当前位置：文档库 › JAP 2013 Teams as innovative systems Multilevel motivational antecedents of innovation in R&D teams

JAP 2013 Teams as innovative systems Multilevel motivational antecedents of innovation in R&D teams

RESEARCH REPORT

Teams as Innovative Systems:Multilevel Motivational Antecedents of

Innovation in R&D Teams

Gilad Chen

University of Maryland

Jiing-Lih Farh Hong Kong University of Science and Technology

Elizabeth M.Campbell-Bush

University of Maryland

Zhiming Wu

Tsinghua University

Xin Wu

Beihang University

Integrating theories of proactive motivation,team innovation climate,and motivation in teams,we developed and tested a multilevel model of motivators of innovative performance in teams.Analyses of multisource data from 428members of 95research and development (R&D)teams across 33Chinese firms indicated that team-level support for innovation climate captured motivational mechanisms that mediated between transformational leadership and team innovative performance,whereas members’motivational states (role-breadth self-efficacy and intrinsic motivation)mediated between proactive personality and individual innovative performance.Furthermore,individual motivational states and team support for innovation climate uniquely promoted individual innovative performance,and,in turn,individual innovative performance linked team support for innovation climate to team innovative performance.

Keywords:work teams,innovation,motivation,multilevel

Innovation,or the introduction and implementation of new ideas,processes,or products (West &Farr,1990),is central to organizations’capability to stay competitive.Like creativity,in-novation captures the development of new or novel ideas or procedures;however,effective innovation goes beyond creativity,

in that it also requires championing and implementation of the ideas or procedures (Anderson,De Dreu &Nijstad,2004;West &Farr,1990).1Across the individual and team levels,innovation emerges from creative development of new,useful ideas and the implementation process of converting ideas in tangible realities.As such,it is important to understand drivers of innovation across levels (Anderson et al.,2004;Ford,1996;Shalley,Zhou,&Old-ham,2004).Scholars point toward motivation as an especially critical driver of individual and team innovation,as employees need to personally and collectively direct significant effort to generate and implement new processes,procedures,or products (Baer,2012;Klein &Sorra,1996).Interestingly,though,research-ers have identified different motivational antecedents of innova-tion at different levels.At the individual level,it has been sug-gested and shown that employees who are more confident and intrinsically interested in proactively generating and implementing novel solutions at work perform more innovatively (Grant &Ashford,2008;Parker,Bindl,&Strauss,2010).At the team-level,scholars have instead theorized and empirically shown that climate supportive of innovation motivates higher levels of team innova-

Although we recognize the differences between creativity and innova-tion,we draw on both the creativity and innovation literatures when developing our theoretical model and hypotheses,given creativity is a critical starting point for innovation (Shalley et al.,2004).

Gilad Chen,Management and Organization Department,Robert H.Smith School of Business,University of Maryland;Jiing-Lih Farh,De-partment of Management,Hong Kong University of Science and Technol-ogy,Clear Water Bay,Kowloon,Hong Kong;Elizabeth M.Campbell-Bush,Management and Organization Department,Robert H.Smith School of Business,University of Maryland;Zhiming Wu,Department of Lead-ership and Organization Management,Tsinghua University,Beijing,Peo-ple’s Republic of China;Xin Wu,School of Economics and Management,Beihang University,Beijing,People’s Republic of China.

The work described in this article was supported by a grant from the Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Re-gion,China (Project 641507)awarded to Jiing-Lih Farh and Gilad Chen.We thank Neil Anderson and Subra Tangiarala for commenting on drafts of this article.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Gilad Chen,Management and Organization Department,Robert H.Smith School of Business,University of Maryland,4514Van Munching Hall,College Park,MD 20742-1815.E-mail:giladchen@https://www.wendangku.net/doc/371089702.html,

T h i s d o c u m e n t i s c o p y r i g h t e d b y t h e A m e r i c a n P s y c h o l o g i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n o r o n e o f i t s a l l i e d p u b l i s h e r s .T h i s a r t i c l e i s i n t e n d e d s o l e l y f o r t h e p e r s o n a l u s e o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l u s e r a n d i s n o t t o b e d i s s e m i n a t e d b r o a d l y .

Journal of Applied Psychology ?2013American Psychological Association 0021-9010/13/$12.00DOI:10.1037/a0032663

tion performance (Anderson et al.,2004;Hülsheger,Anderson,&Salgado,2009).

In addition,literatures of individual and team innovation have rarely been integrated to advance a more complete account of drivers of innovative performance across levels,which leaves our understand-ing of innovation as multilevel phenomenon incomplete (for reviews,see Anderson et al.,2004;Gupta,Tesluk,&Taylor,2007;Zhou &Shalley,2008,2010).More recently,initial multilevel research has found that individual creativity positively relates to team creativity (Gong,Kim,Zhu,&Lee,2012;Pirola-Merlo &Mann,2004;Taggar,2002)and that team-level variables—including team learning behav-ior (Hirst,Van Knippenberg,&Zhou,2009),team social exchanges and cognitive diversity (Liao,Liu,&Loi,2010;Shin,Kim,Lee,&Bian,2012),and support for autonomy (Liu,Chen,&Yao,2011)—can influence individual creativity processes.These important ad-vances have highlighted the importance of multilevel consideration of innovation’s important precursor—namely,creativity.However,our understanding regarding innovation as a broader,multilevel phenom-enon remains limited since research has yet to address important questions,including whether team climate,which encourages inno-vation at the team level,also motivates individual-level innovative-ness,and whether team members who are more motivated to engage in individual innovative behaviors also promote team-level innovation (cf.Anderson et al.,2004;Gupta et al.,2007;Zhou &Shalley,2008,2010).

Extending previous work,we delineate and test a multilevel model (see Figure 1)that integrates theories of proactive motiva-tion (Parker et al.,2010)and team innovation climate (West,1990)within a multilevel framework of team motivation (Chen &Kan-fer,2006).2In doing so,we seek to demonstrate that motivational antecedents of team innovation also motivate individual innova-tiveness in teams.In addition,we argue further that individual innovative performance is an important mechanism linking individual-level and team-level motivational antecedents to team innovative performance.Our inquiry extends understanding of how the team context can motivate members to proactively engage in individual and collective innovative behavior.In addition,we generate new knowledge of how leadership behaviors and member attributes can simultaneously motivate innovation across different levels of analysis.

Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses

Individual-Level Antecedents of Individual Innovation

Parker and her colleagues (Griffin,Neal,&Parker,2007;Parker &Collins,2010)have suggested that innovative performance results from proactive behaviors by which employees strive to bring about change to themselves and/or their environment.Parker et al.(2010)further theorized that proactive motivational states (i.e.,individuals’beliefs regarding their interest in and capacity to bring about change in their work environment)drive proactive behaviors,including innovativeness.Among the most powerful individual-level antecedents of proactive motivation in Parker et al.’s theory is proactive personality,an individual propensity to promote change and take action to influence the environment (Bateman &Crant,1993;Crant,2000).Proactive individuals are more likely to anticipate issues,initiate action,effect change,and persist in their goals—attributes that promote innovation (Grant &

Ashford,2008;Seibert,Kraimer,&Crant,2001).Parker et al.proposed that proactive-oriented motivational states,including role-breadth self-efficacy and intrinsic motivation,serve as prox-imal motivational mechanisms that link between proactive person-ality and individual innovation.

Role-breadth self-efficacy reflects the extent to which individuals view themselves as capable of accomplishing responsibilities associ-ated with their work roles,including specified job requirements as well as those beyond prescribed job requirements (Parker,1998,2000).Work by Parker (1998,2000)and colleagues (Griffin et al.,2007;Parker et al.,2010;Parker &Collins,2010)has suggested that proactive individuals experience higher role-breadth self-efficacy,which captures confidence in the ability to generate,promote,and implement new ideas and,hence,motivates engagement in innovative behaviors.Indeed,role-breadth self-efficacy has been shown to relate positively to proactive idea implementation (Parker,Williams,&Turner,2006)and to mediate between proactive personality and individual innovative behavior (Parker &Collins,2010).Intrinsic motivation,or “the inherent tendency to seek out novelty and chal-lenges,to extend and exercise one’s capacities,to explore,and to learn”(Ryan &Deci,2000,p.70),can also meaningfully link pro-active personality to individual innovative performance,since creat-ing positive change through innovativeness is of personal interest and importance for proactive individuals (Crant,2000;Parker et al.,2010).Specifically,higher intrinsic motivation leads to sustained creative effort over time and has been shown to result in more innovative performance (Amabile,1983,1993;Tierney,Farmer,&Graen,1999).In line with Parker et al.’s (2010)theory,we thus propose the following:

Hypothesis 1:Individual team members’proactive personality positively relates to members’(a)role-breadth self-efficacy and (b)intrinsic motivation.

Hypothesis 2:Individual team members’(a)role-breadth self-efficacy and (b)intrinsic motivation mediate the relationship between proactive personality and individual innovative performance.

Team-Level Antecedents of Team Innovation

Parker et al.(2010)recognized that situational variables (e.g.,leadership,climate)also indirectly contribute to individual inno-vativeness.Building upon this work,we integrate Parker et al.’s theory of proactive motivation with Chen and Kanfer’s (2006)multilevel theory of team motivation to articulate how individual and team factors drive proactive motivation and innovation across levels.Like Parker et al.,Chen and Kanfer proposed that motiva-tional states drive individual effort allocated toward objectives,but they highlighted further that,parallel to individual-level motiva-tional processes,team-level motivational states (i.e.,members’

We recognize that no one study could capture all possible antecedents of individual and team innovation or all aspects of the distinct theories on which we build in this study.Rather,our aim is to offer an initial integration between these theories.We further ground our focus on ante-cedents that prior reviews identified as especially important predictors of individual and team innovation (see Anderson et al.,2004;Hülsheger et al.,2009).In doing so,we offer a multilevel framework on which additional integrative research on innovation across distinct levels could be built.

CHEN,FARH,CAMPBELL-BUSH,WU,AND WU

shared cognitions and beliefs pertaining to the team and its task environment)contribute to members’collective effort directed at accomplishing team goals.Chen and Kanfer specified that (a)individual inputs and team motivational states uniquely shape individual motivational states,(b)team motivational processes and individual members’performance influence team perfor-mance,and (c)individual motivational processes contribute to team performance less directly,through members’performance on individual roles in the team.Chen and Kanfer’s theory has re-ceived empirical support (e.g.,Chen,Kanfer,DeShon,Mathieu,&Kozlowski,2009;Chen,Kirkman,Kanfer,Allen,&Rosen,2007;DeShon,Kozlowski,Schmidt,Milner,&Weichmann,2004)but has yet to be integrated with motivational models specific to proactivity and innovation.We propose that integration of Chen and Kanfer’s and Parker et al.’s theories enables a more complete account of motivators of innovation across individual and team https://www.wendangku.net/doc/371089702.html,ly,fusion of these perspectives helps to explain how and why team-level motivational states drive individuals to enact innovative behaviors,and how,in turn,individual-level innova-tiveness emerges to impact team-level innovative performance (see also Zhou &Shalley,2008).

Drawing from Chen and Kanfer’s (2006)theory and prior team innovation research (Anderson et al.,2004;Eisenbeiss,van Knip-penberg,&Boerner,2008),we propose that support for innovation climate captures a key team motivational state relevant to team innovation;namely,it reflects collective perception among team members that their collaborative,innovation-related activities are expected,valued,and supported in the team (King,Anderson,&West,1991;West,1990).Higher levels of support for innovation climate motivate team members to initiate and persist in innovative behaviors and coordinate their innovative efforts with others (West,1990).Meta-analysis by Hülsheger et al.(2009)identified support for innovation climate as one of the strongest (positive)antecedents of team innovative performance.

In addition,Eisenbeiss et al.(2008)suggested that transforma-tional leadership exhibited by team leaders fosters support for innovation climate and,hence,team innovation performance.Transformational team leaders convey a unified vision for the team (i.e.,idealized influence ),motivate members to accomplish chal-lenging team goals (i.e.,inspirational motivation )and think cre-

atively about work tasks (i.e.,intellectual stimulation ),and provide members with the necessary coaching and support (i.e.,individu-alized consideration ;cf.Bass,1985;Podsakoff,MacKenzie,&Bommer,1996).Although transformational leadership has been examined across different levels of analysis (e.g.,Shin &Zhou,2003),in teams,transformational leadership can be an input di-rected at motivating all team members (e.g.,Kark,Shamir,&Chen,2003).According to Eisenbeiss et al.(2008,p.1440),transformational team leaders promote higher support for innovation climate in their teams by encouraging members “to collaborate and to assist each other with idea development and implementation.”In support,studies by Eisenbeiss et al.(2008)and Pirola-Merlo,Hartel,Mann,and Hirst (2002)found that transformational leadership was positively related to support for innovation climate,which in turn positively mediated between transformational leadership and team innovation and performance.

Hypothesis 3:Team leaders’transformational leadership pos-itively relates to team support for innovation climate.Hypothesis 4:Team support for innovation climate mediates the relationship between team leaders’transformational lead-ership and team innovative performance.

