAM CREATIVITY/INNOVATION IN CULTURALLY DIVERSE TEAMS 6
the negative social dynamics set into motion by diversity—known as the social categorization
perspective (Williams & O'Reilly, 1998). People may view team members of different cultural
backgrounds as out-group members and exhibit negative biases against them. Consequently,
team members may feel their cultural identity being threatened and/or a lack of a common
cultural identity in the team, which results in low team identity. Moreover, members with
different cultural backgrounds may have incompatible assumptions, values, preferences, and
behaviors, and are thus likely to experience difficulties in intercultural interaction. Cultural
identity problems and difficulties in intercultural interaction are negative social processes or
social costs that suppress team creativity/innovation (e.g., Dahlin, Weingart, & Hinds, 2005; van
Knippenberg et al., 2004).
CEM also argues that diversity in multicultural teams offers diverse perspectives and
knowledge that enhance team creativity/innovation (Adler, 1986)—known as the
information/decision-making perspective on diversity (Williams & O'Reilly, 1998). By offering a
great pool of information, such diversity has the potential of inducing information elaboration,
which is defined as “members’ exchange, discussion, and integration of ideas, knowledge, and
insights relevant to the group’s task” (van Knippenberg et al., 2004, p. 1010). The possible
informational benefits explain why diversity in multicultural teams enhances team
creativity/innovation. In summary, the social categorization and information/decision-making
perspectives predict opposite directions of the relationship between diversity in multicultural
teams and team creativity/innovation. Taking these perspectives together, we may explain the
mixed findings in previous primary and meta-analytic studies.
Note that the antecedent-benefit-cost (ABC) framework (Busse, Mahlendorf, & Bode,
2016) can help understand the relationship between diversity in multicultural teams and team
TEAM CREATIVITY/INNOVATION IN CULTURALLY DIVERSE TEAMS 7
creativity/innovation. The ABC framework highlights the importance of considering costs and
benefits in an antecedent–outcome relationship. The framework suggests that the direction and
strength of the relationship depend on the marginal effects of costs and benefits. In our study,
whether social costs or informational benefits function more prominently determines the
direction and strength of the relationship between diversity in multicultural teams and team
creativity/innovation. Hence, we examine the moderators that may affect the relative prominence
of social costs versus informational benefits caused by diversity in multicultural teams.
Surface- Versus Deep-Level Diversity in Culturally Diverse Teams
Before detailing moderating effects, we distinguish two diversity levels in culturally
diverse teams—surface versus deep—which may have differential main effects on team
creativity/innovation. Surface-level diversity, which is also termed social category diversity
(Jehn, Northcraft, & Neale, 1999), involves readily detectable demographic attributes that
explicitly differentiate social category membership (Harrison, Price, & Bell, 1998; Jackson, May,
& Whitney, 1995). For surface-level diversity in culturally diverse teams, the most commonly
examined attributes are nationality and racio-ethnicity (Stahl et al., 2010). Deep-level diversity
involves unobservable attributes, including personalities, values, and attitudes (Harrison et al.,
1998; Stahl et al., 2010). For deep-level diversity in culturally diverse teams, we refer it to the
differences in these deep-level attributes among team members with different demographic
cultural backgrounds (i.e., nationality and/or race) (Stahl et al., 2010). Literature has adopted
different theoretical perspectives to account for the different effects of surface- and deep-level
diversity.
The cultural diversity literature has mainly adopted the social categorization perspective
to account for the effects of surface-level diversity (Jehn et al., 1999; van Dijk et al., 2012). In
TEAM CREATIVITY/INNOVATION IN CULTURALLY DIVERSE TEAMS 8
multicultural teams, surface-level cultural attributes provide clear signals about cultural identity,
thereby resulting in identity threat and fragmentation (Leung & Wang, 2015), as well as
intergroup conflict and withdrawal behavior (Stahl et al., 2010). Surface-level differences in
nationality and racio-ethnicity among team members in culturally diverse teams do not
necessarily imply greater diversity in knowledge and perspectives than culturally homogeneous
teams. A team in a U.S. multinational may include non-American members, who may be
acculturated to the U.S. culture (e.g., Rebhun & Waxman, 2000). The diversity of knowledge and
perspectives in such a team may not differ from that in a counterpart composed of Americans
with the same ethnic background. The informational benefits for team creativity/innovation are
thus not necessarily pertinent to multicultural teams characterized by surface-level diversity,
leading to the relative prominence of social costs in such teams.
According to the information/decision-making perspective (Jehn et al., 1999), while
deep-level diversity in culturally diverse teams can induce social costs, such as difficulties in
intercultural interaction, due to incompatible values and behaviors (Leung & Wang, 2015), its
informational benefits for team creativity/innovation are relatively prominent and may outweigh
the social costs. Differences in deep-level attributes in multicultural teams, accompanied by
divergent assumptions, preferences, values, and problem-solving styles, broaden their range of
knowledge and perspectives and generate novel ideas and problem solutions (e.g., Stahl et al.,
2010; van Knippenberg et al., 2004). Supporting this argument, Jehn et al. (1999) found that
informational and value diversity in teams lead to team task conflict, which may benefit team
creativity/innovation (e.g., de Wit, Greer, & Jehn, 2012). Similarly, Stahl et al. (2010)’s meta-
analytic review corroborated that team creativity is the only positive outcome of cultural
diversity. The authors explained that this positive effect owes to deep-level diversity in culturally
TEAM CREATIVITY/INNOVATION IN CULTURALLY DIVERSE TEAMS 9
diverse teams. The informational benefits offered by deep-level diversity in culturally diverse
teams outweigh its social costs in positively influencing team creativity/innovation.
As surface-level diversity in culturally diverse teams incurs higher social costs than
informational benefits, it should obstruct team creativity/innovation. By contrast, deep-level
diversity in culturally diverse teams involves more informational benefits than social costs and
thus should facilitate team creativity/innovation. From the perspective of the ABC framework
(Busse et al., 2016), we advance the following hypotheses.
Hypothesis 1a: Surface-level diversity in culturally diverse teams is negatively associated
with team creativity/innovation.
Hypothesis 1b: Deep-level diversity in culturally diverse teams is positively associated
with team creativity/innovation.
Moderators of the Diversity in Culturally Diverse Teams–Team Creativity/Innovation
Relationship: The Socio-Technical Systems Framework
In line with Leung and Wang (2015), we draw on the socio-technical systems theory
(Trist & Bamforth, 1951) to explore moderators for the relationship between diversity in
culturally diverse teams and team creativity/innovation. The central tenet of this theory is that a
social structure (social side) interacts with technology (technical side) to affect team outcomes.
Multicultural teams pertain to a social system in which members are embedded and connected to
each other. They leverage each other’s information and may also encounter identity and
interaction problems. The effects of cultural diversity on team outcomes are contingent on
technical factors that may affect the marginal effects of its informational benefits and social costs
(Leung & Wang, 2015). Early studies on technical systems focus on equipment, technology, and
operation methods that transform raw materials into products, whereas recent literature pays
TEAM CREATIVITY/INNOVATION IN CULTURALLY DIVERSE TEAMS 10
attention to task environment due to the changing nature of work (Davis, Challenger,
Jayewardene, & Clegg, 2014; Stewart & Barrick, 2000). This theory argues that teams use
technology in a task environment to fulfill task requirements—the ultimate goal of socio-
technical systems (Fox, 1995). In line with the socio-technical systems theory, the diversity
literature highlights that task environment is a key category of the moderators of diversity effects
(Guillaume, Dawson, Otaye-Ebede, Woods, & West, 2017).
Here, we explore two groups of moderators: technology and task characteristics. For
technology, Leung and Wang (2015) highlighted the importance of team virtuality. For task
characteristics, they focused on task interdependence, complexity, and intellectiveness. The
selection of these three task characteristics is in line with Cummings (1978), who affirmed that
task design in groups should consider the extent to which tasks are independent, complex, and
have complete knowledge to produce desired outcomes. The diversity literature concurs that the
technological factor of team virtuality and the task characteristics, such as task interdependence
and complexity, are important moderators for the diversity effects (Guillaume et al., 2017; Jehn
et al., 1999; van Dijk et al., 2012). Considering these streams of research, we focus on
technology and task characteristics that are relevant to the social interactions in multicultural
teams. As theorized below, these moderators affect the relative prominence of social costs and
informational benefits incurred by diversity in culturally diverse teams.
Team virtuality. Team virtuality is concerned with “the degree to which team members
do not work in either the same place and/or at the same time” (De Jong, Dirks, & Gillespie,
2016, p. 1136). Collocated teams collaborate face-to-face, whereas non-collocated teams rely on
technology-mediated communication (Wildman et al., 2012). With the rapid advancement in
information and communication technology, multinational corporations increasingly use non-
TEAM CREATIVITY/INNOVATION IN CULTURALLY DIVERSE TEAMS 11
collocated virtual teams (Connaughton & Shuffler, 2007; Hinds, Liu, & Lyon, 2011; Leung &
Peterson, 2011). Technology-mediated communication helps multicultural teams in which
members are sometimes geographically dispersed collaborate. Nevertheless, whether team
virtuality facilitates multicultural teams to benefit from diversity in multicultural teams is
questionable.
Literature has documented conflicting perspectives on the significance of team virtuality
in social costs associated with diversity in culturally diverse teams. One perspective argues that
non-collocated multicultural teams have less conflict and enjoy more social integration than
collocated teams (Stahl et al., 2010) because team members have little chance to experience
value incongruence. However, Leung and Wang (2015) argued that team virtuality accentuates
the negative social dynamics induced by cultural diversity. Physical proximity is conducive to
positive group dynamics, such as mutual understanding, interpersonal liking, and group
identification (for a review, see MacDuffie, 2007). A lack of physical contact in non-collocated
teams hinders the establishment of cooperative relationships (Kiesler & Cummings, 2002;
Martins, Gilson, & Maynard, 2004), the development of group identity (McGrath &
Hollingshead, 1994), and the effective management of conflict (Hinds & Bailey, 2003;
Thompson & Nadler, 2002). Multicultural virtual teams with minimal face-to-face contact are
aggressive but not that accommodative, thereby making interactions among members difficult.
Proximal separation and cultural differences may also increase the salience of social
categorizations, which are disruptive to group functioning according to CEM (van Knippenberg
et al., 2004).
With regard to informational benefits, team virtuality can restrict teams from benefiting
from communication and information sharing (Marlow, Lacerenza, Paoletti, Burke, & Salas,
TEAM CREATIVITY/INNOVATION IN CULTURALLY DIVERSE TEAMS 12
2018). Limited non-verbal communication and the resulted low communication clarity,
communication delay, and misinterpretation in virtual teams are the possible reasons. In
multicultural teams where intercultural communication is complex and difficult, team virtuality
adds challenges for such teams to effectively share and integrate information, thereby restraining
the informational benefits of cultural diversity (Stahl et al., 2010). Team members must engage
in discussions, exchanges, and the integration of ideas to make diverse knowledge and
perspectives useful to team creativity/innovation. However, knowledge, ideas, and perspectives
may be abstract, tacit, and more difficult to communicate in a virtual than in a collocated context
(e.g., Cramton, 2001; Gibson & Gibbs, 2006; Kumar, van Fenema, & von Glinow, 2009).
Diversity in culturally diverse teams cannot benefit team creativity/innovation without effective
sharing and integrating diverse knowledge and perspectives. By contrast, members of collocated
teams have many opportunities to share different opinions and give feedback to each other. As
face-to-face feedback is usually more positive than the feedback provided by e-mail (McKenna
& Bargh, 2000; Sussman & Sproull, 1999), feedback in collocated teams is well utilized to
improve existing ideas and perspectives. Thus, collocated teams have fewer communication
problems and can better utilize diverse knowledge and perspectives than non-collocated teams.
In summary, social costs are relatively prominent in non-collocated teams, whereas
informational benefits are relatively prominent in collocated teams. On the basis of the ABC
framework (Busse et al., 2016), we predict that team virtuality can moderate the relationships of
surface- and deep-level diversity in culturally diverse teams with team creativity/innovation. As
argued, surface-level diversity in culturally diverse teams has a negative relationship with team
creativity/innovation because of its social costs. This negative association should be stronger in
non-collocated teams in which members experience more interaction problems and more salient
TEAM CREATIVITY/INNOVATION IN CULTURALLY DIVERSE TEAMS 13
social categorizations than in collocated teams. On the contrary, deep-level diversity in culturally
diverse teams has a positive relationship with team creativity/innovation because of its
informational benefits. This positive association should be stronger in collocated teams in which
members can benefit more from diverse knowledge and perspectives than in non-collocated
teams.
