Computers in Human Behavior 42 (2015) 47–56

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers in Human Behavior

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/comphumbeh

An analysis of shared leadership, diversity, and team creativity

in an e-learning environment
Dae Sung Lee a, Kun Chang Lee b,⇑, Young Wook Seo c,⇑, Do Young Choi d
a
SKKU Business School, Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul 110-745, Republic of Korea
b
SKKU Business School, Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul 110-745, Republic of Korea
c
Software Engineering Center National IT Industry Promotion Agency, Seoul 138-711, Republic of Korea
d
Solution Business Unit, LG CNS Co., Ltd., Seoul 100-725, Republic of Korea

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In response to rapid change and fierce competition, creativity is an imperative factor to develop and
Available online 11 March 2014 implement innovation. Hence, most firms have pursued diverse strategies to promote individual and
team creativity in the workplace. Shared leadership is a voluntarily, informally emergent structure
Keywords: beyond vertical leadership. A team is composed of individual members, and shared leadership and demo-
Shared leadership graphic diversity exist within the team, influencing team creativity. In this respect, we introduced shared
Demographic diversity leadership as a social network perspective as well as diversity into a team creativity model. In sum, we
Knowledge sharing
examined the influence of shared leadership and diversity on knowledge sharing and the subsequent
Team creativity
effects on team creativity. Our results showed that role diversity directly influences team creativity, with
shared leadership and knowledge sharing positively contributing to team creativity. Thus, knowledge
sharing had a partially mediating role between shared leadership and team creativity. Apart from our
hypotheses, the present results implied that if gender diversity (as a differentiated factor) is not a minor-
ity status, knowledge sharing may have a fully mediating effect between gender diversity and team
creativity.
Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction accentuate shared leadership, which is not imposed on a single

In order to acquire an organizational competitive advantage and
respond to rapidly changing environments, the development and
implementation of creativity and innovation is essential to today’s
turbulent business environment (Lapierre & Giroux, 2003). Many
organizations have selected team-based work systems to increase
their responsiveness and ability to foster innovation. Such organi-
zations need to be concerned not only with enhancing creativity
and innovation among individual employees, but also with devel-
oping creative, innovative teams. Relatively fewer studies have
been conducted on ‘‘team creativity’’ as compared with individual
creativity. In this study, we explore the effects of shared leadership,
demographic diversity, and knowledge sharing on team creativity.
Generally, leadership represents itself as a single designated
individual. Some scholars (Pearce & Conger, 2003; Pearce & Sims,
2002) have argued that leadership includes shared roles and activ-
ities among members of a team. As a team property, we seek to
⇑ Corresponding authors. Tel.: +82 760 0505.
E-mail addresses: leeds1122@gmail.com (D.S. Lee), kunchanglee@gmail.com
(K.C. Lee), seoyy123@gmail.com (Y.W. Seo), dychoi96@gmail.com (D.Y. Choi).
designated leader, but is distributed among team members (Car-
son, Tesluk, & Marrone, 2007; Pearce & Conger, 2003). A single lea-
der may not successfully carry out all necessary leadership
functions because the environment has inherent complexity and
ambiguity (Day, Gronn, & Salas, 2004). Shared leadership repre-
sents mutual influences among team members, which can over-
come the limitation of a leadership style by a single leader.
Therefore, as a type of horizontal, internal team leadership, shared
leadership can contribute to team creativity. In this respect, we
choose shared leadership as an antecedent, and examine the rela-
tionship between shared leadership and team creativity with a so-
cial network perspective by using social network density.
In modern organizations, many workers of different back-
grounds work together, and diversity is a domain that researchers
and practitioners cannot disregard. Women and minorities have
become more significant in the workforce (Loden & Rosener,
1991; Offerman & Gowing, 1990), and there is an enhanced need
for employees of different occupational backgrounds to work
together (Dean & Snell, 1991). Due to the importance of
team-based approaches in organizations, our study focuses on
heterogeneity at the group level. Diversity (interchangeable with