Top-Down Influences of Team-Level Antecedents on Individual Innovation

Building on the individual-and team-level pathways of our model,a more important contribution of the present research is the delinea-tion of cross-level effects of team-level variables on individual-level proactive motivation to engage in innovative performance.We spe-cifically expect that team leaders’transformational leadership behav-iors instill a sense of confidence and excitement in their followers regarding the work they engage in,which is captured by role-breadth self-efficacy and intrinsic motivation.Consistent with this logic,trans-formational leadership positively related to job and creative self-efficacy (Gong,Huang,&Farh,2009;Kark et al.,2003)and intrinsic motivation (e.g.,Shin &Zhou,2003).Invoking Chen and Kanfer’s (2006)framework,we expect team support for innovation climate exerts more proximal influence on members’proactive motivation

TEAM LEVEL

INDIVIDUAL LEVEL

CROSS LEVEL

H6b

Figure 1.Hypothesized multilevel model of innovation in teams.H ?Hypothesis.

MULTILEVEL MOTIVATORS OF TEAM INNOVATION

(role-breadth self-efficacy and intrinsic motivation)than would trans-formational leadership,given such team climate is more specific to the innovation domain than transformational leadership (cf.Eisen-beiss et al.,2008).

Climate supportive of innovation encourages team members to believe that innovation is important for team functioning and that they will receive the socio-emotional and material support needed for them to innovate successfully when directing effort toward innovating (West,1990).In such team climate,greater support for innovation can enhance individual members’confidence for per-forming innovatively (i.e.,higher role-breadth self-efficacy)and can signal to members that engaging in innovative behavior is valuable and meaningful in and of itself (hence,enhancing intrin-sic motivation;see Ford,1996).Therefore,in line with Chen and Kanfer’s (2006)theory,we expect that team support for innovation climate would mediate the cross-level relationships between trans-formational leadership and individual members’role-breadth self-efficacy and intrinsic motivation.While cross-level research on team support for innovation climate remains sparse (Anderson et al.,2004),past research offers indirect support for this expectation,finding that the influence of team leader behaviors on members’individual motivational states was mediated by team motivational states (Chen et al.,2007).

Hypothesis 5:Team support for innovation climate mediates the cross-level relationship between team leaders’transforma-tional leadership and team members’(a)role-breadth self-efficacy and (b)intrinsic motivation.

We further expect team support for innovation climate promotes individual innovative performance both indirectly and directly.Specifically,following Hypotheses 2and 5,team support for innovation climate motivates members to innovate effectively by enhancing team members’role-breadth self-efficacy and intrinsic motivation.However,support for innovation climate can also directly enable members to innovate effectively by promoting a more collaborative environment whereby team members assist,support,and coordinate with each other in their attempts to inno-vate.In support,Chen et al.(2009)found that a team motivational state (i.e.,team efficacy beliefs)enabled members to perform their roles in the team more effectively by enhancing coordination and cooperation among team members.In parallel,we propose that team members’role-breadth self-efficacy and intrinsic motivation partially mediate the contextual influence of support for innova-tion climate on individual innovative performance,since they capture the motivational mechanisms—but not the enabling mech-anisms—through which support for innovation climate promotes individual innovative performance.Hence,

Hypothesis 6:Individual team members’(a)role-breadth self-efficacy and (b)intrinsic motivation partially mediate the cross-level relationship between team support for innovation climate and individual innovative performance.

Bottom-Up Influences of Individual-Level Antecedents on Team Innovation

Building on initial evidence that average individual team mem-bers’creative performance positively relates to team creative per-formance (Gong et al.,2012;Pirola-Merlo &Mann,2004;Taggar,

2002),we propose that individual innovation exerts unique,emer-gent influence on team innovation—with individual innovation performance mediating the link between support for innovation climate and team innovation performance (cf.Chen &Kanfer,2006;West &Farr,1990).Individual innovative performance emerges to the team level,owing to social learning processes in teams (i.e.,behavior modeling,social contagion;Chen &Kanfer,2006).It is important to draw distinction between average indi-vidual innovative performance in teams (i.e.,how innovatively members perform unique individual roles)and team innovative performance (i.e.,how effectively the team orchestrates and uti-lizes inputs from different members).In more interdependent teams,the distinction between average individual performance and team performance becomes more pronounced,since individual inputs dynamically combine to form team performance in complex ways (see Kozlowski &Klein,2000;Mathieu,Maynard,Rapp,&Gilson,2008).

Hence,average individual innovative performance in the team appropriately captures the “bottom-up”contributions members make to their team’s innovativeness.Accordingly,we expect that individual innovative performance emerges to exert meaningful,unique influence on team innovative performance.However,in line with Chen and Kanfer (2006),since individual innovation performance likely emanates,in part,from team support for inno-vation climate (per Hypothesis 6),we also expect that average individual innovation performance in the team would mediate between support for innovation climate and team innovative per-formance.In support,Chen et al.(2007)found that the average individual role performance in teams related positively to team task performance,even when taking into account team-level mo-tivational states.

Hypothesis 7:Average individual innovative performance in teams mediates the relationship between team support for innovation climate and team innovation performance.

Method

Sample,Design,and Procedures

Participants were 611team members of 106research and de-velopment (R&D)project teams from 37firms from diverse in-dustries (e.g.,aeronautical and telecommunication),located in the People’s Republic of China.Teams performed R&D activities 3and included functionally diverse and interdependent members who worked together for a minimum of 10weeks.We also surveyed internal team leaders (one per team)and external man-agers (one per firm,who oversaw the teams).At Time 1,team members completed measures of demographics,proactive person-ality,role-breadth self-efficacy,intrinsic motivation,transforma-tional leadership,and support for innovation climate,and team leaders rated individuals’innovative performance as well as

Seven of the 95teams we sampled engaged in both more basic research and applied product development tasks,whereas others focused mostly on applied projects involving developing and implementing new products (cf.Keller,2006).In additional analyses,these two team types did not signif-icantly differ on any of the variables in our model.Also,controlling for team type did not alter any of our findings or estimated effects.

CHEN,FARH,CAMPBELL-BUSH,WU,AND WU

teams’capability.Four months following Time 1,at Time 2external managers rated teams’innovative https://www.wendangku.net/doc/371089702.html,plete data were obtained from 428team members (70%response rate)and 95team leaders (90%response rate)of 95R&D teams in 33firms,and from 33external managers (89%response rate).Aver-age team size in the final sample was 4.51(range ?3–14mem-bers/team).Team members were 75%male,averaging an organi-zational tenure of 33months,and 28years of age.The vast majority (82%)held at least Bachelor’s degrees.Team leaders were 73%male,averaging 32years of age,with 96%holding at least a Bachelor’s degree.

Measures

Given all measures were adopted from English,the surveys were translated and back-translated into Chinese (Brislin,1980).Unless otherwise noted,items were assessed on 7-point Likert-type scales ranging from 1(strongly disagree )to 7(strongly agree ).