Hypothesis 2a: The negative relationship between surface-level diversity in culturally
diverse teams and team creativity/innovation is moderated by team virtuality, such that
this negative relationship is stronger for non-collocated teams than for collocated teams.
Hypothesis 2b: The positive relationship between deep-level diversity in culturally
diverse teams and team creativity/innovation is moderated by team virtuality, such that
this positive relationship is stronger for collocated teams than for non-collocated teams.
Task interdependence. Task interdependence describes the extent to which team
members must rely on one another for input and resources, such as materials, information, and
expertise to perform a team task (Cummings, 1978). Leung and Wang (2015) contended that
independent task may heighten the negative influence of cultural diversity on team social
processes. Independent tasks demand little communication and interaction among members to
complete the job, thereby providing few opportunities to develop cooperation and trust within a
team (e.g., Kelley, 1979; Sheppard & Sherman, 1998). By contrast, the cooperation and trust
induced by interdependent tasks can buffer against the social costs caused by diversity in
culturally diverse teams (e.g., reduced team identity and increased interactional difficulties),
thereby mitigating the negative effects of such diversity on social processes.
For informational benefits, task interdependence is a critical boundary condition for
teams to reap such benefits (Marlow et al., 2018). Focusing on multicultural teams, Leung and
TEAM CREATIVITY/INNOVATION IN CULTURALLY DIVERSE TEAMS 14
Wang (2015) argued that interdependent tasks induce a great need for intercultural
communication and collaboration, thereby increasing information sharing and learning about the
different knowledge and perspectives from varied cultures. High exposure to other cultures’
knowledge and perspectives and the sharing and learning processes are beneficial for team
creativity/innovation (Ancona & Caldwell, 1992; De Dreu & West, 2001). Therefore, the
informational benefits of diversity in culturally diverse teams are salient for teams engaging in
interdependent tasks. For independent tasks, team members have a low need to work together
and share diverse information and knowledge. The informational benefits of diversity in
multicultural teams are thus limited. Worse, the potential informational resources embedded in
multicultural teams engaging in independent tasks may not be appreciated. Hence,
communication and collaboration across cultural boundaries may be discouraged, thereby
hindering the sharing and integration of diverse knowledge and perspectives and subsequent
team creativity/innovation.
Thus, social costs may play a dominant role for independent tasks, whereas informational
benefits may play a dominant role for interdependent tasks (Busse et al., 2016). Task
interdependence may play a moderating role in determining the associations of surface- and
deep-level diversity in culturally diverse teams with team creativity/innovation. The negative
effect of surface-level diversity in culturally diverse teams is due to its social costs; thus, this
negative relationship should be stronger for independent than dependent tasks. By contrast, the
positive effect of deep-level diversity in culturally diverse teams is due to its informational
benefits; thus, this positive relationship should be stronger for interdependent than dependent
tasks.
Hypothesis 3a: The negative relationship between surface-level diversity in culturally
TEAM CREATIVITY/INNOVATION IN CULTURALLY DIVERSE TEAMS 15
diverse teams and team creativity/innovation is moderated by task interdependence, such
that this negative relationship is stronger for independent tasks than for interdependent
tasks.
Hypothesis 3b: The positive relationship between deep-level diversity in culturally
diverse teams and team creativity/innovation is moderated by task interdependence, such
that this positive relationship is stronger for interdependent tasks than for independent
tasks.
Task complexity. Tasks differ in the degree of complexity, ranging from less structured,
less routine, and more ambiguous tasks to more routine and simpler counterparts (McGrath,
1984). Task complexity may play mixed roles in the social processes associated with diversity in
culturally diverse teams (Leung & Wang, 2015). Complex tasks demand frequent and in-depth
discussions, exchanges of ideas, and coordination among team members for task
accomplishment (Stahl et al., 2010). Such a demand should reduce the negative effect of
diversity on social processes in multicultural teams. However, disagreements, arguments, and
criticisms may occur during the problem-solving process, especially when ambiguous,
unstructured problems are involved. This occurrence may accentuate the interpersonal tension
and difficulties induced by diversity in multicultural teams, which counteract the buffering effect
of complex tasks on the basis of an increased need to communicate and coordinate. Supporting
this view, Stahl et al. (2010) did not find a moderating effect of task complexity on the
relationship between cultural diversity and social integration, which is a broad construct
including group cohesion, group commitment, and common identity.
Task complexity is a critical contingency for teams to reap the informational benefits
from diversity as found in previous meta-analyses (Bowers, Pharmer, & Salas, 2000; van Dijk et
TEAM CREATIVITY/INNOVATION IN CULTURALLY DIVERSE TEAMS 16
al., 2012). Complex tasks commonly require a wide range of knowledge and perspectives for
task completion. Team members who engage in complex tasks are motivated to pay attention to
diverse knowledge and perspectives offered in multicultural teams, thereby facilitating team
creativity/innovation (Leung & Wang, 2015). By contrast, when performing simple tasks, team
members have a low need to attend to one another’s knowledge for resolving task problems (van
Knippenberg et al., 2004). The informational benefits brought by diversity in culturally diverse
teams are not that pronounced for simple, routine tasks (van Knippenberg et al., 2004). In
addition, information processing, such as task-related debates in the teams working on simple
tasks, is unnecessary and may be detrimental and counterproductive (Jehn et al., 1999). Such
debates may direct team members’ attention to identity differences and intercultural difficulties.
Therefore, for teams engaging in simple tasks, informational benefits are not that
prominent and team dynamics are likely dominated by social costs. On the contrary,
informational benefits should be relatively prominent for teams working on complex tasks. The
association between surface-/deep-level diversity in culturally diverse teams and team
creativity/innovation may thus vary as a function of task complexity according to the ABC
framework (Busse et al., 2016). Specifically, the negative effect of surface-level diversity in
culturally diverse teams due to its social costs should be stronger for simple than complex tasks,
whereas the positive effect of deep-level diversity in culturally diverse teams due to its
informational benefits should be stronger for complex than simple tasks. Jehn et al. (1999) found
that informational diversity (i.e., different knowledge and perspectives brought by team
members) improves team performance when tasks are complex.
Hypothesis 4a: The negative relationship between surface-level diversity in culturally
diverse teams and team creativity/innovation is moderated by task complexity, such that
TEAM CREATIVITY/INNOVATION IN CULTURALLY DIVERSE TEAMS 17
this negative relationship is stronger for simple tasks than for complex tasks.
Hypothesis 4b: The positive relationship between deep-level diversity in culturally
diverse teams and team creativity/innovation is moderated by task complexity, such that
this positive relationship is stronger for complex tasks than for simple tasks.
Task intellectiveness. Task intellectiveness is also important in multicultural teams
because of its relevance to the prominence of informational benefits and social costs in such
teams (Leung & Wang, 2015). An intellective task refers to “a group problem or decision for
which there exists a demonstrably correct solution within a conceptual system” (Laughlin &
Adamopoulos, 1980, p. 941), such as mathematics or formal logics (e.g., engineering and
accounting problems). Conversely, a judgmental task (i.e., a task low in intellectiveness, such as
making commercial advertisements) is based on individual preferences and social consensus.
When performing intellective tasks, the presence of demonstrably correct decisions and solutions
can reduce negative interpersonal dynamics in multicultural teams. Miscommunication and
misunderstanding can be avoided given an objective framework to guide task performance.
Intellective tasks enable progress toward task accomplishment to become self-evident, which
helps resolve disagreements (Leung & Wang, 2015). Taking the task of designing a new way to
build a tall building as an example, many widely accepted standards exist to evaluate the safety
of a design. Thus, most team members should recognize and accept correct ideas while realizing
and rejecting erroneous ideas. Doing so can objectively settle disagreements and arguments and
encourage team members to work together to accomplish the task. Therefore, culturally diverse
team members can focus on task accomplishment while paying little attention to negative social
processes. On the contrary, multicultural teams may suffer from social costs when performing
judgmental tasks because of a lack of objective frameworks for resolving disagreements and high
TEAM CREATIVITY/INNOVATION IN CULTURALLY DIVERSE TEAMS 18
reliance on members’ individual and cultural preferences. In summary, task intellectiveness
reduces negative interpersonal dynamics in multicultural teams.
Performing intellective tasks is also conducive to the sharing and integration of diverse
knowledge and perspectives in multicultural teams. Collective information processing is
effective in teams performing intellective tasks (Laughlin, Hatch, Silver, & Boh, 2006). Task-
related information exchange for intellective tasks should be easier than for judgmental tasks
because correct solutions reduce misinterpretation and misunderstanding. Team members do not
likely argue with one another for the best decisions and solutions because they are guided by a
conceptual system. They can understand and exploit different ideas well without being distracted
by different opinions and personal preferences. By contrast, multicultural teams do not likely
reap informational benefits when performing judgmental tasks because integrating opposing
opinions is difficult without objective frameworks for resolving disagreements. Team members
must argue for the best solutions by criticizing and attacking each other’s opinions, and they are
likely distracted by personal and cultural preferences. With less effective information integration,
multicultural teams’ informational benefits are hampered.
Social costs are relatively salient in multicultural teams doing judgmental tasks, whereas
informational benefits are relatively salient in multicultural teams doing intellective tasks.
Extrapolating from the ABC framework (Busse et al., 2016), we argue that task intellectiveness
may moderate the relationships between surface-/deep-level diversity in culturally diverse teams
and team creativity/innovation. The negative effect of surface-level diversity in culturally diverse
teams due to its social costs should be stronger for judgmental than intellective tasks. On the
contrary, the positive effect of deep-level diversity in culturally diverse teams due to its
informational benefits should be stronger for intellective than judgmental tasks.
TEAM CREATIVITY/INNOVATION IN CULTURALLY DIVERSE TEAMS 19
Hypothesis 5a: The negative relationship between surface-level diversity in culturally
diverse teams and team creativity/innovation is moderated by task intellectiveness, such
that this negative relationship is stronger for judgmental tasks than for intellective tasks.
Hypothesis 5b: The positive relationship between deep-level diversity in culturally
diverse teams and team creativity/innovation is moderated by task intellectiveness, such
that this positive relationship is stronger for intellective tasks than for judgmental tasks.
Method
Literature Search
We employed an extensive search strategy to locate relevant published and unpublished
studies, with the time frame from 1985 to March 2018. For published works, we conducted a
computer search on the following six databases (Stahl et al., 2010): PsycINFO, ABI/INFORM,
Social Sciences Citation Index, Business Source Premier, EconLit, and Science Direct. We used
combinations of keywords, including cultural (and the related terms race, racial, ethnic,
ethnicity, nationality, value, cognitive, attitude, and deep-level), diversity (also composition,
homogeneity, heterogeneity, similarity, and dissimilarity), team (also group, board, organization,
company, and firm), and creativity (also innovation, innovativeness, novelty, idea generation, and
research and development [R&D]). Manual search was conducted in the following 14 academic
journals: Academy of Management Journal, Administrative Science Quarterly, Creativity and
Innovation Management, Creativity Research Journal, Journal of Applied Psychology, Journal
of Creative Behavior, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, Journal of International Business
Studies, Journal of Management, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Organization Science,
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Small Group Research, and Strategic
Management Journal.
TEAM CREATIVITY/INNOVATION IN CULTURALLY DIVERSE TEAMS 20
For unpublished works, dissertations and working papers were searched on ProQuest
Dissertations & Theses and SSRN Working Paper Series, respectively. We also conducted a
manual search of conference proceedings of the Academy of Management, Society for Industrial
and Organizational Psychology, and Interdisciplinary Network of Group Research. In addition,
we contacted researchers who were active in the areas of cultural diversity and team
creativity/innovation for unpublished/working papers.
Our searches identified several relevant papers that did not report information essential to
meta-analysis, and we contacted the authors for those pieces of information. Moreover, we
examined the reference lists of the identified articles and the review papers on diversity in
multicultural teams and team outcomes to locate additional studies.