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.10.064
0747-5632/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
48 D.S. Lee et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 42 (2015) 47–56
heterogeneity) is particularly important at the group level, where
individuals interact more regularly than at the organizational level
(Jackson et al., 1991; Parker, 1994). In this sense, we emphasize
demographic attributes (e.g., age, race, gender, education, func-
tional background, and tenure) within teams, investigating the
implications of demographic diversity for team creativity.
Knowledge-based systems force the members of an organiza-
tion to extend their work scopes and establish autonomy (DeNisi,
Hitt, & Jackson, 2003). Therefore, knowledge sharing may act as a
mediator within our team creativity model. Additionally, we as-
sume that there are moderating effects of task complexity (high-le-
vel task variety and low-level task analyzability) between shared
leadership and knowledge sharing. Task complexity is significantly
related to knowledge sharing (Phang & Foong, 2005). In an e-learn-
ing environment, task complexity might also directly (positively or
negatively) influence knowledge sharing. However, when team
members complexly perceive tasks, an interactive mechanism
through shared leadership might be positively related to knowl-
edge sharing. Namely, at the high level of perceived task complex-
ity, team members may mutually depend on the leadership of
other members.
We arranged 40 teams consisting of four to eight members in an
e-learning environment, identifying and examining the constructs
that are most closely related to team creativity. We first review the
selected constructs and their relationships based on previous stud-
ies. Second, we undertake assessments of the discriminant and
convergent validities of these relationships. Lastly, we examine
our hypotheses using hierarchical regression analysis.
2. Literature review and hypotheses
2.1. Demographic diversity
Demographic diversity refers to the degree to which a working
unit is heterogeneous regarding demographic attributes. It gener-
ally includes immutable characteristics such as age, gender, and
ethnicity (Pelled, Eisenhardt, & Xin, 1999). In other words, it
represents individuals’ relationships with organizations, such as
organizational tenure or functional area. Moreover, it identifies
individuals’ positions within society, such as marital status (Law-
rence, 1997). The attention of demographic diversity started off
with both women and minorities in the workforce (Buhler,
1997). The concern intensified the need for organizational
strategies that consider more interaction among employees with
different functional backgrounds (e.g., Dean & Snell, 1991).
Diversity in regards to age, gender, and race is lowly related to
job, but age similarity may not yield similarity in general attitudes
about technical work. Race involves a wide collection of experi-
ences, such as traditions, lessons from parents and teachers, and
treatment from social activities. Sessa and Jackson (1995) found
that age, race, and gender form the context of more general social
relationships, and are less directly associated with team objectives.
Work experiences may only be a fraction of the total set of experi-
ences it captures. Therefore, age, race, and gender may differ with
tenure and team membership.
In this respect, tenure and functional background may have a
stronger impact on perceptions of working group tasks as com-
pared with age, race, and gender. In other words, tenure and func-
tional background are highly related to one’s job, representing how
long one has worked for a company or has been exposed to a spe-
cific functional area. During the period, the experience and knowl-
edge obtained are typically required for cognitive tasks performed
in organizations. Ancona and David (1992) pointed out that tenure
and functional background might be particularly important for
tasks within units, such as product development teams, because
they determine one’s technical skills, expertise, knowledge, and
so on. Other researchers (Milliken & Martins, 1996; Pelled, 1996;
Sessa & Jackson, 1995) have similarly asserted that tenure and
functional background are particularly relevant to work group
tasks.
2.2. Shared leadership
With the presence of several formally appointed or emergent
leaders, leadership may be considered as a shared and distributed
phenomenon (Mehra, Smith, Dixon, & Robertson, 2006). In this
sense, shared leadership is represented by distributed influence
within a team and lateral influence among peers (Pearce & Sims,
2002). Also, shared leadership is regarded as an emergent team
property resulting from the distribution of leadership influence
across multiple team members (Carson et al., 2007). It represents
a condition of mutual influence embedded in the interactions of
team members that significantly improve team and organizational
performances (Day et al., 2004). As shared leadership is defined as
a relational phenomenon involving mutual influence among team
members, social network theory provides a natural theoretical
and analytical approach to studying the relational influence struc-
tures of teams (Mehra et al., 2006). Although there are a few useful
self-reported ratings (Avolio, Jung, & Sivasubramaniam, 1996;
Pearce & Sims, 2002; Pearce, Yoo, & Alavi, 2004), we measured
shared leadership using a social network approach (Carson et al.,
2007; Mayo, Meindl, & Pastor, 2003). In this measurement, shared
leadership is a measure (density) of the total amount of leadership
displayed by team members as perceived by others on a team.
2.3. Knowledge sharing
Knowledge sharing is defined as an interactional process that is
significantly related to group performance (Nelson, Sabatier, & Nel-
son, 1996). Knowledge sharing occurs when an individual spreads
his or her acquired knowledge to other members within an organi-
zation (Ryu, Ho, & Han, 2003). Factors that influence an individual’s
willingness to share knowledge include costs and benefits, incen-
tive systems, extrinsic and intrinsic motivations, organizational cli-
mate, and management championship (e.g., Bock & Kim, 2002;
Bock, Zmud, Kim, & Lee, 2005; Kankanhalli, Tan, & Wei, 2005; Pur-
vis, Sambamurthy, & Zmud, 2001; Wasko & Faraj, 2005). Some
researchers have examined team characteristics and processes in
relation to knowledge sharing. For example, the longer a team
has been together and the higher the level of team cohesiveness,
the more likely it is that team members will share knowledge (Bak-
ker, Leenders, Gabbay, Kratzer, & Van Engelen, 2006; Sawng, Kim,
& Han, 2006). De Vries, Van den Hooff, and De Ridder (2006) inves-
tigated team communication styles, agreeable and extravert styles,
and found that they were positively associated with knowledge
sharing willingness and behaviors. Srivastava, Bartol, and Locke
(2006) showed that empowering leadership fostered knowledge
sharing among members in management teams of hotels. Thus,