Individual-level measures.Team members completed Seib-ert,Crant,and Kraimer’s (1999)10-item version of Bateman and Crant’s (1993)Proactive Personality Scale (e.g.,“If I see some-thing I don’t like,I fix it”),Parker et al.’s (2006)seven-item Role Breadth Self-Efficacy Scale (e.g.,“Analyzing a long-term problem to find a solution”;“Visiting people from other departments to suggest doing things differently”;1?not at all confident ,7?very confident ),and Tierney et al.’s (1999)five-item measure of intrinsic motivation (e.g.,“I enjoy coming up with new ideas for products”).Team leaders rated each team members’individual innovative performance using Janssen’s (2000)nine-item mea-sures (1?never ,7?always ;e.g.,“creating new ideas for difficult issues”;“transforming innovative ideas into useful appli-cations”).In line with our rationale for Hypothesis 7,members in each team exhibited similar levels of individual innovative perfor-mance,ICC(1)?.57,ICC(2)?.86,F (94,333)?7.06,p ?.05.These statistics suggest that 43%of the variance in individual innovative performance resided within teams and 57%between teams.

Team-level measures.Team members rated their team lead-er’s transformational leadership behaviors on a 13-item scale,which Kirkman,Chen,Farh,Chen,and Lowe (2009)4adapted from Podsakoff et al.(1996;e.g.,“the leader of my team shows that he/she expects a lot from us all of the time”).Aggregating the average leadership score across members to the team level was supported by inter-member agreement,average r wg (j )?.87,and reliability,ICC(1)?.09,ICC(2)?.31,F (94,333)?1.36,p ?.05.5Team members also responded to an eight-item measure of support for innovation climate (Anderson &West,1998;e.g.,“Assistance in developing new ideas is readily available”).In each team,the average of member scores was aggregated to the team-level,average r wg (j )?.88,ICC(1)?.12,ICC(2)?.38,F (94,333)?1.56,p ?.05.Finally,within each firm,one external manager who oversaw the teams’R&D work evaluated the teams’innovative performance,using a four-item measure (e.g.,“This is an innova-tive team”;De Dreu,2002).

Controls.We controlled for team member gender,age,edu-cation level,and team tenure at the individual-level,and for team size and team capability at the team-level.We controlled for gender,since women often have additional challenges than men in

technological firms (Eden,1992).Age (in years)was controlled for,given evidence that motivation varies across one’s lifespan (Kanfer &Ackerman,2004).Additionally,more educated employ-ees and longer-tenured employees (measured as number of years on the team)are likely to be more capable at generating and implementing innovative ideas.Also,we controlled for team size,as larger teams are more likely to handle more complex tasks and projects.We also included Podsakoff and MacKenzie’s (1994)three-item measure of team members’capabilities,rated by team leaders (e.g.,“Team members have all the required ability and experience to be in charge of their jobs”),to control further for ability-related differences.

Analyses

We analyzed individual-level outcomes (motivational states and individual innovative performance)using a three-level hierarchical linear modeling (HLM;Raudenbush,Byrk,&Congdon,2004),whereby individuals (Level 1)were nested in teams (Level 2)that were nested in firms (Level 3).Team-level outcomes (support for innovation climate and team innovative performance)were ana-lyzed using a two-level HLM (whereby teams were nested in firms).By specifying firm-level differences as a higher-level vari-able in our models,we controlled for fixed effects owing to between-firm differences (Raudenbush et al.,2004),such as innovation-related resources available to teams in different firms.We report Snijders and Bosker’s (1999)overall pseudo R 2(?R 2)for the models.Finally,we tested the mediation hypotheses (Hy-potheses 2,4,6,and 7)with MacKinnon,Lockwood,and Wil-liams’s (2004)bootstrapping-based test for mediation,and in line with recommendations by Shrout and Bolger (2002).

Results

Table 1summarizes descriptive statistics and correlations for study variables.Confirmatory factor analyses (available upon re-quest)verified measures’discriminant validity.The three-level HLM hypotheses tests of individual-level outcomes are summa-rized in Table 2,and the two-level HLM hypotheses tests of team-level outcomes are summarized in Table 3.Results from MacKinnon et al.’s (2004)tests of indirect effects are summarized in Table 4.

Kirkman et al.(2009)used 14items from Podsakoff et al.(1996).In this study,we only used 13items from this scale,because we replaced two of the negative worded individualized support items with a single posi-tively worded item.We made this modification to avoid problems often encountered when few negatively worded items are mixed with positively worded items (e.g.,negatively worded items can load on their own factor;Farh,Hackett,&Liang,2007).We also used as referent “the leader of my team”versus “my supervisor”(Kirkman et al.,2009;Podsakoff et al.,1996)to fit our focus on team-oriented leadership.5

The ICC(2)values for both the transformational leadership and support for innovation climate were rather low.This is most likely because we sampled similar types of teams with small team size (Bliese,2000).However,the ICC(1)and r wg (j )values were within acceptable ranges,and the F values indicated significant (p ?.05)between-team differences in mean levels of both measures,which supported our decision to aggregate the transformational leadership and support for innovation climate to the team level (Bliese,2000;LeBreton &Senter,2008).

MULTILEVEL MOTIVATORS OF TEAM INNOVATION

Tests of Individual-Level Outcomes

As shown in Table 3(Model 2),transformational leadership positively related to support for innovation climate (??.65,p ?.05),in support of Hypothesis 3.Also,in the absence of proactive personality and support for innovation climate,transformational leadership positively related to role-breadth self-efficacy (??.43,p ?.05;see Table 2,Model 1)and intrinsic motivation (??.34,p ?.05;see Table 2,Model 3).However,when including proac-tive personality and support for innovation climate in Models 2and 4(see Table 2),transformational leadership no longer pre-dicted role-breadth self-efficacy or intrinsic motivation,while pro-active personality (??.58and .53,p ?.05)and support for innovation climate (??.45and .26,p ?.05)positively predicted role-breadth self-efficacy and intrinsic motivation,respectively,supporting Hypotheses 1a,1b,5a,and 5b.Further supporting Hypotheses 5a and 5b,Table 4shows that transformational lead-ership significantly and indirectly (through support for innovation climate)related to role-breadth self-efficacy (95%CI [.15,.45],p ?.05)and intrinsic motivation (95%CI [.01,.34],p ?.05;see Table 4).

Table 2(Model 5)also shows that proactive personality did not relate to individual innovative performance (??.05,ns ),but,as expected,support for innovation climate positively related to in-dividual innovative performance (??.77,p ?.05).Furthermore,in line with Hypotheses 6a and 6b,when including motivational states in the model (see Table 2,Model 6),the relationship of support for innovation with individual innovative performance dropped yet remained significant (??.67,p ?.05),and both

Table 1

Descriptive Statistics and Correlations

Variable

M SD 12345678910111213

Individual-level 1.Gender 1.250.43—2.Age

28.19 5.65?.04—https://www.wendangku.net/doc/371089702.html,cation 2.190.66?.01.04—

4.Team tenure

1.59

2.6

3.03.16?

