Does team conflict affect top management team creativity? Team climate as a moderator.
TMT creativity is the ability of members to present innovative and practical ideas for management practice (Shin & Zhou, 2007). They undertake the important mission of formulating and implementing strategic decisions (Rong & Ge, 2014). Creativity allows TMTs to adapt to environmental changes, promote decision making, and achieve innovative development for their enterprise (Rong et al., 2019). Researchers have examined TMT creativity formation via the effect of paternalistic and transformational leadership on TMT creativity (Chang, Liu, & Jing, 2016; Kim, 2017). However, they have not revealed the internal mechanism for TMT creativity formation because the stimulation of creativity depends on the participation and promotion of TMT members in a harmonious team climate; thus, team conflict management is particularly critical for TMT creativity (X. Liu & Chen, 2017).
Team conflict is a group process of obstruction and resistance when members perceive existing or potential antagonism (L.-G. Liu & Pu, 2013), and involves both cognitive and emotional conflict. Cognitive conflict is disagreement of opinions and ideas about the task itself, and does not involve personal assault or interpersonal disharmony (Tjosvold, Law, & Sun, 2006). Emotional conflict arises from interpersonal relationship disharmony among members, including contradiction, hatred, or anger. Conflict within TMTs is unavoidable because of heterogeneity in gender, age, and values. Du and Chen (2009) found that cognitive conflict can enhance TMT members' cognition about and understanding of tasks and bring diversified solutions, whereas emotional conflict reduces team cohesion and is not conducive to healthy development of the team or organization (Amason, 1996). Camelo-Ordaz, Garcia-Cruz, and Sousa-Ginel (2015) found that TMT cognitive conflict has a positive impact on enterprise innovation performance, whereas emotional conflict has the opposite effect. In addition, Wang, Su, and Guo (2019) found that cognitive conflict in TMTs positively affects exploratory innovation, whereas emotional conflict has a negative effect. While emotional conflict weakens TMT members' mutual understanding, hurts their feelings, and reduces their satisfaction, cognitive conflict promotes members' understanding of tasks and exchanges, and helps them to brainstorm, coordinate, and achieve team innovation (Chen, Zheng, & Wang, 2016). Therefore, we focused on the effect of both cognitive and emotional conflict on TMT creativity, and examined the moderating role of team climate in this relationship.
Literature Review and Hypothesis Development
Influence of Cognitive Conflict on Top Management Team Creativity
In the process of accomplishing team goals, members often have different problem-solving ideas because they differ in cognition, personality, roles, and preferences (Franke & Foerstl, 2018). When TMT members disagree on how to achieve team goals and disputes arise, cognitive conflict is formed within the team (Wang et al., 2019). Team creativity is the crystallization of collective wisdom, which requires TMT members to share diverse information and achieve knowledge transfer, exchange, and sharing (Rong et al., 2019). However, in the process of cognitive conflict, TMT members may express different opinions on decision making, expound opposing views, and provide learning opportunities to generate new ideas. Bengtsson, Raza-Ullah, and Srivastava (2018) found that TMT members' different knowledge and experience provide diverse information sources that help form ideas within the team, promote knowledge integration and innovation, and facilitate TMTs to promote diverse decision-making programs. Garcia-Granero et al. (2018) found that TMT members' diversity may lead to potential conflict but also contribute to the development of new combinations of exploration. Therefore, we proposed the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: Cognitive conflict will have a significantly positive impact on top management team creativity.
Influence of Emotional Conflict on Top Management Team Creativity
Although social behavior is mostly purposeful, if team goals all need to be achieved simultaneously, conflict accompanied by motivation for resolution may arise (Vollstadt & Bohm, 2019). Chen et al. (2016) proposed that cognitive conflict helps to stimulate TMT creativity; however, it can trigger emotional conflict, causing tension in team interpersonal relationships. The focus of emotional conflict is on interpersonal conflict and emotional disputes, which lead to tension and discontent. Emotional conflict may bring about personal attacks that absorb team members' energy, distract them from their work, prevent them from forming a value consensus on important knowledge resources, and cause them to miss valuable opportunities for gaining information (de Jong, Song, & Song, 2013). In addition, emotional conflict increases TMT members' stress and anxiety, limits their cognitive horizons, and can result in their ignoring good solutions. Emotional conflict also leads to hostile or incorrect attribution, weakens TMT trust, makes it hard for members to overcome difficulties and challenges, and prevents them from achieving team innovation (Camelo-Ordaz et al., 2015). Therefore, we proposed the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2: Emotional conflict will have a significantly negative impact on top management team creativity.