intensified research on leadership styles and constructs at the team
level is justified.
2.4. Team creativity
Creativity is generally defined as the ability to yield works that
are both novel and useful (Lubart, 1994). While creativity at the
individual level is pertinent to a situation in which a person solves
problems in a job or in daily life, creativity at the social level can
lead to new scientific findings, movements in art, inventions, and
social programs (Sternberg & Lubart, 1999). Therefore, team crea-
tivity is a comprehensive concept that includes new and useful
ideas, processes, and procedures in an interactional working
 D.S. Lee et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 42 (2015) 47–56
environment (Woodman, Sawyer, & Griffin, 1993). Amabile, Conti,
Coon, Lazenby, and Herron (1996) extended the scope of creativity
research from its origins at the individual level to the group or so-
cial-psychological level and, eventually, to the organizational level.
At the team level, an allowance should be made for situational and
structural factors as well as personal characteristics and cognitive
abilities (Sternberg & Lubart, 1995; Woodman et al., 1993). As a
working unit of decision-making, a team utilizes various resources
to achieve its goal. Knowledge, technology, and expertise are in-
cluded into these necessary resources (Brand, 1998). On these
grounds, we propose that demographic diversity, shared leader-
ship, and knowledge sharing influence team creativity.
2.5. Task variety and analyzability
As a type of complex task classification, our study posits that
tasks have been labeled as problem tasks because they involve find-
ing the best way to achieve a specific outcome. Thus, complexity is a
function of multiple potential paths to the desired result (Campbell,
1988). A high degree of task complexity entails ambiguity and dif-
ficulties that might require new knowledge or novel solutions (Ak-
gun, Byrne, Keskin, Lynn, & Imamoglu, 2005). Moreover, more
complex tasks require cooperation and coordination among team
members (Akgun et al., 2005). The characteristics of task complex-
ity may be separated into two main perspectives: (a) characteristics
related to the a priori determinability of tasks, and (b) characteris-
tics related to the extent of tasks. In this study, we selected ‘‘task
analyzability’’ to reflect the a priori determinability of tasks and
‘‘task variety’’ to represent the extent of tasks. High-level task vari-
ety and low-level analyzability represent the high degree of task
complexity. If tasks are related to the transmission of complex
knowledge within teams, strong ties and accurate cognitive net-
works among team members might be helpful to achieve the goals.
Therefore, as task complexity increases, team members are ex-
pected to spend more time gathering or exchanging knowledge.
On the other hand, if task complexity is not measured by an objec-
tive criterion, but ‘‘perceived’’ by team members, it might represent
the presence of weak interactions within teams.
2.6. Research hypotheses
2.6.1. Demographic diversity and knowledge sharing
Race and gender are generally thought to be innate in nature,
and nobody can stop or lengthen a person’s age and tenure. There-
fore, age, race, gender, and tenure are not easily permeated. In con-
trast, functional background is more penetrable. In organizations,
employees frequently move from one functional area to another
in voluntary or compulsory ways. Many companies make employ-
ees experience both technical and business positions in order to
help them develop their skills (Ryan, 1991). Previous studies indi-
cate that the minority status or diversity of team members relates
to knowledge sharing. According to the similarity-attraction para-
digm, team members are less likely to engage in sharing knowl-
edge with team members when they perceive themselves as
minorities based on gender, marital status, or education (Ojha,
2005). In the R&D teams of large organizations, a higher proportion
of women in the workforce more likely enables team members to
engage in knowledge sharing (Sawng et al., 2006). Some studies
have been conducted on the role of social connections with other
group members in knowledge sharing (Phillips, Mannix, Neale, &
Gruenfeld, 2004; Thomas-Hunt, Ogden, & Neale, 2003), with the
results indicating that socially isolated members are more likely
to disagree with others and contribute their unique knowledge
within a heterogeneous team. On the other hand, within a func-
tionally varied team, it is important for team members to acknowl-
edge other members’ expertise for knowledge sharing (Thomas-
49
Hunt et al., 2003). On the basis of these studies, the following
hypotheses are proposed:
Hypothesis 1a. Diversity in age is negatively related to knowledge
sharing.
Hypothesis 1b. Diversity in gender is negatively related to
knowledge sharing.
Hypothesis 1c. Diversity in major is positively related to knowl-
edge sharing.
Hypothesis 1d. Diversity in role is positively related to knowledge
sharing.
2.6.2. Shared leadership and knowledge sharing
There have been many studies about the relationship between
leadership and knowledge sharing. Contrary to empowering lead-
ership, autocratic leadership hinders team members from sharing
knowledge (Yukl, 2002). In terms of team communication styles,
an agreeable style affects team members’ willingness to share their
knowledge, whereas an extraverted communication style within a
team is positively related to both eagerness and willingness to
share (De Vries et al., 2006). Therefore, shared leadership, or lead-
ership distributed among team members, may be positively associ-
ated with knowledge sharing. From these findings, the following
hypothesis is proposed:
Hypothesis 2. Shared leadership is positively related to knowledge
sharing.
2.6.3. The moderating effect between shared leadership and knowledge
sharing
In terms of two underlying dimensions, a unit’s task complexity
may be categorized into variety and analyzability. Task variety rep-
resents the number and frequency of exceptional, unexpected, or
novel events that occur in the task process (Song, 2008). With a
high level of task variety, employees are expected to spend a larger
amount of time gathering or exchanging knowledge in order to re-
spond to unexpected events as well as to acquire knowledge from
others (Song, 2008). Task analyzability refers to the way individu-
als are able to respond to problems that arise in the process of task
completion. When task processes are analyzable, employees typi-
cally follow objective and computational procedures to respond
to problems. Analyzable tasks also have more rules and procedures
(Song, 2008). Non-routine tasks are more difficult to analyze in
terms of alternative courses of action, costs, benefits, and out-
comes. In our study, the same assignment was given to each team,
as we seek to distinguish perceived task complexity at the team le-
vel from objective one. In this respect, if the level of perceived task
complexity is high at the team level, then team members mutually