Inclusion Criteria
To be included in the present analysis, samples of studies must include teams with
members from different countries and/or ethnicities. These studies must also report a zero-order
correlation between diversity in culturally diverse teams and team creativity/innovation, or
statistics that can be transformed into a correlation coefficient (Lipsey & Wilson, 2001). For
papers based on the same or overlapping samples (Wood, 2008), inclusion preference (in
descending order) was given to the sample with further information for testing moderating
effects, with a larger sample size, and that has been recently published (Cheng & Chan, 2008). In
our literature search, we included the keywords organization, company, and firm because team
creativity/innovation might be reported as supplementary information in studies that focused on
firm creativity/innovation. However, in our analysis, we did not include studies that reported
only firm creativity/innovation and did not use firm creativity/innovation as a proxy for team
creativity/innovation (Klein, Dansereau, & Hall, 1994). After applying these criteria, we found
TEAM CREATIVITY/INNOVATION IN CULTURALLY DIVERSE TEAMS 21
44 studies (35 published, nine unpublished) that yielded 47 samples. The included studies are
highlighted by an asterisk in the reference list.
Coding Scheme
Two authors coded the samples in terms of the number of teams (sample size),
uncorrected effect size(s) for the relationship between diversity in culturally diverse teams and
team creativity/innovation, diversity level, reliability information, and moderating variables. The
overall inter-coder agreement was 94%, and discrepancies were resolved through a discussion
with a third author. Appendix 1 shows the coding protocol for diversity and moderator level.
Appendix 2 displays the information recorded for each sample. Appendix 3 reports the
correlation between the moderators.
Meta-analysis provides a weighted average of effect sizes based on sample size (Hunter
& Schmidt, 2004). One sample (Jang, 2017) had a much larger sample size than the rest and
could dominate the results. Following a common practice to avoid such a bias, we replaced its
sample size with the value (148) by using three standard deviations above the mean of the
remaining sample sizes (i.e., Winsorization, see Aguinis, Gottfredson, & Joo, 2013; Lipsey &
Wilson, 2001). Two samples (Huang, Gibson, Kirkman, & Shapiro, 2017, Study 2; Li et al.,
2017) appeared as effect size outliers on the upper level, with their sample-adjusted meta-
analytic deviance (Beal, Corey, & Dunlap, 2002; Huffcutt & Arthur, 1995) higher than the cutoff
of four (Blume, Ford, Baldwin, & Huang, 2010; Steel, 2007). We Winsorized these effect sizes to
the nearest value of r = .54 (Degner & Dalege, 2013). The analyses reported below involved all
47 samples (18 employee samples, 27 student samples, and two samples that involved employees
and students), with a total of 2,832 teams (after Winsorization). On average, a team involved
5.27 individuals, and team tenure was 9.51 months. Appendix 4 shows the findings involving
TEAM CREATIVITY/INNOVATION IN CULTURALLY DIVERSE TEAMS 22
outliers.
Meta-Analytic Procedures
We used random-effects model of meta-analysis (Hunter & Schmidt, 2004; Schmidt &
Hunter, 2014) to estimate the mean Pearson’s correlation coefficients. Effect sizes, such as the t
value, were transformed into Pearson’s correlation coefficients (Lipsey & Wilson, 2001).
Establishing an independent effect size for each sample (Geyskens, Krishnan, Steenkamp, &
Cunha, 2009) is crucial. When the analysis involved samples that reported multiple associations
between diversity in multicultural teams and team creativity/innovation, we computed a single
composite estimate based on intercorrelations and standard deviations (Hunter & Schmidt, 2004;
Schmidt & Hunter, 2014). A simple average was used as a substitute when such information was
unavailable (Cheng & Chan, 2008).
In addition to uncorrected sample-size weighted mean correlations, we also reported
estimated true (corrected) mean correlations. Specifically, we corrected the measurement errors
in diversity in multicultural teams (independent variable) and team creativity/innovation
(dependent variable). Information on the unreliability of diversity in multicultural teams and
team creativity/innovation was missing in many included samples. Therefore, we performed the
correction using artifact distribution approach (Hunter & Schmidt, 2004; Schmidt & Hunter,
2014). We focused on the ICC(2) coefficient, which has been recommended for correcting team-
level data (De Jong et al., 2016)1. Some samples reported ICC(1) or F-value, and we transformed
such information into ICC(2). When diversity in multicultural teams or team
creativity/innovation was measured objectively, we assumed perfect reliability and used the
reliability value of 1. When we combined multiple correlations to produce a single composite
score for a sample, we accordingly combined the relevant ICC(2)s using Mosier’s composite
TEAM CREATIVITY/INNOVATION IN CULTURALLY DIVERSE TEAMS 23
reliability formula. The mean and variance of the overall attenuation factor were estimated to be
.91 and .01, respectively.
To evaluate whether a corrected correlation significantly differed from zero, we referred
to its 95% confidence interval (CI). An effect size is significantly different from zero when its
95% CI does not include zero. To test the moderating effects, we conducted subgroup analysis
and referred to the overlap in confidence level of effect sizes across subgroups (Astill, Van der
Heijden, Van IJzendoorn, & Van Someren, 2012; van IJzendoorn, Juffer, & Poelhuis, 2005). In
subgroup analysis, we referred to 84% CIs. Non-overlapping 84% CIs indicate that the
corresponding effect sizes of subgroups significantly differ from one another (Goldstein &
Healy, 1995; MacGregor-Fors & Payton, 2013)2, thereby providing evidence for moderating
effects. For reliable analysis, we focused on the estimates of a subgroup which involved at least
three samples (Choi, Oh, & Colbert, 2015; Stahl et al., 2010).
We reported two pieces of information to show the heterogeneity of an effect size and the
presence of moderators (Geyskens et al., 2009): 80% credibility interval (CV) (Hunter &
Schmidt, 2004; Schmidt & Hunter, 2014) and the I2 value (Higgins, Thompson, Deeks, &
Altman, 2003). The I2 value is recommended over the Q-value because the I2 value is less biased
than the Q-value (Borenstein, Hedges, Higgins, & Rothstein, 2009; Burnette, O'Boyle, VanEpps,
Pollack, & Finkel, 2013). Specifically, a wide CV (which particularly includes zero) and an I2
value ≥ 25% suggest a heterogeneity of an effect size.
To test publication bias, we adopted trim and fill method (Duval & Tweedie, 2000a,
2000b) and test of the intercept (Egger, Smith, Schneider, & Minder, 1997; Sterne & Egger,
2005)3 using the Metatrim and Metabias packages of Stata, respectively. Both methods indicated
an absence of publication bias for the association between surface-level diversity in culturally
TEAM CREATIVITY/INNOVATION IN CULTURALLY DIVERSE TEAMS 24
diverse teams and team creativity/innovation. For the association between deep-level diversity in
culturally diverse teams and team creativity/innovation, test of the intercept indicated that β0 was
significant (p = .043), but trim and fill method revealed that study imputation was not necessary.
Overall, publication bias did not appear as a serious concern in the present meta-analysis and
confound our conclusions.
Results
Surface- Versus Deep-Level Diversity in Culturally Diverse Teams
The association between surface-level diversity in culturally diverse teams and team
creativity/innovation was virtually zero (rc = −.02, CI95 = −.11, .06) (Table 1), failing to support
Hypothesis 1a. The correlation estimate was positive for the association between deep-level
diversity in culturally diverse teams and team creativity/innovation (rc = .16, CI95 = .06, .25)
(Table 2), supporting Hypothesis 1b.
-------------------------------
Insert Table 1 & 2 about here
-------------------------------
The Moderators based on the Socio-Technical Systems Framework
The relationship between surface-level diversity in culturally diverse teams and
team creativity/innovation. This relationship was significantly negative for simple tasks (rc =
−.23, CI95 = −.33, −.12) but became non-significant for complex tasks (rc = .02, CI95 = −.07, .11).
The non-overlapping 84% CIs (−.30, −.15 for simple tasks vs. −.04, .09 for complex tasks)
further illustrated that the effect sizes were different. Thus, Hypothesis 4a was supported.
However, this relationship did not materially differ across collocated (rc = .02, CI95 = −.07, .10)
and non-collocated teams (rc = −.16, CI95 = −.37, .04), across interdependent (rc = .00, CI95 =
TEAM CREATIVITY/INNOVATION IN CULTURALLY DIVERSE TEAMS 25
−.09, .10) and independent tasks (rc = −.10, CI95 = −.26, .06), and across intellective (rc = −.04,
CI95 = −.42, .34) and judgmental tasks (rc = −.02, CI95 = −.10, .06). All the relevant 95% CIs
included zero. The 84% CIs also overlapped (−.04, .08 for collocated teams vs. −.31, −.02 for
non-collocated teams; −.07, .07 for interdependent tasks vs. −.22, .01 for independent tasks;
−.31, .23 for intellective tasks vs. −.08, .04 for judgmental tasks). Therefore, Hypotheses 2a, 3a,
and 5a were not supported.
The relationship between deep-level diversity in culturally diverse teams and team
creativity/innovation. This relationship was significantly positive in collocated teams (rc = .18,
CI95 = .07, .29) but became non-significant in non-collocated teams (rc = .02, CI95 = −.03, .06).
The 84% CIs (.10, .26 for collocated teams vs. −.01, .05 for non-collocated teams) did not
overlap, further illustrating a noticeable difference in the effect sizes. We also observed that this
relationship was significantly positive for interdependent tasks (rc = .19, CI95 = .11, .28) but
became non-significant for independent tasks (rc = −.10, CI95 = −.43, .23). The 84% CIs (.13, .25
for interdependent task vs. −.34, .13 for independent tasks) did not overlap, further illustrating a
significant difference in the effect sizes. Hence, Hypotheses 2b and 3b were supported.
Regarding the moderating role of task complexity, the effect size for complex tasks (rc
= .16, CI95 = .06, .26) was not considerably larger than that for simple tasks (rc = .05, CI95 =
−.14, .24), as evidenced by the overlapping 84% CIs (.09, .23 for complex tasks vs. −.09, .19 for
simple tasks). Note that the subgroup of simple tasks only involved two samples. In addition, the
association between deep-level diversity in culturally diverse teams and team
creativity/innovation did not substantially differ across intellective (rc = .09, CI95 = −.04, .22) and
judgmental tasks (rc = .16, CI95 = .03, .29), as evidenced by the overlapping 84% CIs (.00, .19 for
intellective tasks vs. .06, .25 for judgmental tasks). Therefore, we did not find evidence for the
TEAM CREATIVITY/INNOVATION IN CULTURALLY DIVERSE TEAMS 26
moderating effects of task complexity and intellectiveness on the association between deep-level
diversity in culturally diverse teams and team creativity/innovation. Hypotheses 4b and 5b were
not supported.
Discussion
With the increasing prevalence of multicultural teams, understanding the effect of
diversity in these teams on team creativity/innovation has become necessary (Leung & Wang,
2015). Our meta-analysis provides unique contributions to this line of research. We reexamine
the relationship between diversity in multicultural teams and team creativity/innovation with a
focus on testing its direction and strength on the basis of the socio-technical systems framework
for cultural diversity and team creativity (Leung & Wang, 2015). Integrating the social
categorization and information/decision-making perspectives, which are based on CEM (van
Knippenberg et al., 2004), and considering the ABC framework (Busse et al., 2016), we develop
coherent theorizing to examine the distinctive effects of surface- and deep-level diversity in
culturally diverse teams and moderators. Surface-level diversity has negative effects due to its
social costs whereas deep-level diversity has positive effects due to its informational benefits.
The moderators may affect the relative prominence of social costs incurred by surface-level
diversity and informational benefits incurred by deep-level diversity. Thus, the direction and
strength of the associations between surface-/deep-level diversity in culturally diverse teams and
team creativity/innovation are influenced.