Moderating Effect of Team Climate
From a contingency theory perspective, organizational management should respond to environmental changes to maintain organizational adaptability (McAdam, Miller, & McSorley, 2019). TMTs operate in a specific environment and team climate is the shared perceptions of TMT members toward the team environment (Carpenter, Geletkanycz, & Sanders, 2004). When the team climate changes, TMT internal operation processes will be adjusted accordingly, and this will change the team conflict level. B. Liu, Xie, and Meng (2011) found that a team climate of trust and identity can reduce emotional conflict and increase cognitive conflict, whereas a team climate of openness is negatively correlated with emotional conflict. This is because differences of opinion among TMT members in a climate of mutual trust not only have a negative impact on interpersonal relationships or cause emotional conflict, but promote more in-depth communication. Members can, thus, directly express their disagreement and improve the cognitive conflict level so that new ideas will come into being (Chen et al., 2016). For example, Lin, Trang, and Liu (2016) found that TMT knowledge sharing and learning in a climate of mutual trust significantly improve enterprise output, and in a relatively stable (vs. unstable) environment the moderating role of team climate is more significant.
In contrast, in a team climate of mutual criticism, hidden political actions weaken mutual trust relationships and result in hostility among members. This leads to an increase in emotional conflict because members cannot engage in information exchange or propose solutions; thus, team creativity declines (Tekleab, Karaca, Quigley, & Tsang, 2016). De Clercq and Belausteguigoitia (2017) found that a work atmosphere that encourages innovation effectively reduces the negative impact of emotional conflict on team members' job satisfaction, encourages them to share innovative ideas, and stimulates innovation. Therefore, we proposed the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 3a: Team climate will moderate the positive relationship between cognitive conflict and top management team creativity, such that the relationship is more positive in a tolerant climate and less positive in a tense climate.
Hypothesis 3b: Team climate will moderate the negative relationship between emotional conflict and top management team creativity, such that the relationship is less negative in a tolerant climate and more negative in a tense climate.
Participants and Procedure
After we had conducted a small-scale presurvey of TMT members of enterprises in East China, we distributed 782 surveys to 74 TMTs in enterprises in most regions in China. The formal survey was conducted by the enterprises' senior executives who were studying for Master of Business Administration or Executive Master of Business Administration degrees, and they were also entrusted to invite other team members to fill in and collect the surveys. The study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of Shanghai Normal University and participants provided written informed consent prior to taking part in this research.
Of the 703 surveys we collected, 684 from 71 TMTs were valid (response rate = 87.47%). On average, each team consisted of 10 members (range = 6-13, SD = 3.25). Of the participants, 43.42% were women and 56.58 were men, and 27.63% were aged from 30 to 40 years, 40.06% from 41 to 50 years, and 32.31% were aged 51 years and above. Regarding their highest educational levels, 25.73% of participants had completed junior college or below, 42.84% had a bachelor's degree, and 31.43% had a master's degree or higher level of education. In terms of tenure, 13.01% had worked at their jobs for less than 3 years, 26.90% from 3 to 5 years, 32.31% from 6 to 10 years, and 27.78% over 10 years.
Participants assessed each item on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. The higher the score, the stronger was the situation indicated by the item.
To measure team conflict, we used an eight-item team conflict scale from Tjosvold et al. (2006), which comprises cognitive and emotional dimensions, each with four items. A sample item for cognitive conflict is "Top management team members often hold different opinions about what they are doing." A sample item for emotional conflict is "There is much friction among top management team members."
We measured team climate with a four-item team climate scale used by Cox (2011). A sample item is "Top management team members can accommodate one another's faults or errors."
To measure top management team creativity, we adapted Shin and Zhou's (2007) four-item creativity scale. A sample item is "Top management team members often produce new suggestions and new ideas."
We controlled for the demographic variables of gender, age, tenure, and education level of TMT members, because these have been found to affect TMTs' operation process (J.-W. Zhu & Peng, 2017).
Results of comparative factor analysis show that the normalized factor loadings of the items were all greater than .60 (p < .001), and the overall fit was good (see Table 1). The variables of cognitive conflict, emotional conflict, team climate, and TMT creativity had acceptable discriminant validity, and Cronbach's alpha reliability coefficients were .88, .90, .86, and .89, respectively.