depend upon the leadership of others on the team. On the basis of
these studies, the following hypotheses are proposed:
Hypothesis 3a. Perceived task variety enhances the positive
associations between shared leadership and knowledge sharing
within teams.
Hypothesis 3b. Perceived task analyzability reduces the positive
associations between shared leadership and knowledge sharing
in teams.
2.6.4. Demographic diversity and team creativity
Some researchers have found that age diversity reduces conflict
at the group level and increases members’ satisfaction with and
50 D.S. Lee et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 42 (2015) 47–56
commitment to the group (Jehn, Northcraft, & Neale, 1999; Pelled
et al., 1999). As mentioned above, age homogeneity with a shared
life history might produce a feeling of camaraderie and comfort in
sharing ideas. Namely, diversity in age might be negatively related
to knowledge sharing. However, age is an attribute used for social
comparison in terms of achievement (Chattopadhyay, George, &
Lawrence, 2004). Some scholars have shown that age, gender,
and race result in high or low status and the competence expecta-
tions of a particular individual (Chattopadhyay, 1999; Tsui, Porter,
& Egan, 2002). Team members generally compete with each other
for the same resources (e.g., promotion, reward) so as to outper-
form when they have the same life and career development. This
competitive performance pressure might enable team members
to yield new and useful ideas, processes, and procedures (Morrison
& Phelps, 1999). For this reason, age similarity might enhance
members’ voluntary efforts to implement their tasks with creativ-
ity (LePine & Van Dyne, 2001).
In contrast, functional diversity might bring about informa-
tional or idea diversity, which in turn may influence team creativ-
ity (Jehn, 1997). Functional diversity generally increases group
performance, particularly in decision-making tasks (Williams &
O’Reilly, 1998). Therefore, a team with greater functional diversity
may stimulate more creative behavior among its members. Under
differentiated performance evaluations (high heterogeneity), there
may be a more performance-oriented climate for team members,
which will in turn encourage individuals into high performance
(Kluger & DeNisi, 1996). This might stimulate creativity. On the ba-
sis of these studies, we proposed the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 4a. Diversity in age is negatively related to team
creativity.
Hypothesis 4b. Diversity in gender is negatively related to team
creativity.
Hypothesis 4c. Diversity in major is positively related to team cre-
ativity.
Hypothesis 4d. Diversity in role is positively related to team
creativity.
2.6.5. Shared leadership and team creativity
Much contemporary research on creativity has been guided by
intrinsic motivation theory (Amabile, 1996; Oldham & Cummings,
1996; Shalley, 1995; Zhou, 1998). Intrinsic motivation is a critical
factor in creativity, and is often considered the mechanism by
which situational factors such as leadership contribute to creativ-
ity (Oldham & Cummings, 1996). Transformational leadership pos-
itively contributes to follower creativity (Shin & Zhou, 2003).
However, previous researchers have generally focused on the anal-
ysis of vertical leadership and individual creativity. We selected
shared leadership, which is an emergent team property, as another
kind of leadership in our analysis of team creativity. Shared
leadership is also a relational phenomenon that involves mutual
influence among team members (Mehra et al., 2006). On the basis
of these studies, we proposed the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 5. Shared leadership is positively related to team
creativity.
2.6.6. Knowledge sharing and team creativity
Employees share their ideas with others to further develop
those ideas and to facilitate creativity (Oldham, 2003). An effective
working relationship exists when team members exchange knowl-
edge resources to foster progress and to resolve difficulties of both
technical and artistic natures. Sharing knowledge is an important
facilitator of creative collaboration (Mamykina, Candy, & Edmonds,
2002). Therefore, from a resource-based perspective, knowledge
sharing will lead to knowledge accumulation, which fosters team
creativity. These findings suggest the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 6. Knowledge sharing is positively related to team
creativity.
3. Methods
3.1. Sample
Empirical data were gathered through the use of a question-
naire survey. The participants were undergraduate students who
had taken a web-based e-learning course called ‘‘Digital Informa-
tion Technology and its Application’’ at a university in South Korea.
To secure unbiased, self-motivated participation, we announced
that bonus credit would be given to students who submitted ques-
tionnaires without omitting answers or apparently skewing the
distribution of answers. We organized 40 teams consisting of four
to eight members and gave each team an assignment that required
creativity, notifying the participants that the assignment would
have a critical effect on their grade. To avoid selection bias, we pro-
vided questionnaires to all students in the course. We yielded 249
useable cases (78%). Table 1 presents the characteristics of the
sample.
3.2. Measures
3.2.1. Demographic diversity
Participants were asked to provide categorical answers about
age, gender, major, and role. The use of categorical demographic
variables at the team level is designed to avoid problems of bias
stemming from individual-based data aggregated to the level of
the team. We adopted an approach suggested by Pfeffer and O’Reil-
ly (1987), in which an entropy-based diversity index is calculated
by the following equation:
X
n
H¼ Piðln PiÞ; ð1Þ
i¼1
where n is the number of possible categories, and Pi is the fractional
P
share of ith category with Pi = 1.
3.2.2. Shared leadership
This study emphasizes a social network approach (Carson et al.,
2007; Mayo et al., 2003) that uses density, a measure of the total
amount of leadership displayed by team members as perceived
by others on the team. Eq. (2) shows how to calculate density for
shared leadership:
Density ¼ S=7NðN  1Þ: ð2Þ
In this equation, S is the sum of all values that team members would
rate each other for leadership. N equals the number of team
members; N (N  1) is the total number of possible ties in a team.
The number 7 represents the maximum value rated by a peer in a
team.
3.2.3. Self-reported constructs (knowledge sharing, team creativity,
task variety, and task analyzability)
Each item in our constructs was measured on a seven-point Lik-
ert scale, with answers ranging from ‘‘strongly disagree’’ to
‘‘strongly agree’’ (see Table 2). The items in the survey were devel-
oped by adapting existing measures validated by other researchers
or by converting the definitions of the construct into a question-
naire format.
 D.S. Lee et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 42 (2015) 47–56 51