In response to Stahl et al.’s (2010) call for a nuanced understanding of cultural diversity
level, our meta-analysis differentiates the two diversity levels. We found that deep-level diversity
in culturally diverse teams is positively related to team creativity/innovation, whereas surface-
level diversity in culturally diverse teams has a non-significant relationship with team
TEAM CREATIVITY/INNOVATION IN CULTURALLY DIVERSE TEAMS 27
creativity/innovation. These findings are inconsistent with Stahl et al.’s meta-analytic review,
which finds that the two diversity levels are not differently related to most outcome variables. A
possible explanation is that Stahl et al.’s meta-analysis examines relational types of team
outcomes such as conflict and social integration, whereas our meta-analysis focuses on team
creativity/innovation, which reaps informational benefits incurred by deep-level diversity in
culturally diverse teams. The findings of the different effects of the two diversity levels on team
creativity/innovation offer three important theoretical implications. First, these findings affirm
the importance of distinguishing surface- versus deep-level diversity in cultural diversity
research for the creative/innovative type of team outcomes. Previous research has commonly
treated country or ethnic group as a proxy for culture without considering deep-level diversity.
For instance, 79% of the studies in Schaffer and Riordan’s (2003) review of cross-cultural
methodologies for organizational research have operationalized culture as country. However, this
proxy may not capture deep-level differences and disregard important effects. Researchers must
be cautious when using country or ethnic group as a proxy for culture. They are encouraged to
incorporate specific deep-level constructs into their theoretical frameworks and directly test their
effects.
In addition, we found a non-significant relationship between surface-level diversity in
multicultural teams and team creativity/innovation. This finding concurs with previous meta-
analyses that has found a non-significant relationship between team diversity in
nationality/ethnicity and team creativity (for meta-analytic reviews, see Bell et al., 2011;
Hülsheger, Anderson, & Salgado, 2009; van Dijk et al., 2012). However, this result is not
consistent with our hypothesized negative relationship. The non-significant relationship is
intriguing because the team diversity literature has theorized a negative relationship between
TEAM CREATIVITY/INNOVATION IN CULTURALLY DIVERSE TEAMS 28
diversity in nationality/ethnicity and team creativity (Hülsheger et al., 2009) from the social
categorization perspective. These meta-analytic findings prompt us to rethink this relationship.
We follow the mainstream research to adopt the social categorization perspective to argue for the
negative effects of surface-level diversity in culturally diverse teams, whereas other studies offer
different views. For instance, diversity in nationality provides informational benefits (Dahlin et
al., 2005), which are salient for the creative/innovative type of team outcomes (van Dijk et al.,
2012) and may counteract its social costs. Moreover, the social costs of surface-level diversity
incurred by social categorization can be neutralized overtime (Harrison et al., 1998; Harrison,
Price, Gavin, & Florey, 2002). Therefore, the relative prominence of informational benefits and
social costs caused by surface-level diversity in culturally diverse teams is complex, thereby
warranting further investigation.
The positive relationship between deep-level diversity in culturally diverse teams and
team creativity/innovation sheds light on the cultural diversity literature, which has strived to
understand how multicultural teams can be leveraged and deems team creativity as a positive
immediate outcome of cultural diversity (Stahl et al., 2010). This finding also corroborates the
information/decision-making perspective—the main theoretical perspective that accounts for the
beneficial effects of deep-level diversity. Our result also confirms the positive effect of deep-
level diversity in culturally diverse teams on the creative/innovative type of team outcomes
postulated in Stahl et al.’s (2010) meta-analysis on cultural diversity. Noted that past studies have
suggested different views of the relative prominence of social costs and informational benefits
involved in deep-level diversity in culturally diverse teams. Dissimilarity in deep-level attributes
leads to social costs that can sustain overtime (Harrison et al., 1998; Harrison et al., 2002). The
relative prominence of informational benefits and social costs involved in deep-level diversity in
TEAM CREATIVITY/INNOVATION IN CULTURALLY DIVERSE TEAMS 29
culturally diverse teams is inconclusive for general team outcomes. Our meta-analytic finding
provides the implication that for the creative/innovative type of team outcomes, informational
benefits outweigh social costs. Future research can further examine the relative prominence of
informational benefits and social costs of deep-level diversity in culturally diverse teams for
different types of team outcomes.
Second, on the basis of Leung and Wang’s (2015) socio-technical systems framework for
cultural diversity and team creativity, we examine the moderating effects of team virtuality and
task characteristics (task interdependence, task complexity, and task intellectiveness). Team
virtuality, task complexity, and task interdependence display diverse moderating effects
depending on whether surface- or deep-level diversity in culturally diverse teams is captured.
These findings provide theoretical implications regarding “when” the two diversity levels in
culturally diverse teams are destructive or beneficial. Team and task characteristics are important
boundary conditions, which may account for the heterogeneous findings in previous meta-
analyses on team diversity (e.g., Hülsheger et al., 2009; van Dijk et al., 2012). Moreover, our
findings support the general proposition that surface-level diversity in culturally diverse teams is
negatively related to team creativity/innovation when social costs are relatively salient. On the
contrary, deep-level diversity in culturally diverse teams is positively related to team
creativity/innovation when informational benefits are relatively salient.
We also acknowledge the relevance of the ABC framework (Busse et al., 2016) to the
effect of diversity in culturally diverse teams on team creativity/innovation. The ABC framework
argues that the direction and strength of relationships depend on the marginal effects of social
costs and informational benefits. Our findings consider the diversity level in multicultural teams
together with certain moderators, thereby corroborating this reasoning. Future research can use
TEAM CREATIVITY/INNOVATION IN CULTURALLY DIVERSE TEAMS 30
the ABC framework to further investigate other conditions that affect the relative prominence of
social costs and informational benefits related to diversity in culturally diverse teams.
Practical Implications
The observed effects of surface- versus deep-level diversity in culturally diverse teams
and the moderating effects of team virtuality and task characteristics have pivotal practical
implications. First, managers are reminded that surface-level diversity in culturally diverse
teams, such as having team members with different races, may not elevate team
creativity/innovation. The critical factor in team creativity/innovation is whether team members
differ in deep-level attributes, such as cultural values and worldviews. Leaders of multicultural
teams should not be distracted by surface-level attributes and should consider deep-level
attributes in recruiting team members to achieve high team creativity/innovation.
Second, to benefit from diversity in multicultural teams and circumvent its negative
effects, managers must pay attention to team and task design. Many multicultural teams are
geographically dispersed and work virtually. Ironically, virtual teams may not leverage the range
of knowledge and perspectives offered by deep-level diversity in culturally diverse teams to
enhance team creativity/innovation. Nevertheless, for multicultural virtual teams, certain
approaches can be used to reduce communication difficulties and negative social processes. The
frequent use of rich media, such as video conferencing, may help improve communication and
interpersonal relationships. Face-to-face interaction should also be increased to build trust and
enhance ease of communication among team members and thus facilitate the utilization of
diverse knowledge and perspectives in culturally diverse teams. In terms of task design,
managers should assign complex and interdependent tasks to multicultural teams. For teams
working on simple tasks, culturally homogeneous teams are suggested; otherwise, team
TEAM CREATIVITY/INNOVATION IN CULTURALLY DIVERSE TEAMS 31
creativity/innovation may be hurt. Moreover, to fully leverage interdependent tasks that
strengthen the positive effect of deep-level diversity in culturally diverse teams, managers are
suggested to facilitate intercultural communication and information sharing and learning.
Companies can provide training courses to multicultural teams to equip team members with
improved intercultural communication and collaboration skills.
Limitations and Directions for Future Research
We discuss the limitations of this research and their implications for future research. First,
certain moderating variables are correlated. If many primary studies are available, then the
unique effect of moderators can be examined via the multiple regression approach (Steel &
Kammeyer-Mueller, 2002). Nevertheless, subgroup analysis has been widely adopted in meta-
analytic reviews (Stahl et al., 2010). Given that our hypotheses are theoretically derived, the
reported moderating effects should be robust.
Second, we call for field and laboratory experiments in future research to obtain causal
data. Our meta-analytic results are primarily based on correlational data and do not show the
direction of causality. Although diversity in multicultural teams is widely regarded as an
antecedent of team creativity/innovation (e.g., Stahl et al., 2010), the causal claims implied in our
hypotheses should be evaluated in future research.
Third, we cannot examine mediators for the relationship between diversity in
multicultural teams and team creativity/innovation because of the constraints of the data set. We
cannot analyze the social and informational processes. In addition, we cannot investigate the
interplay between diversity in culturally diverse teams and the moderators in affecting social and
informational processes and that between social and informational processes and the moderators
in affecting team creativity/innovation. Moreover, we cannot examine the different views about
TEAM CREATIVITY/INNOVATION IN CULTURALLY DIVERSE TEAMS 32
the relationships of these two processes. van Knippenberg et al. (2004) proposed that social and
informational processes are dual pathways connecting diversity in multicultural teams and team
creativity/innovation, and these two processes interact with each other. However, Leung and
Wang (2015) proposed a chain mediating model in which cultural diversity influences social
processes, and then informational processes, and finally team creativity. Without examining the
mediating mechanisms between diversity in multicultural teams and team creativity/innovation,
we cannot explore these different alternatives and thus encourage future research in this
direction.
Moreover, this meta-analytic study does not examine moderators outside the scope of the
socio-technical systems framework for cultural diversity and team creativity (Leung & Wang,
2015). For instance, team-level moderators may interact with organization-level moderators (e.g.,
Joshi & Roh, 2009) to influence the relationship between diversity in multicultural teams and
team creativity/innovation. However, the scarce relevant research does not allow us to scrutinize
these complex moderating effects. Primary studies should be in place to fill this gap.
A methodological issue is the imbalanced number of studies across moderator levels that
entails unfair comparisons (Cooper & Richardson, 1986) and influences the effect size estimates
in subgroup analysis. We also acknowledge the low number of studies for certain moderator
levels that makes our findings susceptible to second-order sampling error (Schmidt & Hunter,
2014) and affects effect size variability. Further primary studies are necessary to address these
concerns.
In conclusion, this meta-analysis reveals that surface-level diversity in culturally diverse
team has a non-significant relationship with team creativity/innovation. Nevertheless, deep-level
diversity in culturally diverse teams has a positive relationship with team creativity/innovation.
TEAM CREATIVITY/INNOVATION IN CULTURALLY DIVERSE TEAMS 33
By influencing the relative prominence of social costs and informational benefits, team virtuality
and task characteristics show moderating effects. This meta-analysis provides refined empirical
conclusions for the relationship between diversity in culturally diverse teams and team
creativity/innovation with prevailing theories and frameworks. Future research should investigate
the social and informational processes underlying this relationship.
TEAM CREATIVITY/INNOVATION IN CULTURALLY DIVERSE TEAMS 34
Footnote
1 We would have considered other unreliability information if we had not adopted the
artifact distribution approach. However, we did not consider item-specific measurement error,
thus our correction was incomplete. Our findings should be interpreted as conservative estimates
of the true population parameters (De Jong et al., 2016).
2 Null hypothesis statistical testing in meta-analysis has remained controversial.
Countering the advocate for its abandonment by certain scholars, especially Hunter and Schmidt
(2004) and Schmidt and Hunter (2014), statistical testing has been widely utilized (Borenstein et
al., 2009). It is not uncommon to adopt Hunter and Schmidt’s method to derive effect sizes, and
subsequently utilize statistical testing procedures (Aguinis, Sturman, & Pierce, 2008), including
overlapping of CIs (e.g., Hong, Liao, Hu, & Jiang, 2013; Lapierre et al., 2018; Marlow et al.,
2018; Robbins, Ford, & Tetrick, 2012; Rockstuhl, Dulebohn, Ang, & Shore, 2012) to evaluate
moderating effects.
3 Other methods are less commonly used, and/or their effectiveness is questionable
(Kepes, Banks, McDaniel, & Whetzel, 2012). Trim and fill method and test of the intercept
require at least 10 samples (Sterne et al., 2011). Hence, we did not employ these procedures
within subgroups, many of which involved fewer than 10 samples.
TEAM CREATIVITY/INNOVATION IN CULTURALLY DIVERSE TEAMS 35
References
*Articles included in the present meta-analysis are marked with an asterisk.
Adler, N. J. (1986). International dimensions of organizational behavior. Boston, Mass.: PWS-
Kent.
*Aggarwal, I. (2013). Cognitive style diversity in teams. (Doctor of Philosophy doctoral
dissertation), Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.