To aggregate TMT members' individual data to the team level, we adopted the [r.sub.wg] index of agreement (Rong et al., 2019) and found that three teams' data could not be aggregated. After they had been deleted, the [r.sub.wg] index medians for team conflict, team climate, and TMT creativity in the remaining 71 teams were .95 (M = 0.92), .93 (M = 0.91), and .96 (M = 0.94). These show that the evaluations of team members were consistent for each variable (Rong et al., 2019). The values of intraclass correlation coefficient ICC(1) for team conflict, team climate, and TMT creativity were .22, .24, and .21, respectively, and the values of ICC(2) for team conflict, team climate, and TMT creativity were .65, .67, and .63, respectively. Therefore, we determined we could aggregate the individual-level data to the team level.
Descriptive statistics and correlations for the study variables are shown in Table 2.
Cognitive conflict was significantly and positively correlated with emotional conflict, team climate, and TMT creativity. Emotional conflict was significantly and negatively correlated with team climate and TMT creativity. Team climate was significantly and positively correlated with TMT creativity. Of the four control variables, age and tenure were significantly and negatively correlated with emotional conflict, and education level was significantly and positively correlated with cognitive conflict and TMT creativity.
The results of multilevel regression analysis are shown in Table 3.
According to Models 2 and 3 (see Table 3), cognitive conflict had a significant positive effect on TMT creativity and emotional conflict had a significant negative effect on TMT creativity. Thus, Hypotheses 1 and 2 were supported.
We tested the moderating effect of team climate in the relationship between team conflict using Model 4 and TMT creativity using Model 5. In comparison with Model 2, Model 4 showed a significantly improved fit; therefore, team climate had a positive moderating effect in the relationship between cognitive conflict and TMT creativity. The moderating effect curves are shown in Figure 1: In a tolerant team climate, cognitive conflict had a greater positive impact on TMT creativity (slope = .44, p < .001). However, in a tense team climate, cognitive conflict had a less positive impact on TMT creativity (slope = .20, p < .001). Thus, Hypothesis 3a was supported.
In comparison with Model 3, Model 5 showed a significantly improved fit; thus, team climate had a negative moderating effect in the relationship between emotional conflict and TMT creativity. The moderating effect curves are shown in Figure 2: In a tolerant team climate, emotional conflict had a less negative impact on TMT creativity (slope = -.24, p < .01). However, in a tense team climate, emotional conflict had a greater negative impact on TMT creativity (slope = -.42, p < .01). Thus, Hypothesis 3b was supported.
We differ from previous researchers who examined team creativity (e.g., Park, Lew, & Lee, 2018; Pei, 2017) in that we explored the influence of team conflict on TMT creativity from a team process perspective and made several new findings. First, through an in-depth connotation analysis of team conflict, we found that cognitive conflict has a positive impact and emotional conflict a negative impact, on TMT creativity. Previous researchers have used a team leader perspective to focus on how leaders with different styles influence TMT creativity (Chang et al., 2016; Kim, 2017), but have not examined other antecedents that may affect TMT creativity. Our results reveal the origins of TMT creativity and show that team conflict affects TMT creativity, a process that can be regulated by different team climates.
Second, we identified team climate as a key situational factor through which team conflict affects TMT creativity. X. Zhu, Wholey, Cain, and Natafgi (2017) did not make this identification in their exploration of the moderating role of team climate in an organizational environment. We found that team climate played an important moderating role in the process of team conflict affecting TMT creativity, that is, if the team climate was tolerant, the positive impact of cognitive conflict on TMT creativity was stronger. However, if team climate was tense, the negative impact of emotional conflict on TMT creativity was stronger. This finding promotes understanding of the boundary conditions for the role of team climate, and awareness of the critical situations in which team conflict affects TMT creativity.
Third, team process is the black box of the interaction between TMT and organizational performance, and it is a new direction that researchers can follow (Rong, Su, & Wang, 2018). Unlike previous researchers, who focused only on TMT members' demographic characteristics of gender, age, tenure, and education level (Hsieh, Chen, Tseng, & Lin, 2018; J.-W. Zhu & Peng, 2017), we showed the influence of the process variables of team conflict and team climate on TMT creativity from a team process perspective in an organizational context. Similar to Wang et al.'s (2019) finding, we confirmed both the positive effect of cognitive conflict and the negative effect of emotional conflict on creativity in TMTs. However, we also found that the adjustment of team climate as an organizational context variable meant that both the positive effect of cognitive conflict and the negative effect of emotional conflict on TMT creativity changed. Thus, team climate played an opposite role in the process of the two conflict dimensions affecting TMT creativity. Our results enhance understanding of the relationship between the team process variables, and provide a theoretical contribution to the literature on internal process in TMTs.