Table 1
Sample characteristics.

Characteristics Frequency Percent Characteristics Frequency Percent

Age Major
20 and below 142 57 Natural science 33 13.3
21–22 30 12 Engineering 31 12.4
23–24 43 17.3 Economics and management 72 28.9
25–26 25 10 Social science 50 20.1
27–28 8 3.2 Liberal arts 54 21.7
29 and over 1 0.4 Language and literature 9 3.6
Grade Gender
Freshman 147 59 Male 167 67.1
Sophomore 40 16.1 Female 82 32.9
Junior 22 8.8
Senior 40 16.1
Total 249 100 Total 249 100

3.2.4. Controls
We controlled for task variety and analyzability (as moderators
described above) because previous researchers have found that the
nature of group tasks often influences group interactions and per-
formance (e.g., Weingart, 1992). Also, when testing for moderating
effects, it is necessary to control for the main effect of the moder-
ating variable. Group size was included as a control variable in our
study because exiting literature on groups indicates that size is an
important variable affecting group dynamics and performance, and
because larger teams have more potential for diversity (Jackson
et al., 1991).
3.2.5. Data analysis – interrater agreement (IRA) and interrater
reliability (IRR)
We tested whether assessments were appropriate using the
within-rater agreement statistic (rwg) (James, Demaree, & Wolf,
1993) and used intraclass correlation coefficients, ICC (1) and ICC
(K), to estimate raters’ similarity (McGraw & Wong, 1996). For
the items of self-reported constructs, rwg, ICC (1) and ICC (K) were
calculated. As shown in Table 3, each rwg of the constructs indi-
cated moderate agreement (>.5) according to LeBreton and Senter’s
guideline (2008). In other words, there was a high level of agree-
ment among judges in regards to rating the internal team environ-
ment. Compilation implies that there are obvious differences
between aggregated and nonaggregated data (LeBreton & Senter,
2008). Therefore, we considered both IRA and IRR for team creativ-
ity and used only IRA for knowledge sharing and task complexity
(TV and TA) so as to judge appropriateness. In this sense, the value
of ICC (1) for team creativity showed that group membership
greatly influenced judges’ ratings. On the other hand, the value
(>.7) of ICC (K) for team creativity as a compilation implied that
the assessments were reliable.
3.2.6. Data analysis – confirmatory factor analysis
To validate our measurement model, we undertook validity
assessments of content and discriminant and convergent validities
by employing partial least squares (PLS). The content validity of
our survey was established from the existing literature, and our
measures were constructed by adopting constructs validated by
other researchers.
The discriminant validity of our instrument was assessed by
examining correlations among questions on the survey. The rule
of thumb in discriminant validity is that a measure should corre-
late with all measures of the same construct more highly than it
does with any measures of other constructs (Chin, 1998). As shown
in Table 4, our composite reliability values (except demographic

Table 2
Construct and measurement.