?.08—5.Proactive personality 5.080.79?.08?.09?.05.00(.84)6.Role-breadth self-efficacy 4.90 1.08?.07.13?.07?.02.45?(.90)7.Intrinsic motivation

5.650.83?.07?.04?.01?.08.54?.46?(.83)8.Individual innovation performance 4.29 1.24

?.14?.15?.06.00

.09

.26?

.19?

(.96)

Team-level a

9.Team size

6.25 2.14.06?.02

.06.05?.06?.16??.08?.23?—

10.Team capability

5.190.98?.04.07.05.08.07.05.08.28?.03(.81)

11.Transformational leadership 5.530.44.08?.07.09?.11?.20?.17?.18?

.00?.03.02(.91)12.Support for innovation

5.430.48?.04.08.09.01.22?.31?.26?.27??.10?.13?.54?(.90)13.Team innovation performance

5.12

0.99.02

.18?

.09.05.02.16?.08.27??.16?.14?.05.29?(.88)

Note .N ?428individuals in 95work teams;internal consistency reliability estimates (alphas)are on the diagonal.

Team-level means assigned down to individual team members.?

p ?.05.

Table 2

Hierarchical Linear Modeling Analyses of Individual-Level Outcomes

Variable

DV ?Role-breadth self-efficacy

DV ?Intrinsic motivation DV ?Individual innovative

performance Model 1Model 2Model 3Model 4Model 5Model 6Level 1effects Gender ?.17?(.08)?.04(.07)?.15(.09)?.05(.07)?.20?(.07)?.17?(.07)Age

.02?(.01).03?(.01).00(.01).00(.01).02(.01).02?(.01)Education .09(.08).12(.07)?.03(.05).00(.04).16?(.05).14?(.05)Team tenure

.00(.02)

?.01(.02)?.02?(.01)

?.02?(.01).00(.01).00(.01)Proactive personality .58?(.07)

.53?(.03)

.05(.08)

?.11(.07)Role-breadth self-efficacy .18?(.05)Intrinsic motivation .11?(.05)Level 2effects Team size

?.07?(.02)?.06?(.02)?.02(.02)?.01(.01)?.09(.05)?.09(.05)Team capability

.05(.04)?.02(.04).07(.05).02(.05).25?(.09).24?(.09)Transformational leadership .43?(.09)

?.05(.10).34?(.09)?.02(.12)?.52(.27)?.51(.27)Support for innovation .45?(.10).26?(.12).77?(.27).67?(.28)Pseudo R 2

.04.25

.04.30.10

.12

Note .N ?428individuals (Level 1)in 95teams (Level 2)and 33firms (Level 3).Unstandardized estimates are reported,with standard errors in parentheses.DV ?dependent variable.?

p ?.05(two-tailed).

CHEN,FARH,CAMPBELL-BUSH,WU,AND WU

role-breadth self-efficacy (??.18,p ?.05)and intrinsic moti-vation (??.11,p ?.05)uniquely and positively related to individual innovative performance.In support of Hypotheses 2a and 2b (respectively),Table 4shows further that the indirect effect of proactive personality on individual innovative performance was significant through both role-breadth self-efficacy (95%CI [.05,.17],p ?.05)and intrinsic motivation (95%CI [.01,.11],p ?.05).In addition,Table 4shows that support for innovation climate indirectly related to individual innovative performance through role-breadth self-efficacy (95%CI [.03,.14],p ?.05)but not through intrinsic motivation (95%CI [?.01,.07],ns ),supporting Hypothesis 6a but not Hypothesis 6b.

Tests of Team-Level Outcomes

As shown in Table 3,transformational leadership significantly and positively related to support for innovation climate (Model 2)but did not significantly relate to team innovative performance (Model 3).However,support for innovation climate positively and significantly related to team innovative performance (??.36,p ?.05;Model 4).Moreover,in support of Hypothesis 4,the indirect effect of transformational leadership on team innovative perfor-mance,through support for innovation climate,was significant (95%CI [.01,.49],p ?.05;see Table 4).Table 3also indicates that average individual innovative performance in teams positively related to team innovative performance (??.18,p ?.05;Model 5);and,when including average individual innovative perfor-mance in teams in the model,support for innovation climate no longer significantly predicted team innovative performance (see Table 3,Model 5).Results indicated further that,in support of Hypothesis 7,the indirect effect of support for innovation climate on team innovative performance,through average individual in-novative performance,was significant (95%CI [.01,.30],p ?.05;see Table 4).6

Discussion

The majority of innovation research to date has identified different motivators of individual versus team innovation,and with few excep-tions (Gong et al.,2009;Hirst et al.,2009;Liao et al.,2010;Liu et al.,2011;Pirola-Merlo &Mann,2004;Shin et al.,2012;Taggar,2002),little work has examined how factors at different levels motivate and impact innovation across levels.Answering calls by prominent inno-

vation scholars (Anderson et al.,2004;Gupta et al.,2007;Klein &Sorra,1996;Zhou &Shalley,2008,2010),we extended initial mul-tilevel research on creativity and innovation by finding that (a)team-level support for innovation climate explains additional variance in individual-level motivational states and innovative performance,above and beyond individual-level motivational states,and (b)indi-vidual innovative performance emerges to influence team innovative performance,as well as mediates between team-level support for innovation climate and team innovation performance.By adopting a multilevel,motivational view of innovation in teams,our study shows that models of individual and team innovation can reinforce each other,and moreover explain more variance in innovative performance at each level than do single-level (individual or team level)models.Integrating Parker et al.’s (2010)theory of proactive motivation and West’s (1990)theory of team innovation climate with Chen and Kanfer’s (2006)multilevel theory of team motivation,we also extended prior individual-level work on proactivity and motivation (e.g.,Grant &Ashford,2008;Parker &Collins,2010)by demon-strating that team-level climate exerts more direct and powerful influences on individuals’proactive motivational states and inno-vation performance than the less direct effects assumed in previous models of proactive motivation and innovation (cf.Parker et al.,2010).Extending further prior research on proactivity,our study demonstrated that individual team members’innovation perfor-mance can contribute positively and uniquely to team innovation performance,and,in so doing,it helps to explain how individual and team motivation contribute to team innovative performance.

We conducted additional analyses to test the robustness of our find-ings.First,we re-analyzed the cross-level models shown in Table 2,while including perceptions of transformational leadership as another individual-level control.These analyses showed that (a)all hypothesized direct individual-level and cross-level relationships that were found to be signif-icant in Table 2remained significant after controlling for individual-level transformational leadership,but also (b)at the individual-level,transfor-mational leadership uniquely and positively related to role breadth self-efficacy and intrinsic motivation (along with proactive personality and support for innovation climate).Second,additional team-level analyses revealed that results shown in Table 3held even after controlling for average levels of proactive personality,role-breadth self-efficacy,and intrinsic motivation in teams;furthermore,none of these additional vari-ables related significantly to team innovation performance.Further details of these analyses are available upon request from the authors.