The strengthening of team building and effective enhancement of TMT creativity is increasingly of common concern for managers and researchers. Our theoretical and empirical research findings that team conflict affects TMT creativity show that TMTs should pay attention to the process variable of team conflict and the organizational context variable of team climate. Enterprises should strengthen the exchange of knowledge and information in TMTs, encourage members to put forward decision-making perspectives to form cognitive conflict, improve TMT members' creative thinking, and promote TMT creativity creation. For example, in the team decision-making process, TMT members should be encouraged to express opinions and generate new ideas, and propose decision-making plans that are then discussed and debated from different perspectives to form cognitive conflict. Enterprises should also strive to create a tolerant TMT climate; promote open communication; encourage TMT members to not only accept different opinions but also understand and trust one another during the team cooperation process; and form common ideals, beliefs, and values to reduce emotional conflict.
Limitations and Directions for Future Research
There are several limitations in this study. First, as we followed Western researchers' concepts and measurement of team conflict, team climate, and TMT creativity, there was a lack of specific connotation of variables in the local Chinese environment. Regarding the differences between Chinese and Western personal habits and values, Chinese people often pay more attention to the face culture that allows team members to be empathetic to each other when working together, and their means of expression in team communication is relatively implicit. Therefore, factors influencing TMT creativity in Western contexts may be quite different in Chinese culture. Measurement scales in the Chinese cultural context are, thus, urgently required. Second, although our cross-sectional data supported our hypotheses, the influence of cognitive and emotional conflict on TMT creativity and the moderating role of team climate are implicitly dynamic processes, and their performance may vary at different time points. Therefore, future researchers should adopt a longitudinal research paradigm to further reveal the intrinsic dynamic process mechanism. Third, we considered neither the influence of team conflict on TMT creativity nor the moderating role of team climate through individual members' responses. Therefore, future researchers should construct a cross-level model to analyze the effect of team conflict and team climate on TMT members' individual psychological and behavioral responses.
This research was supported by the General Project of the National Social Science Fund (17BGL097), General Topics of Shanghai Philosophical and Social Sciences Planning in 2019 (2019BGL025), Special Topic of Shanghai Think Tank Research in 2018 (2018TZB034), and Special Project of Research Base for Developmental Research Center of Shanghai Municipal People's Government and Shanghai Normal University in 2018 (2018-YJ-C05).
Amason, A. C. (1996). Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict on strategic decision making: Resolving a paradox for top management teams. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 123-148. https://doi.org/10.2307/256633
Bengtsson, M., Raza-Ullah, T., & Srivastava, M. K. (2018). Looking different vs thinking differently: Impact of TMT diversity on coopetition capability. Long Range Planning. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2018.11.001
Camelo-Ordaz, C., Garcia-Cruz, J., & Sousa-Ginel, E. (2015). The influence of top management team conflict on firm innovativeness. Group Decision and Negotiation, 24, 957-980. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-014-9424-4
Carpenter, M. A., Geletkanycz, M. A., & Sanders, W. G. (2004). Upper echelons research revisited: Antecedents, elements, and consequences of top management team composition. Journal of Management, 30, 749-778. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jm.2004.06.001
Chang, T., Liu, Z. Q., & Jing, B. F. (2016). Paternalistic leadership and team creativity: New discovery based on the ternary theory [In Chinese]. R&D Management, 28, 62-72. https://doi.org/10.13581/j.cnki.rdm.2016.01.006
Chen, J., Zheng, X., & Wang, T. (2016). Is it about task conflict or relationship conflict? The effect of TMT conflict on firms' exploratory learning [In Chinese]. Nankai Business Review, 19, 91-103.