Aguinis, H., Gottfredson, R. K., & Joo, H. (2013). Best-practice recommendations for defining,
identifying, and handling outliers. Organizational Research Methods, 16, 270-301. DOI:
10.1177/1094428112470848
Aguinis, H., Sturman, M. C., & Pierce, C. A. (2008). Comparison of three meta-analytic
procedures for estimating moderating effects of categorical variables. Organizational
Research Methods, 11, 9-34. DOI: 10.1177/1094428106292896
Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. (1992). Demography and design - Predictors of new product
team performance. Organization Science, 3, 321-341. DOI: 10.1287/orsc.3.3.321
Anderson, N., Potočnik, K., & Zhou, J. (2014). Innovation and creativity in organizations: A
state-of-the-science review, prospective commentary, and guiding framework. Journal of
Management, 40, 1297-1333. DOI: 10.1177/0149206314527128
Astill, R. G., Van der Heijden, K. B., Van IJzendoorn, M. H., & Van Someren, E. J. W. (2012).
Sleep, cognition, and behavioral problems in school-age children: A century of research
meta-analyzed. Psychological Bulletin, 138, 1109-1138. DOI: 10.1037/a0028204
*Batarseh, F. S., Usher, J. M., & Daspit, J. J. (2017). Collaboration capability in virtual teams:
Examining the influence on diversity and innovation. International Journal of Innovation
Management, 21, 1750034-1750031-1750029. DOI: 10.1142/s1363919617500347
TEAM CREATIVITY/INNOVATION IN CULTURALLY DIVERSE TEAMS 36
Beal, D. J., Corey, D. M., & Dunlap, W. P. (2002). On the bias of Huffcutt and Arthur's (1995)
procedure for identifying outliers in the meta-analysis of correlations. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 87, 583-589. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.87.3.583
Bell, S. T., Villado, A. J., Lukasik, M. A., Belau, L., & Briggs, A. L. (2011). Getting specific
about demographic diversity variable and team performance relationships: A meta-
analysis. Journal of Management, 37, 709-743. DOI: 10.1177/0149206310365001
Blume, B. D., Ford, J. K., Baldwin, T. T., & Huang, J. L. (2010). Transfer of training: A meta-
analytic review. Journal of Management, 36, 1065-1105. DOI:
10.1177/0149206309352880
*Bogilović, S., Černe, M., & Škerlavaj, M. (2017). Hiding behind a mask? Cultural intelligence,
knowledge hiding, and individual and team creativity. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 26, 710-723. DOI: 10.1080/1359432x.2017.1337747
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-
analysis. Chichester, The United Kingdom: Wiley.
Bowers, C. A., Pharmer, J. A., & Salas, E. (2000). When member homogeneity is needed in work
teams - A meta-analysis. Small Group Research, 31, 305-327. DOI:
10.1177/104649640003100303
Burnette, J. L., O'Boyle, E. H., VanEpps, E. M., Pollack, J. M., & Finkel, E. J. (2013). Mind-sets
matter: A meta-analytic review of implicit theories and self-regulation. Psychological
Bulletin, 139, 655-701. DOI: 10.1037/a0029531
Busse, C., Mahlendorf, M. D., & Bode, C. (2016). The ABC for studying the Too-Much-of-a-
Good-Thing effect: A competitive mediation framework linking antecedents, benefits,
and costs. Organizational Research Methods, 19, 131-153. DOI:
TEAM CREATIVITY/INNOVATION IN CULTURALLY DIVERSE TEAMS 37
10.1177/1094428115579699
Byron, K., & Khazanchi, S. (2012). Rewards and creative performance: A meta-analytic test of
theoretically derived hypotheses. Psychological Bulletin, 138, 809-830. DOI:
10.1037/a0027652
Byron, K., Khazanchi, S., & Nazarian, D. (2010). The relationship between stressors and
creativity: A meta-analysis examining competing theoretical models. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 95, 201-212. DOI: 10.1037/a0017868
*Cady, S. H., & Valentine, J. (1999). Team Innovation and perceptions of consideration: What
difference does diversity make? Small Group Research, 30, 730-750. DOI:
10.1177/104649649903000604
*Cheng, C. Y., Chua, R. Y. J., Morris, M. W., & Lee, L. (2012). Finding the right mix: How the
composition of self-managing multicultural teams' cultural value orientation influences
performance over time. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 389-411. DOI:
10.1002/job.1777
Cheng, G. H. L., & Chan, D. K. S. (2008). Who suffers more from job insecurity? A meta-
analytic review. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 57, 272-303. DOI:
10.1111/j.1464-0597.2007.00312.x
Choi, D., Oh, I. S., & Colbert, A. E. (2015). Understanding organizational commitment: A meta-
analytic examination of the roles of the Five-Factor Model of personality and culture.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 1542-1567. DOI: 10.1037/apl0000014
Connaughton, S. L., & Shuffler, M. (2007). Multinational and multicultural distributed teams: A
review and future agenda. Small Group Research, 38, 387-412. DOI:
10.1177/1046496407301970
TEAM CREATIVITY/INNOVATION IN CULTURALLY DIVERSE TEAMS 38
Cooper, W. H., & Richardson, A. J. (1986). Unfair comparisons. Journal of Applied Psychology,
71, 179-184. DOI: 10.1037//0021-9010.71.2.179
Cramton, C. D. (2001). The mutual knowledge problem and its consequences for dispersed
collaboration. Organization Science, 12, 346-371. DOI: 10.1287/orsc.12.3.346.10098
Cummings, T. G. (1978). Self-regulating work groups: A socio-technical synthesis. Academy of
Management Review, 3, 625-634. DOI: 10.5465/AMR.1978.4305900
*Curşeu, P. L. (2010). Team creativity in web site design: An empirical test of a systemic model.
Creativity Research Journal, 22, 98-107. DOI: 10.1080/10400410903579635
Dahlin, K. B., Weingart, L. R., & Hinds, P. J. (2005). Team diversity and information use.
Academy of Management Journal, 48, 1107-1123. DOI: 10.5465/AMJ.2005.19573112
Davis, M. C., Challenger, R., Jayewardene, D. N. W., & Clegg, C. W. (2014). Advancing socio-
technical systems thinking: A call for bravery. Applied Ergonomics, 45, 171-180. DOI:
10.1016/j.apergo.2013.02.009
De Dreu, C. K. W., & West, M. A. (2001). Minority dissent and team innovation: The importance
of participation in decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1191-1201. DOI:
10.1037//0021-9010.86.6.1191
De Jong, B. A., Dirks, K. T., & Gillespie, N. (2016). Trust and team performance: A meta-
analysis of main effects, moderators, and covariates. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101,
1134-1150. DOI: 10.1037/apl0000110
de Wit, F. R., Greer, L. L., & Jehn, K. A. (2012). The paradox of intragroup conflict: A meta-
analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 360-390. DOI: 10.1037/a0024844
Degner, J., & Dalege, J. (2013). The apple does not fall far from the tree, or does it? A meta-
analysis of parent-child similarity in intergroup attitudes. Psychological Bulletin, 139,
TEAM CREATIVITY/INNOVATION IN CULTURALLY DIVERSE TEAMS 39
1270-1304. DOI: 10.1037/a0031436
Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000a). A nonparametric "Trim and Fill" method of accounting for
publication bias in meta-analysis. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 95, 89-
98. DOI: 10.2307/2669529
Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000b). Trim and fill: A simple funnel-plot-based method of testing
and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics, 56, 455-463. DOI:
10.1111/j.0006-341X.2000.00455.x
Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997). Bias in meta-analysis detected by
a simple, graphical test. British Medical Journal, 315, 629-634. DOI:
10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629
Erez, M. (2011). Cross-cultural and global issues in organizational psychology. In S. Zedeck
(Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 807-854).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Fox, W. M. (1995). Sociotechnical system principles and guidelines: Past and present. Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science, 31, 91-105. DOI: 10.1177/0021886395311009
Geyskens, I., Krishnan, R., Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M., & Cunha, P. V. (2009). A review and
evaluation of meta-analysis practices in management research. Journal of Management,
35, 393-419. DOI: 10.1177/0149206308328501
*Giambatista, R. C., & Bhappu, A. D. (2010). Diversity's harvest: Interactions of diversity
sources and communication technology on creative group performance. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 111, 116-126. DOI:
10.1016/j.obhdp.2009.11.003
*Gibson, C. B., & Gibbs, J. L. (2006). Unpacking the concept of virtuality: The effects of
TEAM CREATIVITY/INNOVATION IN CULTURALLY DIVERSE TEAMS 40
geographic dispersion, electronic dependence, dynamic structure, and national diversity
on team innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51, 451-495. DOI:
10.2189/asqu.51.3.451
Gibson, C. B., Huang, L., Kirkman, B. L., & Shapiro, D. L. (2014). Where global and virtual
meet: The value of examining the intersection of these elements in twenty-first-century
teams. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1,
217-244. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091240
Goldstein, H., & Healy, M. J. R. (1995). The graphical presentation of a collection of means.
Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (Statistics in Society), 158, 175-177.
DOI: 10.2307/2983411
Guillaume, Y. R. F., Dawson, J. F., Otaye-Ebede, L., Woods, S. A., & West, M. A. (2017).
Harnessing demographic differences in organizations: What moderates the effects of
workplace diversity? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38, 276-303. DOI:
10.1002/job.2040
Hajro, A., Gibson, C. B., & Pudelko, M. (2017). Knowledge exchange processes in multicultural
teams: Linking organizational diversity climates to teams' effectiveness. Academy of
Management Journal, 60, 345-372. DOI: 10.5465/amj.2014.0442
*Han, J., Han, J., & Brass, D. J. (2014). Human capital diversity in the creation of social capital
for team creativity. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35, 54-71. DOI:
10.1002/job.1853
Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., & Bell, M. P. (1998). Beyond relational demography: Time and the
effects of surface-and deep-level diversity on work group cohesion. Academy of
Management Journal, 41, 96-107. DOI: 10.2307/256901
TEAM CREATIVITY/INNOVATION IN CULTURALLY DIVERSE TEAMS 41
Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., Gavin, J. H., & Florey, A. T. (2002). Time, teams, and task
performance: Changing effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on group functioning.
Academy of Management Journal, 45, 1029-1045. DOI: 10.2307/3069328
*Heller, D. M. (1997). Cultural diversity and team performance: Testing for social loafing
effects. (Doctor of Philosophy doctoral dissertation), University of North Texas, Denton,
TX.
*Herron, M. T. (1993). The effects of the ethnic and gender diversity of work teams on on the
perceptions of performance outputs. (Doctor of Philosophy doctoral dissertation),
California School of Professional Psychology, Alhambra, CA.
Higgins, J. P. T., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2003). Measuring
inconsistency in meta-analyses. British Medical Journal, 327, 557-560. DOI:
10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557
Hinds, P., Liu, L., & Lyon, J. (2011). Putting the global in global work: An intercultural lens on
the practice of cross-national collaboration. Academy of Management Annals, 5, 135-188.
DOI: 10.1080/19416520.2011.586108
Hinds, P. J., & Bailey, D. E. (2003). Out of sight, out of sync: Understanding conflict in
distributed teams. Organization Science, 14, 615-632. DOI: 10.1287/orsc.14.6.615.24872
*Hoever, I. J. (2012). Diversity and creativity: In search of synergy. (Doctor of Philosophy
doctoral dissertation), Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
*Hoever, I. J., van Knippenberg, D., van Ginkel, W. P., & Barkema, H. G. (2012). Fostering team
creativity: Perspective taking as key to unlocking diversity's potential. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 97, 982-996. DOI: 10.1037/a0029159
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values.
TEAM CREATIVITY/INNOVATION IN CULTURALLY DIVERSE TEAMS 42
Beverly Hills, CA, and London: Sage.
*Homan, A. C., Buengeler, C., Eckhoff, R. A., van Ginkel, W. P., & Voelpel, S. C. (2015). The
interplay of diversity training and diversity beliefs on team creativity in nationality
diverse teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 1456-1467. DOI:
10.1037/apl0000013
Hong, Y., Liao, H., Hu, J., & Jiang, K. (2013). Missing link in the service profit chain: A meta-
analytic review of the antecedents, consequences, and moderators of service climate.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 237-267. DOI: 10.1037/a0031666
House, R. J., Hanges, P. W., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (2004). Culture,
leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
*Huang, L., Gibson, C. B., Kirkman, B. L., & Shapiro, D. L. (2017). When is traditionalism an
asset and when is it a liability for team innovation? A two-study empirical examination.