Table 3

Hierarchical Linear Modeling Analyses of Team-Level Outcomes

Variable

DV ?Support for

innovation

DV ?Team innovative performance

Model 1Model 2Model 3Model 4Model 5Team size

.00(.03).01(.03)?.03(.04)?.04(.04)?.03(.05)Team capability

.08(.05)

.08?(.04).07(.09).05(.10).02(.10)Transformational leadership .65?(.09).09(.17)?.15(.25)?.05(.23)Support for innovation

.36?(.18).21(.18)Average individual innovative performance .18?(.08)Pseudo R 2

.00

.28

.02

.10

.15

Note .N ?95teams (Level 1)and 33firms (Level 2).Unstandardized estimates are reported,with standard errors in parentheses.DV ?dependent variable.?

p ?.05(two-tailed).

MULTILEVEL MOTIVATORS OF TEAM INNOVATION

Interestingly,in contrast to our study,Gong et al.(2012)found that support for creativity climate mediates between individual-level creativity and team-level creativity,suggesting that climate serves as a more proximal antecedent to team creativity than average team members’individual creativity.However,our study focused on the broader construct of innovation at each level,whereas Gong et al.focused more specifically on creativity.In addition,unlike Gong et al.’s cross-sectional study wherein in each team the same leader rated both individual and team creativity,in our study we assessed individual and team innovation using dif-ferent sources (internal team leaders vs.managers external to the team,respectively),and also used a lagged design,which allowed individual innovation performance time to exert emergent influ-ences on team innovation.Nonetheless,the differences in these studies’findings suggest we need additional research to more closely investigate similarities and distinctions between creativity and innovation (see also Baer,2012;Zhou &Shalley,2008),and the role of team climate in the “bottom up”process linking individual innovation to team innovation.

Contrary to prediction,intrinsic motivation did not mediate between support for innovation climate and individual innovative performance.These results seem to support Shalley et al.’s (2004,p.945)conclusion that “contextual characteristics do not affect creativity via intrinsic motivation but rather via alternative medi-ating conditions.”In this regard,the mediating effect of role-breadth self-efficacy was significant,suggesting that self-efficacy may be more amenable to external influences than intrinsic moti-vation.

Our study also illuminates tangible approaches that leaders can adopt to enhance team members’individual and collective moti-vation to https://www.wendangku.net/doc/371089702.html,ly,leaders should engage in transforma-tional behaviors to foster a climate that facilitates innovation at the team-level as well as motivates individual members to contribute innovatively to their teams.Findings also showed that members higher on proactive personality are more motivated to innovate,in part because they have greater role-breadth self-efficacy and are more intrinsically motivated.As such,identifying members with higher proactive personality can also enhance innovativeness in https://www.wendangku.net/doc/371089702.html,stly,findings highlight the benefit of attending to indi-vidual contributions and team factors when managing team-level innovation.Evidence suggests team innovation is dually impacted by team processes and aggregated performance of individual mem-

bers.Consequently,team leaders should focus on motivating members both personally (i.e.,individually)and collectively (i.e.,as a team).To do so,our findings suggest that they should engage in transformational leadership behaviors and ensure their teams are staffed with proactive members.

Limitations and Future Research

While the present study makes several noteworthy contribu-tions,it is important to qualify these in light of design limitations.First,although we collected team performance at a later point in time relative to the measurement of other variables in the model,we relied on a non-experimental design,which prevents us from making causal inferences.Related to this,more research is needed to examine the role of time and timing in the bottom-up effects of individuals on team innovativeness.Scholars have advocated for the use of longitudinal methods to capture how multilevel inno-vative processes emerge over time and across stages of team projects (e.g.,Gersick,1988;Klein &Sorra,1996).Furthermore,it is also possible that the level of task interdependence and other aspects of the team task structure moderate the extent to which some or all individual members of a team are likely to exert meaningful influences on team innovation performance (cf.Chen et al.,2007).

Additionally,we recognize that other antecedents we did not study could also account for innovative performance at the indi-vidual and team levels,including task complexity and task inter-dependence (Hülsheger et al.,2009;Shalley et al.,2004).Re-searchers should also examine the role of transformational leadership in promoting innovativeness across multiple levels,as our auxiliary findings suggested that transformational leadership positively related to mediating mechanisms at both the individual and team levels.Additional research should also consider goal-related processes (i.e.,goal generation and goal striving),which are arguably more proximal and direct antecedents of individual and team innovative performance,relative to the motivational states included in our study (Chen &Kanfer,2006;Parker et al.,2010).

Lastly,a few measurement limitations should be noted.First,the ICC(2)values for the transformational leadership and support for innovation climate measures were low,indicating that between-team variance in these measures was attenuated.Despite this

Table 4

Summary of Results From Tests of Indirect Effects

Variable

Indirect effect

95%confidence interval

Individual-level indirect effects

Proactive personality ?Self-efficacy ?Individual performance

.10?[.05,.17]Proactive personality ?Intrinsic motivation ?Individual performance .06?[.01,.11]Cross-level indirect effects

Transformational leadership ?Support climate ?Self-efficacy

.29?[.15,.45]Transformational leadership ?Support climate ?Intrinsic motivation .17?[.01,.34]Support climate ?Self-efficacy ?Individual performance

.08?[.03,.14]Support climate ?Intrinsic motivation ?Individual performance .03[?.01,.07]Team-level indirect effects

Transformational leadership ?Support climate ?Team performance .23?[.01,.49]Support climate ?Average individual performance ?Team performance

.12?

[.01,.30]

p ?.05.

CHEN,FARH,CAMPBELL-BUSH,WU,AND WU

restricted team-level variance,we were able to support most hy-potheses in our study.Second,our innovative performance mea-sures were perceptual and might have been susceptible to rater biases.However,the presence of rater biases would likely serve to reduce the relationships between performance measures (which could have been affected by rater biases)and predictor measures (which were obtained from a different source,and hence were not exposed to the same rater biases).Even so,our data supported hypotheses involving individual and team performance ratings,though replication of our findings using alternative measures of innovative performance (i.e.,objective indices such as patents)can instill further confidence in these results.

Conclusion

Innovation has swiftly become an organizational necessity.The upward trend of reliance on teams as the organizational hotbeds of innovation makes more pressing the need to understand motivators of innovation in teams.In this study,we applied a multilevel motivational lens to take initial steps in advancing a more com-plete,systems view of innovation in teams that encompassed both contextual influences of teams on their individual members and emergent influences of individual members on their teams.We hope this effort will fuel additional multilevel research that en-hances understanding of antecedents to the multifaceted process of innovation in and of teams.