Cox, S. S. (2011). An investigation of forgiveness climate and workplace outcomes. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2011, 1-6. https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2011.65869629
De Clercq, D., & Belausteguigoitia, I. (2017). Overcoming the dark side of task conflict: Buffering roles of transformational leadership, tenacity, and passion for work. European Management Journal, 35, 78-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2016.06.008
de Jong, A., Song, M., & Song, L. Z. (2013). How lead founder personality affects new venture performance: The mediating role of team conflict. Journal of Management, 39, 1825-1854. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311407509
Du, Y. Z., & Chen, Z. W. (2009). Top management team conflict and team decision performance: The moderating role of control mode [In Chinese]. Journal of Management Science, 22, 31-40. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1672-0334.2009.04.004
Franke, H., & Foerstl, K. (2018). Fostering integrated research on organizational politics and conflict in teams: A cross-phenomenal review. European Management Journal, 36, 593-607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2018.08.003
Garcia-Granero, A., Fernandez-Mesa, A., Jansen, J. J. P., & Vega-Jurado, J. (2018). Top management team diversity and ambidexterity: The contingent role of shared responsibility and CEO cognitive trust. Long Range Planning, 51, 881-893. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2017.11.001
Georgakakis, D., Greve, P., & Ruigrok, W. (2017). Top management team faultlines and firm performance: Examining the CEO-TMT interface. The Leadership Quarterly, 28, 741-758. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.03.004
Hsieh, Y.-T., Chen, T.-K., Tseng, Y.-J., & Lin, R.-C. (2018). Top management team characteristics and accrual-based earnings management. The International Journal of Accounting, 53, 314-334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intacc.2018.11.004
Kim, M. (2017). Effects of team diversity, transformational leadership, and perceived organizational support on team-learning behavior. Social Behavior and Personality: An international journal, 45, 1255-1270. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.6325
Lin, H.-C., Trang, T. H. D., & Liu, Y.-S. (2016). CEO transformational leadership and firm performance: A moderated mediation model of TMT trust climate and environmental dynamism. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 33, 981-1008. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-016-9468-x
Liu, B., Xie, F.-T., & Meng, Q.-C. (2011). The influence mechanism of team climate on team performance: An empirical study based on the data of 164 teams in Shandong province [In Chinese]. China Soft Science, 11, 133-140. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1002-9753.2011.11.014
Liu, L.-G., & Pu, J. (2013). Literature review and the prospect of top management team conflict theory [In Chinese]. Journal of Liaoning University (Philosophy and Social Sciences), 41, 98-105. https://doi.org/10.16197/j.cnki.lnupse.2013.02.020
Liu, X., & Chen, C. (2017). The effect of team motivational climates on team creativity: From a perspective of the motivated information processing in groups model [In Chinese]. Science of Science and Management of S. & T., 38, 170-180.
McAdam, R., Miller, K., & McSorley, C. (2019). Towards a contingency theory perspective of quality management in enabling strategic alignment. International Journal of Production Economics, 207, 195-209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2016.07.003
Park, W.-W., Lew, J. J., & Lee, E. K. (2018). Team knowledge diversity and team creativity: The moderating role of status inequality. Social Behavior and Personality: An international journal, 46, 1611-1622. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.7051
Pei, G. (2017). Structuring leadership and team creativity: The mediating role of team innovation climate. Social Behavior and Personality: An international journal, 45, 369-376. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.5677
Rong, P., & Ge, Y. H. (2014). Research on ELMAN neural network model of TMT decision-making performance evaluation of senior management teams in science and technology enterprises [In Chinese]. Journal of Modern Information, 34, 110-114. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1000-2154.2006.08.004
Rong, P., Li, C., & Xie, J. (2019). Learning, trust, and creativity in top management teams: Team reflexivity as a moderator. Social Behavior and Personality: An international journal, 47, e8096. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.8096
Rong, P., Su, Y., & Wang, X. (2018). CEO leadership style, TMT behavior integration and enterprise innovation performance [In Chinese]. Academia Bimestrie, 1, 196-206. https://doi.org/10.16091/j.cnki.cn32-1308/c.2018.01.026