Journal of International Business Studies, 48, 693-715. DOI: 10.1057/s41267-017-0075-
y
Huffcutt, A. I., & Arthur, W. (1995). Development of a new outlier statistic for meta-analytic
data. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 327-334. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.80.2.327
Hughes, D. J., Lee, A., Tian, A. W., Newman, A., & Legood, A. (2018). Leadership, creativity,
and innovation: A critical review and practical recommendations. Leadership Quarterly,
29, 549-569. DOI: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.03.001
Hülsheger, U. R., Anderson, N., & Salgado, J. F. (2009). Team-level predictors of innovation at
work: A comprehensive meta-analysis spanning three decades of research. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 94, 1128-1145. DOI: 10.1037/a0015978
TEAM CREATIVITY/INNOVATION IN CULTURALLY DIVERSE TEAMS 43
Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in
research findings (2 ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Jackson, S. E., May, K. E., & Whitney, K. (1995). Understanding the dynamics of diversity in
decision-making teams. In R. A. Guzzo & E. Salas (Eds.), Team effectiveness and
decision making in organizations (pp. 204-261). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
*Jang, S. (2017). Cultural brokerage and creative performance in multicultural teams.
Organization Science, 28, 993-1009. DOI: 10.1287/orsc.2017.1162
*Jehn, K. A., & Conlon, D. E. (in press). Are lifestyle differences beneficial? The effects of
marital diversity on group outcomes. Small Group Research. DOI:
10.1177/1046496418755920
Jehn, K. A., Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. (1999). Why differences make a difference: A
field study of diversity, conflict, and performance in workgroups. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 44, 741-763. DOI: 10.2307/2667054
*Joshi, A., & Knight, A. P. (2015). Who defers to whom and why? Dual pathways linking
demographic differences and dyadic deference to team effectiveness. Academy of
Management Journal, 58, 59-84. DOI: 10.5465/amj.2013.0718
Joshi, A., & Roh, H. (2009). The role of context in work team diversity research: A meta-analytic
review. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 599-627. DOI:
10.5465/AMJ.2009.41331491
*Jules, C. (2007). Diversity of member composition and team learning in organizations. (Doctor
of Philosophy doctoral dissertation), Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH.
*Kearney, E., & Gebert, D. (2009). Managing diversity and enhancing team outcomes: The
promise of transformational leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 77-89. DOI:
TEAM CREATIVITY/INNOVATION IN CULTURALLY DIVERSE TEAMS 44
10.1037/a0013077
Kelley, H. H. (1979). Personal relationships: Their structure and prophecies. Hillsdaie. NJ:
Eribaum.
Kepes, S., Banks, G. C., McDaniel, M., & Whetzel, D. L. (2012). Publication bias in the
organizational sciences. Organizational Research Methods, 15, 624-662. DOI:
10.1177/1094428112452760
Kiesler, S., & Cummings, J. N. (2002). What do we know about proximity and distance in work
groups? A legacy of research. In P. J. Hinds & S. Kiesler (Eds.), Distributed work (Vol. 1,
pp. 57-80). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
*Kim, S. Y. (2014). Valuing group diversity fosters creativity for individuals and groups. (Doctor
of Philosophy doctoral dissertation), Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.
Klein, K. J., Dansereau, F., & Hall, R. J. (1994). Levels issues in theory development, data
collection, and analysis. Academy of Management Review, 19, 195-229. DOI:
10.5465/AMR.1994.9410210745
Kumar, K., van Fenema, P. C., & von Glinow, M. A. (2009). Offshoring and the global
distribution of work: Implications for task interdependence theory and practice. Journal
of International Business Studies, 40, 642-667. DOI: 10.1057/jibs.2008.77
*Kurtzberg, T. R. (2005). Feeling creative, being creative: An empirical study of diversity and
creativity in teams. Creativity Research Journal, 17, 51-65. DOI:
10.1207/s15326934crj1701_5
Lapierre, L. M., Li, Y., Kwan, H. K., Greenhaus, J. H., DiRenzo, M. S., & Shao, P. (2018). A
meta‐analysis of the antecedents of work–family enrichment. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 39, 385-401. DOI: 10.1002/job.2234
TEAM CREATIVITY/INNOVATION IN CULTURALLY DIVERSE TEAMS 45
Laughlin, P. R., & Adamopoulos, J. (1980). Social combination processes and individual learning
for six-person cooperative groups on an intellective task. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 38, 941-947. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.38.6.941
Laughlin, P. R., Hatch, E. C., Silver, J. S., & Boh, L. (2006). Groups perform better than the best
individuals on letters-to-numbers problems: Effects of group size. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 90, 644-651. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.90.4.644
Leung, K., Bhagat, R. S., Buchan, N. R., Erez, M., & Gibson, C. B. (2005). Culture and
international business: Recent advances and their implications for future research.
Journal of International Business Studies, 36, 357-378. DOI:
10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400150
Leung, K., & Bond, M. H. (2004). Social axioms: A model for social beliefs in multicultural
perspective. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 119-197. DOI:
10.1016/S0065-2601(04)36003-X
Leung, K., & Peterson, M. F. (2011). Managing a globally distributed workforce: Social and
interpersonal issues. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational
psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 771-805). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Leung, K., & Wang, J. (2015). Social processes and team creativity in multicultural teams: A
socio-technical framework. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36, 1008-1025. DOI:
10.1002/job.2021
*Li, C. R., Lin, C. J., Tien, Y. H., & Chen, C. M. (2017). A multilevel model of team cultural
diversity and creativity: The role of climate for inclusion. Journal of Creative Behavior,
51, 163-179. DOI: 10.1002/jocb.93
Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
TEAM CREATIVITY/INNOVATION IN CULTURALLY DIVERSE TEAMS 46
*Lisak, A., Erez, M., Sui, Y., & Lee, C. (2016). The positive role of global leaders in enhancing
multicultural team innovation. Journal of International Business Studies, 47, 655-673.
DOI: 10.1057/s41267-016-0002-7
*Lu, L., Li, F. L., Leung, K., Savani, K., & Morris, M. W. (2018). When can culturally diverse
teams be more creative? The role of leaders' benevolent paternalism. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 39, 402-415. DOI: 10.1002/job.2238
MacDuffie, J. P. (2007). HRM and distributed work: Managing people across distances.
Academy of Management Annals, 1, 549-615. DOI: 10.1080/078559817
MacGregor-Fors, I., & Payton, M. E. (2013). Contrasting diversity values: Statistical inferences
based on overlapping confidence intervals. PLOS One, 8, e56794. DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0056794
Marlow, S. L., Lacerenza, C. N., Paoletti, J., Burke, C. S., & Salas, E. (2018). Does team
communication represent a one-size-fits-all approach?: A meta analysis of team
communication and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 144, 145-170. DOI: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2017.08.001
Martins, L. L., Gilson, L. L., & Maynard, M. T. (2004). Virtual teams: What do we know and
where do we go from here? Journal of Management, 30, 805-835. DOI:
10.1016/j.jm.2004.05.002
*Martins, L. L., & Shalley, C. E. (2011). Creativity in virtual work: Effects of demographic
differences. Small Group Research, 42, 536-561. DOI: 10.1177/1046496410397382
McGrath, J. E. (1984). Groups: Interaction and performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
Hall.
McGrath, J. E., & Hollingshead, A. B. (1994). Groups interacting with technology: Ideas,
TEAM CREATIVITY/INNOVATION IN CULTURALLY DIVERSE TEAMS 47
evidence, issues, and an agenda. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
McKenna, K. Y. A., & Bargh, J. A. (2000). Plan 9 from cyberspace: The implications of the
Internet for personality and social psychology. Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 4, 57-75. DOI: 10.1207/S15327957PSPR0401_6
*McLeod, P. L., Lobel, S. A., & Cox, T. H. (1996). Ethnic diversity and creativity in small
groups. Small Group Research, 27, 248-264. DOI: 10.1177/1046496496272003
*Mitchell, R., Boyle, B., & Nicholas, S. (2011). Cross-cultural group performance. The Learning
Organization, 18, 94-101. DOI: 10.1108/09696471111103704
*Nancarrow, L. (2001). The impact of work group diversity on organizational outcomes. (Master
of Business Administration master's thesis), Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada.
*Nouri, R., Erez, M., Rockstuhl, T., Ang, S., Leshem-Calif, L., & Rafaeli, A. (2013). Taking the
bite out of culture: The impact of task structure and task type on overcoming
impediments to cross-cultural team performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
34, 739-763. DOI: 10.1002/job.1871
*O'Reilly, C. A., III, Williams, K. Y., & Barsade, S. (1998). Group demography and innovation:
Does diversity help? In D. H. Gruenfeld (Ed.), Research on managing groups and teams
(Vol. 1, pp. 183-207). Stamford, Conn.: JAI Press.
*Paletz, S. B. F., Peng, K., Erez, M., & Maslach, C. (2004). Ethnic composition and its
differential impact on group processes in diverse teams. Small Group Research, 35, 128-
157. DOI: 10.1177/1046496403258793
*Perry-Smith, J. E., & Shalley, C. E. (2014). A social composition view of team creativity: The
role of member nationality-heterogeneous ties outside of the team. Organization Science,
25, 1434-1452. DOI: 10.1287/orsc.2014.0912
TEAM CREATIVITY/INNOVATION IN CULTURALLY DIVERSE TEAMS 48
*Pluut, H., & Curşeu, P. L. (2013). The role of diversity of life experiences in fostering
collaborative creativity in demographically diverse student groups. Thinking Skills and
Creativity, 9, 16-23. DOI: 10.1016/j.tsc.2013.01.002
Rebhun, U., & Waxman, C. I. (2000). The "Americanization" of Israel: A demographic, cultural
and political evaluation. Israel Studies, 5, 65-91. DOI: 10.2979/ISR.2000.5.1.65
*Ren, H., Gray, B., & Harrison, D. A. (2015). Triggering faultline effects in teams: The
importance of bridging friendship ties and breaching animosity ties. Organization
Science, 26, 390-404. DOI: 10.1287/orsc.2014.0944
Robbins, J. M., Ford, M. T., & Tetrick, L. E. (2012). Perceived unfairness and employee health:
A meta-analytic integration. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 235-272. DOI:
10.1037/a0025408
Rockstuhl, T., Dulebohn, J. H., Ang, S., & Shore, L. M. (2012). Leader-member exchange
(LMX) and culture: A meta-analysis of correlates of LMX across 23 countries. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 97, 1097-1130. DOI: 10.1037/a0029978
*Rodriguez, R. A. (1998). Challenging demographic reductionism: A pilot study investigating
diversity in group composition. Small group research, 29, 744-759. DOI:
10.1177/1046496498296004
Schaffer, B. S., & Riordan, C. M. (2003). A review of cross-cultural methodologies for
organizational research: A best-practices approach. Organizational Research Methods, 6,
169-215. DOI: 10.1177/1094428103251542
*Schilpzand, M. C., Herold, D. M., & Shalley, C. E. (2011). Members' openness to experience
and teams' creative performance. Small Group Research, 42, 55-76. DOI:
10.1177/1046496410377509
TEAM CREATIVITY/INNOVATION IN CULTURALLY DIVERSE TEAMS 49
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (2014). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in
research findings (3 ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sheppard, B. H., & Sherman, D. M. (1998). The grammars of trust: A model and general
implications. Academy of Management Review, 23, 422-437. DOI:
10.5465/AMR.1998.926619
*Spoelma, T. M., & Ellis, A. P. J. (2017). Fuse or fracture? Threat as a moderator of the effects of
diversity faultlines in teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102, 1344-1359. DOI:
10.1037/apl0000231
Stahl, G. K., Maznevski, M. L., Voigt, A., & Jonsen, K. (2010). Unraveling the effects of cultural
diversity in teams: A meta-analysis of research on multicultural work groups. Journal of
International Business Studies, 41, 690-709. DOI: 10.1057/jibs.2009.85
Steel, P. D. (2007). The nature of procrastination: A meta-analytic and theoretical review of
quintessential self-regulatory failure. Psychological Bulletin, 133, 65-94. DOI:
10.1037/0033-2909.133.1.65
Steel, P. D., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D. (2002). Comparing meta-analytic moderator estimation
techniques under realistic conditions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 96-111. DOI:
10.1037//00210-9010.87.1.96
Sterne, J. A. C., & Egger, M. (2005). Regression methods to detect publication and other bias in
meta-analysis. In H. R. Rothstein, A. J. Sutton, & M. Borenstein (Eds.), Publication bias
in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment and adjustments (pp. 99-110). Chichester,
United Kingdom: John Wiley & Sons.