References

Amabile,T.M.(1983).The social psychology of creativity:A componen-tial conceptualization.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,45,357–376.doi:10.1037/0022-3514.45.2.357

Amabile,T.M.(1993).Motivational synergy:Toward new conceptualiza-tions of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in the workplace.Human Resource Management Review,3,185–201.doi:10.1016/1053-4822(93)90012-S

Anderson,N.,De Dreu,C.K.W.,&Nijstad,B.A.(2004).The routini-zation of innovation research:A constructively critical review of the state-of-the-science.Journal of Organizational Behavior,25,147–173.doi:10.1002/job.236

Anderson,N.,&West,M.A.(1998).Measuring climate for work group innovation:Development and validation of the Team Climate Inventory.Journal of Organizational Behavior,19,235–258.doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199805)19:3?235::AID-JOB837?3.0.CO;2-C

Baer,M.(2012).Putting creativity to work:The implementation of creative ideas in organizations.Academy of Management Journal,55,1102–1119.doi:10.5465/amj.2009.0470

Bass,B.M.(1985).Leadership and performance beyond expectations .New York,NY:Free Press.

Bateman,T.S.,&Crant,J.M.(1993).The proactive component of organizational behavior:A measure and correlates.Journal of Organi-zational Behavior,14,103–118.doi:10.1002/job.4030140202

Bliese,P.D.(2000).Within-group agreement,non-independence,and reliability:Implications for data aggregation and analyses.In K.J.Klein &S.W.J.Kozlowski (Eds.),Multilevel theory,research,and methods in organizations:Foundations,extensions,and new directions (pp.349–381).San Francisco,CA:Jossey-Bass.

Brislin,R.W.(1980).Translation and content analysis of oral and written materials.In H.Triandis &J.W.Berry (Eds.),Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (pp.389–444).Boston,MA:Allyn &Bacon.Chen,G.,&Kanfer,R.(2006).Toward a systems theory of motivated behavior in work teams.Research in Organizational Behavior,27,223–267.doi:10.1016/S0191-3085(06)27006-0

Chen,G.,Kanfer,R.,DeShon,R.P.,Mathieu,J.E.,&Kozlowski,S.W.J.(2009).The motivating potential of teams:Test and extension of Chen and Kanfer’s (2006)cross-level model of motivation in https://www.wendangku.net/doc/371089702.html,ani-zational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,110,45–55.doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2009.06.006

Chen,G.,Kirkman,B.L.,Kanfer,R.,Allen,D.,&Rosen,B.(2007).A multilevel study of leadership,empowerment,and performance in teams.Journal of Applied Psychology,92,331–346.doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.2.331

Crant,J.M.(2000).Proactive behavior in organizations.Journal of Man-agement,26,435–462.doi:10.1177/014920630002600304

De Dreu,C.K.W.(2002).Team innovation and team effectiveness:The importance of minority dissent and reflexivity.European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,11,285–298.doi:10.1080/13594320244000175

DeShon,R.P.,Kozlowski,S.W.J.,Schmidt,A.M.,Milner,K.R.,&Weichmann,D.(2004).A multiple goal,multilevel model of feedback effects on the regulation of individual and team performance in training.Journal of Applied Psychology,89,1035–1056.doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.1035

Eden,D.(1992).Female engineers:Their career socialization into a male-dominated occupation.Urban Education,27,174–195.doi:10.1177/0042085992027002005

Eisenbeiss,S.A.,van Knippenberg,D.,&Boerner,S.(2008).Transfor-mational leadership and team innovation:Integrating team climate prin-ciples.Journal of Applied Psychology,93,1438–1446.doi:10.1037/a0012716

Farh,J.L.,Hackett,R.D.,&Liang,J.(2007).Individual-level cultural values as moderators of perceived organizational support–employee outcomes relationships:Comparing the effects of power distance and traditionality.Academy of Management Journal,50,715–729.doi:10.5465/AMJ.2007.25530866

Ford,C.M.(1996).A theory of individual creative action in multiple social domains.The Academy of Management Review,21,1112–1142.

Gersick,C.J.G.(1988).Time and transition in work teams:Toward a new model of group development.Academy of Management Journal,31,9–41.doi:10.2307/256496

Gong,Y.,Huang,J.C.,&Farh,J.L.(2009).Employee learning orienta-tion,transformational leadership,and employee creativity:The mediat-ing role of employee creative self-efficacy.Academy of Management Journal,52,765–778.doi:10.5465/AMJ.2009.43670890

Gong,Y.,Kim,T.-Y.,Zhu,J.,&Lee,D.R.(2012).A multilevel model of team goal orientation,information exchange,and creativity.Academy of Management Journal .Advance online publication.doi:10.5465/amj .2011.0177

Grant,A.M.,&Ashford,S.J.(2008).The dynamics of proactivity at work.Research in Organizational Behavior,28,3–34.doi:10.1016/j.riob.2008.04.002

Griffin,M.A.,Neal,A.,&Parker,S.K.(2007).A new model of work role performance:Positive behavior in uncertain and interdependent con-texts.Academy of Management Journal,50,327–347.doi:10.5465/AMJ .2007.24634438

Gupta,A.K.,Tesluk,P.E.,&Taylor,M.S.(2007).Innovation at and across multiple levels of https://www.wendangku.net/doc/371089702.html,anization Science,18,885–897.doi:10.1287/orsc.1070.0337

Hirst,G.,Van Knippenberg,D.,&Zhou,J.(2009).A cross-level perspec-tive on employee creativity:Goal orientation,team learning behavior,and individual creativity.Academy of Management Journal,52,280–293.doi:10.5465/AMJ.2009.37308035

Hülsheger,U.R.,Anderson,N.,&Salgado,J.F.(2009).Team-level predictors of innovation at work:A comprehensive meta-analysis span-ning three decades of research.Journal of Applied Psychology,94,1128–1145.doi:10.1037/a0015978

MULTILEVEL MOTIVATORS OF TEAM INNOVATION

Janssen,O.(2000).Job demands,perceptions of effort–reward fairness and innovative work behaviour.Journal of Occupational and Organiza-tional Psychology,73,287–302.doi:10.1348/096317900167038

Kanfer,R.,&Ackerman,P.L.(2004).Aging,adult development,and work motivation.The Academy of Management Review,29,440–458.Kark,R.,Shamir,B.,&Chen,G.(2003).The two faces of transformational leadership:Empowerment and dependency.Journal of Applied Psychol-ogy,88,246–255.doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.2.246

Keller,R.T.(2006).Transformational leadership,initiating structure,and substitutes for leadership:A longitudinal study of research and devel-opment project team performance.Journal of Applied Psychology,91,202–210.doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.1.202

King,N.,Anderson,N.,&West,M.A.(1991).Organizational innovation:A case study into perceptions and processes.Work &Stress,5,331–339.doi:10.1080/02678379108257031

Kirkman,B.L.,Chen,G.,Farh,J.L.,Chen,Z.X.,&Lowe,K.B.(2009).Individual power distance orientation and follower reactions to transfor-mational leaders:A cross-level,cross-cultural examination.Academy of Management Journal,52,744–764.doi:10.5465/AMJ.2009.43669971Klein,K.J.,&Sorra,J.S.(1996).The challenge of innovation implemen-tation.The Academy of Management Review,21,1055–1080.