Construct Items Measurement Related literature

a
Shared SL  To what degree does your team rely on this individual for leadership? Carson et al. (2007), and Mayo et al. (2003)
leadership
Knowledge KS1  People in this team are willing to share knowledge/ideas with others Staples and Webster (2008), and Connelly and
sharing KS2  People in this team share their ideas openly Kelloway (2003)
KS3  People in this team with expert knowledge are willing to help others in this
team
KS4  This team is good at using the knowledge/ideas of employees
Team creativity TC1  Our work unit comes up with many new ideas about how work should be done Song, Nerur, and Teng (2007), and Gibson and
TC2  If a new way of doing work is introduced, it often comes from within the work Vermeulen (2003)
unit
TC3  Our work unit is frequently the source of ideas that are copied by other work
units
Task variety TV1  When a problem arises, it takes a lot of experience and training to know what to Song (2008)
do
TV2  There is variety in the events that cause the work
TV3  Tasks in my work unit require an extensive and demanding search for a solution
Task TA1  We need to know a lot of procedures and standard practices to do our work well
analyzability TA2  Normal work activities in our jobs are guided by standard directives, rules and
procedures
TA3  Established materials (professional books, directives, manuals, statutes) cover
our work
a
SL: a measure of the total amount of leadership displayed by team members as perceived by others on a team.
52 D.S. Lee et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 42 (2015) 47–56

Table 3 From Model 3 (results presented in Table 6), we found a signif-

IRA and IRR. icant interactive effect between shared leadership and task variety
Self-reported constructs rwg ICC (1) ICC(K) (beta = 1.24, p < .05). We plotted this interaction in Fig. 1 from
Team creativity (TC) 0.59 0.18 0.84 the split-sample regression analysis. As shown, when task variety
Knowledge sharing (KS) 0.55 0.27 0.92 is high, there is a positive relationship between shared leadership
Task variety (TV) 0.62 0.13 0.79 and knowledge sharing (simple slope estimate = 3.76, p < .01). On
Task analyzability (TA) 0.60 0.03 0.42 the other hand, when task variety is low, this relationship
strengthens to a significant level (simple slope estimate = 6.84,
p < .01). Therefore, Hypothesis 3a (perceived task variety enhances
diversity and shared leadership, which have a single measure) ran- the positive associations between shared leadership and knowledge
ged from 0.886 to 0.949, above the acceptable levels. For variance sharing within teams) was not supported.
extracted by measures, a score of 0.5 indicates acceptability in the The results for Model 4 are presented in Table 6. We found a sig-
Table 5. nificant interactive effect between shared leadership and task ana-
lyzability (beta = 1.42, p < .1). We plotted this interaction in Fig. 2
from the split-sample regression analysis. As shown, when task
4. Results analyzability is high, there is a positive relationship between
shared leadership and knowledge sharing (simple slope
When evaluating the significance of predicted effects, we used estimate = 4.60, p < .01). When task analyzability is low, this
one-tailed tests, which are suitable for directional hypotheses. A relationship strengthens to a significant level (simple slope
structural equation model (SEM) was not an option for this study estimate = 5.51, p < .01). Therefore, Hypothesis 3b (perceived task
because it was inappropriate for our sample size (n = 40; Breckler, analyzability reduces the positive associations between shared leader-
1990). Therefore, we performed hierarchical regression analysis. ship and knowledge sharing in teams) was partially supported.
Table 6 presents the results of the regression analysis with The results of the regression analysis with team creativity as the
knowledge sharing as the dependent variable. Model 2 was used dependent variable are presented in Table 7. We did not fully find a
to test Hypotheses 1a and 1b, which state that diversity in age significant relationship between diversity and team creativity. In
and gender is negatively related to knowledge sharing, and other words, Hypotheses 4a, 4b, and 4d were not supported. Con-
Hypotheses 1c and 1d, which posit that diversity in major and role trary to Hypothesis 4a, age diversity directly and positively con-
is positively related to knowledge sharing. Unexpectedly, the rela- tributed to team creativity (beta = .22, p < .01). Consistent with
tionship between diversity in major and role and knowledge shar- Hypothesis 4c, role diversity directly influences team creativity in
ing was insignificant. Conversely, the relationship of diversity in Model 4 (beta = .15, p < .05). On the other hand, though gender
age and gender with knowledge sharing was positively significant diversity did not directly influence team creativity, as presented
(beta = .13, p < .1; beta = .17, p < .05 respectively). Therefore, in Table 7, it had a positive association with knowledge sharing,
Hypotheses 1a, 1b, 1c, and 1d were not supported. On the other as presented in Table 6. Therefore, knowledge sharing might have
hand, consistent with Hypothesis 2, shared leadership had a signif- a fully mediating effect between gender diversity and team
icant and positive association with knowledge sharing (beta = .57, creativity.
p < .01).