Shin, S. J., & Zhou, J. (2007). When is educational specialization heterogeneity related to creativity in research and development teams? Transformational leadership as a moderator. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1709-1721. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.6.1709
Tekleab, A. G., Karaca, A., Quigley, N. R., & Tsang, E. W. K. (2016). Re-examining the functional diversity-performance relationship: The roles of behavioral integration, team cohesion, and team learning. Journal of Business Research, 69, 3500-3507. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.01.036
Tjosvold, D., Law, K. S., & Sun, H. (2006). Effectiveness of Chinese teams: The role of conflict types and conflict management approaches. Management and Organization Review, 2, 231-252. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-8784.2006.00040.x
Vollstadt, U., & Bohm, R. (2019). Are groups more competitive, more selfish-rational or more prosocial bargainers? Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 78, 146-159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2018.12.003
Wang, D., Su, Z., & Guo, H. (2019). Top management team conflict and exploratory innovation: The mediating impact of market orientation. Industrial Marketing Management, 82, 87-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2019.02.014
Zhu, J.-W., & Peng, J. J. (2017). The effects of top management team characteristics on firm performance--The moderating role of the degree of internationalization [In Chinese]. Soft Science, 31, 81-85. https://doi.org/10.13956/j.ss.1001-8409.2017.06.18
Zhu, X., Wholey, D. R., Cain, C., & Natafgi, N. (2017). Staff turnover in assertive community treatment (ACT) teams: The role of team climate. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 44, 258-268. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-016-0740-7
Pengfei Rong (1) Lan Zhang (2), Jiaqi Xie (1)
(1) College of Philosophy, Law, and Political Science, Shanghai Normal University, People's Republic of China
(2) School of Business and Finance, Shanghai Normal University, People's Republic of China
CORRESPONDENCE Pengfei Rong, Room 702, Liberal Arts Experimental Building, College of Philosophy, Law, and Politics Science, Shanghai Normal University, 81 Guilin Road, Shanghai 200234, People's Republic of China. Email: email@example.com
Table 1. Fit Results for Comparative Factor Analysis of Study Variables Variable [chi square]/df P CFI TLI RMSEA Cognitive conflict 2.81 <.001 .94 .90 .07 Emotional conflict 2.84 <.001 .92 .91 .06 Team climate 2.85 <.001 .92 .94 .08 TMT creativity 2.86 <.001 .91 .93 .06 Note. TMT = top management team, CFI = comparative fit index, TLI = Tucker--Lewis index, RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation. Table 2. Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Coefficients for Study Variables 1 2 3 4 5 1. Gender 2. Age .07 3. Tenure .03 .06 4. Education level .08 -.04 -.09 5. Cognitive conflict .10 -.07 -.05 .16 (*) 6. Emotional conflict -.11 -.12 (*) -.10 -.04 .27 (*) 7. Team climate .07 .05 .11 .05 .33 (*) 8. TMT creativity .10 -.06 -.07 .13 (*) .45 (***) M 1.13 3.27 2.85 2.76 3.02 SD 0.47 1.03 0.79 1.25 1.24 6 7 8 1. Gender 2. Age 3. Tenure 4. Education level 5. Cognitive conflict 6. Emotional conflict 7. Team climate -.43 (**) 8. TMT creativity -.40 (**) .38 (*) M 3.34 2.59 2.66 SD 0.96 0.77 1.03 Note. N = 71. TMT = top management team. (*) p < .05, (**) p < .01, (***) p < .001. Table 3. Multilevel Regression Analysis: Moderating Effect of Team Climate in the Relationship Between Team Conflict and Top Management Team Creativity Variable Dependent variable: TMT creativity Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Control variable Gender .073 .056 .049 Age -.105 -.102 -.085 Tenure -.081 -.066 -.062 Education level .054 .059 .071 Main effect Cognitive conflict .486 (**) Emotional conflict -.402 (**) Moderating variable Team climate Product term Cognitive conflict x Team climate Emotional conflict x Team climate [R.sup.2] .032 .172 .216 F 1.179 4.298 (**) 4.427 (**) [DELTA][R.sup.2] - .165 .202 [DELTA]F - 2.190 (**) 2.067 (**) Variable Dependent variable: TMT creativity Model 4 Model 5 Control variable Gender .043 .052 Age -.097 -.078 Tenure -.084 -.101 Education level .076 .053 Main effect Cognitive conflict .417 (**) Emotional conflict -.374 (**) Moderating variable Team climate .295 (***) .256 (**) Product term Cognitive conflict x Team climate .189 (*) Emotional conflict x Team climate -.172 (*) [R.sup.2] .368 .347 F 5.720 (**) 5.682 (**) [DELTA][R.sup.2] .343 .325 [DELTA]F 3.294 (**) 3.157 (**) Note. TMT = top management team. (*) p < .05, (**) p < .01, (***) p < .001.
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Author:||Rong, Pengfei; Zhang, Lan; Xie, Jiaqi|
|Publication:||Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal|
|Date:||Dec 1, 2019|
|Previous Article:||The relationship between patient donation and satisfaction with online healthcare service quality.|