Kozlowski,S.W.J.,&Klein,K.J.(2000).A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations:Contextual,temporal,and emergent pro-cesses.In K.J.Klein &S.W.J.Kozlowski (Eds.),Multilevel theory,research,and methods in organizations:Foundations,extensions,and new directions (pp.3–90).San Francisco,CA:Jossey-Bass.

LeBreton,J.M.,&Senter,J.L.(2008).Answers to 20questions about interrater reliability and interrater https://www.wendangku.net/doc/371089702.html,anizational Research Methods,11,815–852.doi:10.1177/1094428106296642

Liao,H.,Liu,D.,&Loi,R.(2010).Looking at both sides of the social exchange coin:A social cognitive perspective on the joint effects of LMX and TMX relationship quality and differentiation on creativity.Academy of Management Journal,53,1090–1109.doi:10.5465/AMJ .2010.54533207

Liu,D.,Chen,X.,&Yao,X.(2011).From autonomy to creativity:A multilevel investigation of the mediating role of harmonious passion.Journal of Applied Psychology,96,294–309.doi:10.1037/a0021294MacKinnon,D.P.,Lockwood,C.M.,&Williams,J.(2004).Confidence limits for the indirect effect:Distribution of the product and resampling methods.Multivariate Behavioral Research,39,99–128.doi:10.1207/s1*******mbr3901_4

Mathieu,J.E.,Maynard,T.M.,Rapp,T.,&Gilson,L.(2008).Team effectiveness 1997–2007:A review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future.Journal of Management,34,410–476.doi:10.1177/0149206308316061

Parker,S.K.(1998).Enhancing role breadth self-efficacy:The roles of job enrichment and other organizational interventions.Journal of Applied Psychology,83,835–852.doi:10.1037/0021-9010.83.6.835

Parker,S.K.(2000).From passive to proactive motivation:The impor-tance of flexible role orientations and role breadth self-efficacy.Applied Psychology:An International Review,49,447–469.doi:10.1111/1464-0597.00025

Parker,S.K.,Bindl,U.K.,&Strauss,K.(2010).Making things happen:A model of proactive motivation.Journal of Management,36,827–856.doi:10.1177/0149206310363732

Parker,S.K.,&Collins,C.G.(2010).Taking stock:Integrating and differentiating multiple proactive behaviors.Journal of Management,36,633–662.doi:10.1177/0149206308321554

Parker,S.K.,Williams,H.,&Turner,N.(2006).Modeling the antecedents of proactive behavior at work.Journal of Applied Psychology,91,636–652.doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.3.636

Pirola-Merlo,A.,Hartel,C.,Mann,L.,&Hirst,G.(2002).How leaders influence the impact of affective events on team climate and perfor-

mance in R&D teams.The Leadership Quarterly,13,561–581.doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(02)00144-3

Pirola-Merlo,A.,&Mann,L.(2004).The relationship between individual creativity and team creativity:Aggregating across people and time.Journal of Organizational Behavior,25,235–257.doi:10.1002/job.240Podsakoff,P.M.,&MacKenzie,S.B.(1994).An examination of the psychometric properties and nomological validity of some revised and reduced substitutes for leadership scales.Journal of Applied Psychology,79,702–713.doi:10.1037/0021-9010.79.5.702

Podsakoff,P.M.,MacKenzie,S.B.,&Bommer,W.H.(1996).Transfor-mational leader behaviors and substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction,commitment,trust,and organizational citizen-ship behaviors.Journal of Management,22,259–298.

Raudenbush,S.W.,Byrk,A.S.,&Congdon,R.(2004).HLM6:Hierar-chical linear and nonlinear modeling .Lincolnwood,IL:Scientific Soft-ware International.

Ryan,R.M.,&Deci,E.L.(2000).Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation,social development,and well-being.American Psychologist,55,68–78.doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68Seibert,S.E.,Crant,J.M.,&Kraimer,M.L.(1999).Proactive personality and career success.Journal of Applied Psychology,84,416–427.doi:10.1037/0021-9010.84.3.416

Seibert,S.E.,Kraimer,M.L.,&Crant,J.M.(2001).What do proactive people do?A longitudinal model linking proactive personality and career success.Personnel Psychology,54,845–874.doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2001.tb00234.x

Shalley,C.E.,Zhou,J.,&Oldham,G.R.(2004).The effects of personal and contextual characteristics on creativity:Where should we go from here?Journal of Management,30,933–958.doi:10.1016/j.jm.2004.06.007

Shin,S.J.,Kim,T.Y.,Lee,J.Y.,&Bian,L.(2012).Cognitive team diversity and individual team member creativity:A cross-level interaction.Academy of Management Journal,55,197–212.doi:10.5465/amj.2010.0270

Shin,S.J.,&Zhou,J.(2003).Transformational leadership,conservation,and creativity:Evidence from Korea.Academy of Management Journal,46,703–714.doi:10.2307/30040662

Shrout,P.E.,&Bolger,N.(2002).Mediation in experimental and non-experimental studies:New procedures and recommendations.Psycho-logical Methods,7,422–445.doi:10.1037/1082-989X.7.4.422

Snijders,T.A.B.,&Bosker,R.J.(1999).Multilevel analysis:An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling .London,England:Sage.

Taggar,S.(2002).Individual creativity and group ability to utilize indi-vidual creative resources:A multilevel model.Academy of Management Journal,45,315–330.doi:10.2307/3069349

Tierney,P.,Farmer,S.M.,&Graen,G.B.(1999).An examination of leadership and employee creativity:The relevance of traits and relation-ships.Personnel Psychology,52,591–620.doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1999.tb00173.x

West,M.A.(1990).The social psychology of innovation in groups.In M.A.West &J.L.Farr (Eds.),Innovation and creativity at work (pp.309–333).Chichester,England:Wiley.

West,M.A.,&Farr,J.L.(1990).Innovation at work.In M.A.West &J.L.Farr (Eds.),Innovation and creativity at work:Psychological and organizational strategies (pp.3–13).Chichester,England:Wiley.

Zhou,J.,&Shalley,C.E.(2008).Expanding the scope and the impact of organizational creativity research.In J.Zhou &C.E.Shalley (Eds.),Hand-book of organizational creativity (pp.347–368).Hillsdale,NJ:Erlbaum.Zhou,J.,&Shalley,C.E.(2010).Deepening our understanding of cre-ativity in the workplace.In S.Zedeck (Ed.),APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol.1,pp.275–302).Washington,DC:American Psychological Association.

Received February 14,2011

Revision received February 25,2013

Accepted March 15,2013Ⅲ

CHEN,FARH,CAMPBELL-BUSH,WU,AND WU