Table 4
Confirmatory factor analysis.

Constructs Items Factor loading t-Value Cronbach’s Alpha Composite reliability AVE
Age diversity (AD) AD NA NA NA NA NA
Gender diversity (GD) GD
Major diversity (MD) MD
Role diversity (RD) RD
Shared leadership (SL) SL
Knowledge sharing (KS) KS1 0.913 42.614 0.929 0.949 0.824
KS2 0.898 30.587
KS3 0.919 35.832
KS4 0.900 17.967
Team creativity (TC) TC1 0.929 31.348 0.919 0.949 0.861
TC2 0.928 28.070
TC3 0.926 37.414
Task variety (TV) TV1 0.826 12.026 0.844 0.906 0.763
TV2 0.873 7.889
TV3 0.920 16.950
Task analyzability (TA) TA1 0.836 12.352 0.806 0.886 0.721
TA2 0.831 10.097
TA3 0.879 14.525
SL  task variety SLTV1 0.931 4.016 0.957 0.972 0.921
SLTV2 0.981 9.463
SLTV3 0.966 7.962
SL  task analyzability SLTA1 0.898 3.132 0.917 0.947 0.857
SLTA2 0.942 4.530
SLTA3 0.936 4.888

Notes:
1. AVE = average variance extracted.
2. NA = not applicable.
 D.S. Lee et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 42 (2015) 47–56 53

Table 5
Correlation of latent variables.

Constructs AD GD MD RD SH KS TC TV TA SL  TV SL  TA
Age diversity (AD) N/A
Gender diversity (GD) 0.03 N/A
Major diversity (MD) 0.13 0.22 N/A
Role diversity (RD) 0.06 0.01 0.34 N/A
Shared leadership (SL) 0.06 0.05 0.22 0.13 N/A
Knowledge sharing (KS) 0.12 0.30 0.22 0.14 0.78 0.91
Team creativity (TC) 0.20 0.18 0.25 0.24 0.78 0.83 0.93
Task variety (TV) 0.03 0.26 0.34 0.10 0.56 0.63 0.65 0.87
Task analyzability (TA) 0.01 0.25 0.25 0.16 0.54 0.66 0.68 0.70 0.85
SL  task variety 0.00 0.07 0.22 0.18 0.42 0.48 0.51 0.51 0.42 0.96
SL  task analyzability 0.04 0.13 0.32 0.26 0.52 0.52 0.53 0.48 0.40 0.91 0.93

Note:
1. The number on the diagonal denotes the square root of average variance extracted.
2. For adequate discriminant validity, the diagonal elements should be greater than the corresponding off-diagonal elements.
3. NA = not applicable.

Table 6
Hierarchical regression analysis predicting knowledge sharing (N = 40).

Independent variables Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

Controls
Group size 0.33*** 0.20** 0.23*** 0.20**
Task variety (TV) 0.44*** 0.19* 0.67** 0.18*
Task analyzability (TA) (reverse) 0.32** 0.17* 0.15* 0.76*
Predictors
Demographic diversity
Age diversity (AD) 0.13* 0.12* 0.14*
Gender diversity (GD) 0.17** 0.17** 0.15*
Major diversity (MD) 0.09 0.10 0.11
Role diversity (RD) 0.03 0.01 0.00
Shared leadership (SL) 0.57*** 1.48*** 1.58**
Interactions
SL  task variety (TV) 1.24**
SL  task analyzability (TA) (reverse) 1.42*
R-squared 0.61 0.80 0.81 0.81
F 18.67*** 15.25*** 14.65*** 14.23***

Note:
1. Entries are standardized regression coefficients. One-tailed tests reported.
*
p < .10.
**
p < .05.
***
p < .01.