Sterne, J. A. C., Sutton, A. J., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Terrin, N., Jones, D. R., Lau, J., . . . Higgins, J.
P. T. (2011). Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in
TEAM CREATIVITY/INNOVATION IN CULTURALLY DIVERSE TEAMS 50
meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. BMJ, 343. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.d4002
Stewart, G. L., & Barrick, M. R. (2000). Team structure and performance: Assessing the
mediating role of intrateam process and the moderating role of task type. Academy of
Management Journal, 43, 135-148. DOI: 10.2307/1556372
*Stringfellow, A. (1998). Managing diversity to achieve knowledge integration: The effective use
of cross-functional teams in new product development. (Doctor of Philosophy doctoral
dissertation), University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.
Sussman, S. W., & Sproull, L. (1999). Straight talk: Delivering bad news through electronic
communication. Information Systems Research, 10, 150-166. DOI: 10.1287/isre.10.2.150
*Suwannarat, P., & Mumi, A. (2012). Examining the effects of cultural diversity on team
performance and IJV performance. International Journal of Business Strategy, 12, 120-
132.
*Tadmor, C. T., Satterstrom, P., Jang, S., & Polzer, J. T. (2012). Beyond individual creativity:
The superadditive benefits of multicultural experience for collective creativity in
culturally diverse teams. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43, 384-392. DOI:
10.1177/0022022111435259
Thompson, L., & Nadler, J. (2002). Negotiating via information technology: Theory and
application. Journal of Social Issues, 58, 109-124. DOI: 10.1111/1540-4560.00251
Triandis, H. C. (1996). The psychological measurement of cultural syndromes. American
Psychologist, 51, 407-415. DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.51.4.407
Trist, E. L., & Bamforth, K. W. (1951). Some social and psychological consequences of the
Longwall method of coal-getting: An examination of the psychological situation and
defences of a work group in relation to the social structure and technological content of
TEAM CREATIVITY/INNOVATION IN CULTURALLY DIVERSE TEAMS 51
the work system. Human Relations, 4, 3-38. DOI: 10.1177/001872675100400101
Tung, R. L. (1993). Managing cross-national and intra-national diversity. Human Resource
Management, 32, 461-477. DOI: 10.1002/hrm.3930320404
*Turkmen, A. A. (2013). Cognitive diversity and innovation: Does cognitive diversity in
multinational corporations influence workgroup innovation? (Doctor of Philosophy
doctoral dissertation), Fielding Graduate University, Santa Barbara, CA.
van Dijk, H., van Engen, M. L., & van Knippenberg, D. (2012). Defying conventional wisdom:
A meta-analytical examination of the differences between demographic and job-related
diversity relationships with performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 119, 38-53. DOI: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.06.003
van IJzendoorn, M. H., Juffer, F., & Poelhuis, C. W. K. (2005). Adoption and cognitive
development: A meta-analytic comparison of adopted and nonadopted children's IQ and
school performance. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 301-316. DOI: 10.1037/0033-
2909.131.2.301
van Knippenberg, D. (2017). Team innovation. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and
Organizational Behavior, 4, 211-233. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032516-113240
van Knippenberg, D., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Homan, A. C. (2004). Work group diversity and
group performance: An integrative model and research agenda. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 89, 1008-1022. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.1008
van Knippenberg, D., & Mell, J. N. (2016). Past, present, and potential future of team diversity
research: From compositional diversity to emergent diversity. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 136, 135-145. DOI: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2016.05.007
*Watson, W. E., Kumar, K., & Michaelsen, L. K. (1993). Cultural diversity's impact on
TEAM CREATIVITY/INNOVATION IN CULTURALLY DIVERSE TEAMS 52
interaction process and performance: Comparing homogeneous and diverse task groups.
Academy of Management Journal, 36, 590-602. DOI: 10.2307/256593
Wildman, J. L., Thayer, A. L., Rosen, M. A., Salas, E., Mathieu, J. E., & Rayne, S. R. (2012).
Task types and team-level attributes: Synthesis of team classification literature. Human
Resource Development Review, 11, 97-129. DOI: 10.1177/1534484311417561
Williams, K. Y., & O'Reilly, C. A., III. (1998). Demography and diversity in organizations: A
review of 40 years of research. Research in Organizational Behavior, 20, 77-140.
Wood, J. A. (2008). Methodology for dealing with duplicate study effects in a meta-analysis.
Organizational Research Methods, 11, 79-95. DOI: 10.1177/1094428106296638
*Yoerger, M., Allen, J. A., & Crowe, J. (2018). The impact of premeeting talk on group
performance. Small Group Research, 49, 226-258. DOI: 10.1177/1046496417744883
TEAM CREATIVITY/INNOVATION IN CULTURALLY DIVERSE TEAMS 53
Table 1 Surface-level diversity in culturally diverse teams and team creativity/innovation
Moderator
k
N
r
rc
SE
CI95
CI95
CI84
CI84
SD
CV80
CV80
I2
lower
upper
lower
upper
lower
upper
Main effect
37
2235
−.02
−.02
.04
−.11
.06
−.08
.04
.21
−.30
.25
70.43
1. Team virtuality
Collocated
30
1745
.01
.02
.04
−.07
.10
−.04
.08
.19
−.23
.26
64.51
Non-collocated
7
490
−.15
−.16
.10
−.37
.04
−.31
−.02
.24
−.47
.14
80.69
2. Task interdependence
Interdependent
28
1673
.00
.00
.05
−.09
.10
−.07
.07
.21
−.27
.27
69.92
Independent
9
562
−.09
−.10
.08
−.26
.06
−.22
.01
.20
−.36
.16
72.13
3. Task complexity
Complex
30
1830
.02
.02
.05
−.07
.11
−.04
.09
.21
−.25
.29
70.46
Simple
7
405
−.21
−.23
.05
−.33
−.12
−.30
−.15
.00
−.23
−.23
18.35
4. Task intellectiveness
Intellective
6
252
−.04
−.04
.19
−.42
.34
−.31
.23
.44
−.60
.52
89.09
Judgmental
25
1566
−.02
−.02
.04
−.10
.06
−.08
.04
.14
−.20
.16
53.61
Note: k = number of samples; N = sample size (number of teams); r = uncorrected mean correlation; rc = corrected mean correlation;
SE = standard error; CI = confidence interval; SD = standard deviation; CV = credibility interval; I2 = percentage of variance due to
real heterogeneity. An effect size was significantly different from zero when its CI95 did not include zero. In subgroup analysis, effect
sizes were significantly different when their CI84 did not overlap. Findings based on fewer than three samples should be interpreted
with caution.
TEAM CREATIVITY/INNOVATION IN CULTURALLY DIVERSE TEAMS 54
Table 2 Deep-level diversity in culturally diverse teams and team creativity/innovation
Moderator
k
N
r
rc
SE
CI95
CI95
CI84
CI84
SD
CV80
CV80
I2
lower
upper
lower
upper
lower
upper
Main effect
21
1170
.14
.16
.05
.06
.25
.09
.22
.17
−.06
.37
59.44
1. Team virtuality
Collocated
18
999
.16
.18
.05
.07
.29
.10
.26
.18
−.05
.41
63.38
Non-collocated
3
171
.02
.02
.02
−.03
.06
−.01
.05
.00
.02
.02
.00
2. Task interdependence
Interdependent
18
1030
.17
.19
.04
.11
.28
.13
.25
.11
.05
.34
44.78
Independent
3
140
−.09
−.10
.17
−.43
.23
−.34
.13
.24
−.41
.20
79.65
3. Task complexity
Complex
19
1104
.15
.16
.05
.06
.26
.09
.23
.17
−.06
.38
62.28
Simple
2
66
.05
.05
.10
−.14
.24
−.09
.19
.00
.05
.05
4.19
4. Task intellectiveness
Intellective
4
189
.08
.09
.07
−.04
.22
.00
.19
.00
.09
.09
.00
Judgmental
14
802
.14
.16
.07
.03
.29
.06
.25
.21
−.11
.42
70.46
Note: k = number of samples; N = sample size (number of teams); r = uncorrected mean correlation; rc = corrected mean correlation;
SE = standard error; CI = confidence interval; SD = standard deviation; CV = credibility interval; I2 = percentage of variance due to
real heterogeneity. An effect size was significantly different from zero when its CI95 did not include zero. In subgroup analysis, effect
sizes were significantly different when their CI84 did not overlap. Findings based on fewer than three samples should be interpreted
with caution.
TEAM CREATIVITY/INNOVATION IN CULTURALLY DIVERSE TEAMS 55
Appendix 1 Coding for diversity and moderator level
Diversity in culturally diverse teams
- Surface-level: diversity was measured based on observable, surface-level attributes (i.e.,
countries or ethnic groups).
- Deep-level: diversity was explicitly measured based on deep-level attributes, such as values
and thinking styles, in teams with members from different countries/ethnicities.
Team virtuality
- Collocated teams: teams that were collocated or relied on face-to-face communication.
- Non-collocated teams: teams that were virtual, (partially) geographically
dispersed/distributed, hybrid, or primarily communicated through information and
communication technology.
Task interdependence
- Interdependent tasks: tasks that involved reciprocal interdependence (e.g., work tasks in a
real organizational setting and those that require reciprocal effort in a laboratory setting).
- Independent tasks: tasks that involved pooled interdependence (e.g., team output was a
simple aggregation of the individually generated ideas).
Task complexity
- Complex tasks: tasks that involved solving problems of a broad scope and complex
solutions. This type of tasks is typically unstructured and involves different facets (e.g.,
generating promotion plans for products and R&D teams).
- Simple tasks: tasks that involved alternative use tests in a laboratory setting; this type of
tasks has narrow scopes and is direct and structured (e.g., generating different uses of a
brick).
Task intellectiveness
- Intellective tasks: tasks that involved demonstrably correct decisions and solutions based on
a certain conceptual system (e.g., engineering, accounting, and medical tasks).
- Judgmental tasks: tasks in which individual preferences and social consensus played a
determining role (e.g., marketing and management tasks).
TEAM CREATIVITY/INNOVATION IN CULTURALLY DIVERSE TEAMS 56
Appendix 2 Sample description table
Sample
N
Team
characteristic
Surface-level
diversity in
culturally
diverse teams
Deep-level
diversity in
culturally
diverse teams
Team creativity/
innovation
Reliability
(Surface-
level
diversity)
Reliability
(Deep-level
diversity)
Reliability
(team
creativity/
innovation)
Team
virtuality
Task
interdependence
Task
complexity
Task
intellectiveness
Aggarwal
(2013)
112
Multiple
ethnicities
Ethnic diversity
(r = .01)
Cognitive style
variance (r
= .21)
Team creativity
1.00
.97
Collocated
High
High
Low
Batarseh, Usher,
and Daspit
(2017)
42
Multiple
nationalities
Deep-level
diversity in
values, beliefs,
and attitudes
(r = −.03)
Team innovation
Non-
collocated
High
High
High
Bogilović,
Černe, and
Škerlavaj
(2017)
22
Multiple
nationalities
National
diversity
(r = −.01)
Team creativity
1.00
.77
Collocated
High
High
Low
Cady and
Valentine
(1999)
50
Multiple
ethnicities
Racial diversity
(r = .26)
Team idea
generation
1.00
Collocated
Low
High
Low
Cheng, Chua,
Morris, and Lee
(2012)
67
Multiple
nationalities
Cultural value
orientation
variance
(r = −.12)
Performance in
visual component
of advertisement
Collocated
High
High
Low
Curşeu (2010)
60
Multiple
nationalities
National
diversity
(r = .31)
Disparity in
need for
cognition
(r = .18)
Creativity of the
web pages
1.00
.96
Collocated
High
High
Low
Giambatista and
Bhappu (2010),
Study 1
50
Multiple
ethnicities
Ethnic diversity
(r = .04)
Perceived
ethnic diversity
(r = .00)
Team creativity
1.00
Non-
collocated
Low
High
Low
Giambatista and
Bhappu (2010),
Study 2
79
Multiple
ethnicities
Ethnic diversity
(r = −.13)
Personality
diversity
(r = .05)
Team creativity
1.00
Non-
collocated
High
High
Low
Gibson and
Gibbs (2006),
Study 1
14
Multiple
nationalities
National
diversity
(r = −.66)
Team innovation
1.00
.78
Non-
collocated
High
High
Mix
Gibson and
Gibbs (2006),
Study 2
56
Multiple
nationalities
National
diversity
(r = −.49)
Team innovation
1.00
.29
Non-
collocated
High
High
High
Han, Han, and
Brass (2014)
36
Multiple
nationalities
National
diversity
(r = −.14)
Difference
in teamwork
mental models
(r = −.03)
Team creativity
1.00
Collocated
High
High
Low
Heller (1997)
68
Multiple
ethnicities/
nationalities
Racial/national
diversity
(r = −.14)
Team idea
generation
1.00
1.00
Collocated
Low
Low
Low
Herron (1993)
93
Multiple
ethnicities
Ethnic diversity
(r = −.22)
Team innovation
1.00
Collocated
High
High
Mix
Hoever (2012)
95
Multiple
nationalities
National
diversity
(r = −.07)
Team creativity
1.00
.74
Collocated
High
High
Low
Hoever, van
Knippenberg,
van Ginkel, and
49
Multiple
nationalities
National
diversity
(r = .07)
Team creativity
1.00
.89
Collocated
High
High
Low
TEAM CREATIVITY/INNOVATION IN CULTURALLY DIVERSE TEAMS 57
Barkema (2012)
Homan,
Buengeler,
Eckhoff, van
Ginkel, and
Voelpel (2015)
48
Multiple
nationalities
National
diversity
(r = .07)
Standard
deviation of
diversity beliefs
(r = .29)
Team creativity
1.00
Collocated
High
High
Low
Huang et al.
(2017), Study 1
56
Multiple
nationalities
Diversity on
traditionalism
(r = .22)
Team idea
generation
Collocated
High
High
High
Huang et al.
(2017), Study 2
62
Multiple
ethnicities
Diversity on
traditionalism
(r = .69)
Team idea
generation
Collocated
High
High
Low
Jang (2017)
2117
Multiple
nationalities
National
diversity
(r = .14)
Team creative
performance
1.00
Non-
collocated
High
High
Low
Jehn and
Conlon (in
press)
56
Multiple
ethnicities
Racial diversity
(r = .01)
Creative success
1.00
.80
Collocated
High
High
Low
Joshi and
Knight (2015)
46
Multiple
ethnicities
Ethnic diversity
(r = −.03)
Lab performance
1.00
1.00
Collocated
High
High
Low
Jules (2007)
33
Multiple
ethnicities
Racial diversity
(r = −.23)
Learning style
diversity
(r = .12)
Idea creation
1.00
Collocated
High
High
Mix
Kearney and
Gebert (2009)
62
Multiple
nationalities
National
diversity
(r = .25)
Quality of
innovations
1.00
Collocated
High
High
High
Kim (2014)
55
Multiple
ethnicities
Racial diversity
(r = .10)
Team creativity
1.00
.83
Collocated
Low
High
Low
Kurtzberg
(2005)
119
Multiple
ethnicities
Cognitive style
diversity
(r = .20)
Team creativity
1.00
Collocated
High
High
Low
Li et al. (2017)
57
Multiple
ethnicities
Ethnic diversity
(r = .68)
Team creativity
1.00
Collocated
High
High
High
Lisak et al.
(2016)
82
Multiple
nationalities
Perception of
team cultural
diversity
(r = .09)
Team innovation
Collocated
High
High
High
Lu, Li, Leung,
Savani, and
Morris (2018)
48
Multiple
nationalities
Perceived
intercultural
diversity
(r = .08)
Team creativity
.72
Collocated
High
High
Mix
Martins and
Shalley (2011)
47
Multiple
nationalities
/ethnicities
National
diversity
(r = −.38)
Team creativity
1.00
Non-
collocated
Low
High
Low
McLeod, Lobel,
and Cox (1996)
34
Multiple
ethnicities
Ethnic diversity
(r = .42)
Team idea
generation
1.00
Collocated
Low
High
Low
Mitchell, Boyle,
and Nicholas
(2011)
98
Multiple
ethnicities/
nationalities
Cultural
background
diversity
(r = .23)
Cognitive
heterogeneity
(r = .27)
Knowledge
creation
1.00
Collocated
High
High
Mix
Nancarrow
(2001)
32
Multiple
ethnicities
Ethnic diversity
(r = −.37)
Team creativity
1.00
Collocated
High
High
High
Nouri et al.
(2013)
96
Multiple
nationalities
Cultural
diversity
(r = −.32)
Task creativity
performance
1.00
Non-
collocated
Low
Low
Low
O'Reilly,
Williams, and
31
Multiple
ethnicities
Diversity in
race-ethnicity
Team innovation
(creativity and
1.00
Collocated
High
High
Mix
TEAM CREATIVITY/INNOVATION IN CULTURALLY DIVERSE TEAMS 58
Barsade (1998)
(r = .45)
implementation
ability)
Paletz, Peng,
Erez, and
Maslach (2004)
34
Multiple
ethnicities
Ethnic diversity
(r = .03)
Team creativity
1.00
.95
Collocated
High
Low
Low
Perry-Smith and
Shalley (2014)
82
Multiple
nationalities
/ethnicities
National
diversity
(r = .22)
Team creativity
1.00
Collocated
High
High
Low
Pluut and
Curşeu (2013)
37
Multiple
nationalities
National
diversity
(r = −.10)
Diverse
mindsets
(r = .14)
Collaborative
creativity
1.00
Collocated
High
High
Low
Ren, Gray, and
Harrison (2015)
148
Multiple
nationalities
/ethnicities
Cultural
background
diversity
(r = −.06)
Research team
performance
1.00
.58
Collocated
High
High
Mix
Rodriguez
(1998)
11
Multiple
nationalities
/ethnicities
Racial/ethnic
diversity
(r = −.28)
Value diversity
(r = .52)
Team creativity
1.00
Collocated
High
High
Low
Schilpzand et al.
(2011)
31
Multiple
nationalities
Standard
deviation for
openness to
experience
(r = .54)
Team creativity
Collocated
High
High
Low
Spoelma and
Ellis (2017)
94
Multiple
ethnicities
Ethnic diversity
(r = −.14)
Team creativity
1.00
1.00
Collocated
Low
Low
Low
Stringfellow
(1998)
33
Multiple
ethnicities
Value diversity
(r = −.56)
Team idea
generation
Collocated
Low
High
Low
Suwannarat and
Mumi (2012)
89
Multiple
ethnicities
Racial diversity
(r = −.16)
Team creativity
1.00
Collocated
High
High
Low
Tadmor,
Satterstrom,
Jang, and Polzer
(2012)
57
Multiple
ethnicities
Multicultural
Experience
diversity
(r = .10)
Team creativity
Collocated
Low
Low
Low
Turkmen (2013)
9
Multiple
nationalities
/ethnicity
National
diversity
(r = .04)
Cognitive style
diversity
(r = −.27)
Team innovation
quality
1.00
1.00
Collocated
High
Low
High
Watson, Kumar,
and Michaelsen
(1993)
36
Multiple
ethnicities/
nationalities
Cultural
background
diversity
(r = −.46)
Team idea
generation
1.00
Collocated
High
Low
High
Yoerger, Allen,
and Crowe
(2018)
68
Multiple
ethnicities
Racial diversity
(r = −.21)
Team creativity
1.00
.88
Collocated
Low
Low
Low
TEAM CREATIVITY/INNOVATION IN CULTURALLY DIVERSE TEAMS 59
Appendix 3 Correlation between moderators
Moderator
1
2
3
4
1.
Team virtualitya
—
2.
Task interdependenceb
−.15
—
3.
Task complexityc
.05
.42
—
4.
Task intellectivenessd
.07
.33
−.03
—
Note: Significant correlations (p < .05) are in bold. a 0 = collocated, 1 = non-collocated; b 0 =
independent, 1 = interdependent; c 0 = simple, 1 = complex; d 0 = judgmental, 1 = intellective.
TEAM CREATIVITY/INNOVATION IN CULTURALLY DIVERSE TEAMS 60
Appendix 4 Meta-analytic results based on original sample sizes and effect sizes (without Winsorization)
Table 1 Surface-level diversity in culturally diverse teams and team creativity/innovation
Moderator
k
N
r
rc
SE
CI95
CI95
CI84
CI84
SD
CV80
CV80
I2
lower
upper
lower
upper
lower
upper
Main effect
37
4204
.06
.06
.04
−.01
.13
.01
.11
.19
−.18
.30
77.31
1. Team virtuality
Collocated
30
1745
.02
.02
.05
−.07
.11
−.04
.09
.20
−.24
.28
68.21
Non-collocated
7
2459
.08
.09
.07
−.04
.22
−.00
.18
.16
−.12
.30
90.52
2. Task interdependence
Interdependent
28
3642
.08
.09
.04
.01
.16
.04
.14
.17
−.13
.30
76.90
Independent
9
562
−.09
−.10
.08
−.26
.06
−.21
.01
.20
−.36
.16
72.13
3. Task complexity
Complex
30
3799
.08
.09
.04
.02
.16
.04
.14
.17
−.12
.31
76.23
Simple
7
405
−.21
−.23
.05
−.33
−.12
−.30
−.15
.00
−.23
−.23
18.35
4. Task intellectiveness
Intellective
6
252
−.01
−.01
.21
−.42
.41
−.30
.29
.49
−.63
.62
91.04
Judgmental
25
3535
.07
.08
.03
.01
.14
.03
.12
.13
−.09
.24
67.67
Note: k = number of samples; N = sample size (number of teams); r = uncorrected mean correlation; rc = corrected mean correlation;
SE = standard error; CI = confidence interval; SD = standard deviation; CV = credibility interval; I2 = percentage of variance due to
real heterogeneity. An effect size was significantly different from zero when its CI95 did not include zero. In subgroup analysis, effect
sizes were significantly different when their CI84 did not overlap. Findings based on fewer than three samples should be interpreted
with caution.
TEAM CREATIVITY/INNOVATION IN CULTURALLY DIVERSE TEAMS 61
Table 2 Deep-level diversity in culturally diverse teams and team creativity/innovation
Moderator
k
N
r
rc
SE
CI95
CI95
CI84
CI84
SD
CV80
CV80
I2
lower
upper
lower
upper
lower
upper
Main effect
21
1170
.15
.16
.05
.06
.27
.09
.24
.19
−.08
.41
65.92
1. Team virtuality
Collocated
18
999
.17
.19
.06
.07
.31
.11
.27
.20
−.07
.45
69.40
Non-collocated
3
171
.02
.02
.02
−.03
.06
−.01
.05
.00
.02
.02
.00
2. Task interdependence
Interdependent
18
1030
.18
.20
.05
.10
.30
.13
.27
.15
.01
.39
57.17
Independent
3
140
−.09
−.10
.17
−.43
.23
−.34
.13
.24
−.41
.20
79.65
3. Task complexity
Complex
19
1104
.16
.17
.06
.06
.28
.09
.25
.20
−.08
.42
68.44
Simple
2
66
.05
.05
.10
−.14
.24
−.09
.19
.00
.05
.05
4.19
4. Task intellectiveness
Intellective
4
189
.08
.09
.07
−.04
.22
.00
.19
.00
.09
.09
.00
Judgmental
14
802
.16
.17
.07
.03
.32
.07
.27
.24
−.13
.47
75.66
Note: k = number of samples; N = sample size (number of teams); r = uncorrected mean correlation; rc = corrected mean correlation;
SE = standard error; CI = confidence interval; SD = standard deviation; CV = credibility interval; I2 = percentage of variance due to
real heterogeneity. An effect size was significantly different from zero when its CI95 did not include zero. In subgroup analysis, effect
sizes were significantly different when their CI84 did not overlap. Findings based on fewer than three samples should be interpreted
with caution.