Consistent with Hypotheses 5 and 6, shared leadership and
knowledge sharing positively contributed to team creativity
(beta = .36, p < .01; beta = .37, p < .05, respectively). Thus, knowl-
edge sharing has a partially mediating role between shared leader-
ship and team creativity.
5. Discussion
5.1. Theoretical and managerial implications
In this study, we did not find support for the hypothesized neg-
ative effects of age and gender diversity on knowledge sharing and
team creativity. Instead, positive relationships were found be-
tween age and gender diversity and knowledge sharing in our
study. In addition, age diversity had a positive association with
team creativity. If age and gender represent minority status, they
might have negative impacts on job-related issues. Ojha (2005)
showed that team members who perceive themselves as a minor-
ity were less likely to engage in knowledge sharing with team
members. However, the concern with demographic diversity
drives from organizational strategies (Dean & Snell, 1991) as well
as the presence of women and minorities in the workforce (Buhler,
1997). In this sense, if age and gender do not represent minority
status, they might be easily permeated into the group or organiza-
tion. Moreover, previous studies have shown that age diversity
could actually reduce conflict at the group level and increase mem-
bers’ satisfaction with and commitment to the group (Jehn et al.,
1999; Pelled et al., 1999). Thus, the positive effects of age diversity
might be justified in that our sample was gathered from students
in a college against minority group discrimination. Apart from
our hypotheses, our results showed that knowledge sharing might
have a fully mediating effect between gender diversity and team
creativity. On the other hand, role diversity was found to directly
influence team creativity in our study. This shows that a team with
greater functional diversity can stimulate more creative behavior
among its members.
The interactionist model of creativity (Woodman et al., 1993)
posits that individual creativity requires antecedent conditions,
including cognitive styles and abilities, personality, motivational
factors, and knowledge. These individual factors are influenced
by, and influence, both the social and contextual factors in the
model. When individual creativity occurs, social influences on indi-
vidual creativity are established in the group at once, with the two
influencing one another (Woodman et al., 1993). Group creativity
is affected by the factors representing group features, such as
54 D.S. Lee et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 42 (2015) 47–56

Table 7
Hierarchical regression analysis predicting team creativity (N = 40).

Independent variables Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

Controls
Group size 0.18* 0.11 0.12 0.07
Task variety (TV) 0.46*** 0.43*** 0.25** 0.11
Task analyzability (TA) (reverse) 0.33** 0.39*** 0.18* 0.16*
Predictors
Demographic diversity
Age diversity (AD) 0.21** 0.22***
Gender diversity (GD) 0.02 0.02
Major diversity (MD) 0.07 0.07
Role diversity (RD) 0.14 0.15**
Shared leadership (SL) 0.52*** 0.36***
Knowledge sharing (KS) 0.37**
R-squared 0.55 0.60 0.71 0.81
F 14.87*** 6.98*** 21.60*** 14.35***

Note:
1. Entries are standardized regression coefficients. One-tailed tests reported.
*
p < .10.
**
p < .05.
***
p < .01.

Fig. 1. The interaction effect of shared leadership and task variety.
on individual and team creativity in the interactionist model. On
the other hand, our results support the effect of knowledge sharing
on creativity as an important facilitator of creative collaboration.
Based on West’s (1990) model of team climate for innovation, we
verified that knowledge sharing is regarded as participative safety,
which is a part of team climate and refers to the sense that team
members can freely share ideas.
This study has important implications for team leaders and
managers. First, the findings suggest that organizations should
help raise shared leadership and knowledge sharing in order for
employees to enhance team creativity. Team leaders should
encourage team members to bring up shared leadership. Second,
if leaders utilize diversity as an organizational strategy, they must
consider functional diversity in order to increase team creativity.
Moreover, they should exclude negative diversities that could fos-
ter minority discrimination. Finally, given the need for team crea-
tivity in solving the complex challenges faced by organizations,
managers should ensure that each team has a clear, shared sense
of direction and purpose. When managers promote participation
in team activities and identify the organizational contexts, shared
leadership and knowledge sharing are most likely to positively
influence team creativity.

5.2. Limitations and future research

In our study, there are limitations to be addressed in future re-

Fig. 2. The interaction effect of shared leadership and task analyzability.
group composition, characteristics, and processes (e.g., diversity,
cohesiveness, group size, problem-solving strategies, and so on)
as well as contextual influences (Woodman et al., 1993). Thus,
the interactionist model of organizational creativity (Woodman
et al., 1993) supports our results and interpretation.
Shared leadership is a social influence that affects individual
creativity. According to Amabile (see Avolio et al., 1996), intrinsic
motivation is a mechanism by which contextual factors influence
creativity. As an intrinsic motivator, leadership has been used in
previous creativity studies. For example, Sosik, Kahai, and Avolio
(1998) found that transformational leadership is positively related
to group creativity. As shared leadership is an emergent team
property and a relational phenomenon that involves mutual influ-
ences among team members, it is a social or contextual influence
search. First, our sample included students in an e-learning course,
not full-time employees. Because team members who are full-time
employees work in different organizational settings than students
in a classroom, the results might differ in an actual workplace. Con-
sequently, future researchers should pursue comparative studies in
various environments. Second, we measured constructs when data
were collected after the team assignments were complete, but
when considering shared leadership as an emergent phenomenon,
longitudinal designs should be implemented in order to illustrate
how shared leadership develops over time by looking at changes
in a leadership network across stages of team development (Carson
et al., 2007). Our cross-sectional design supports causal relation-
ships among the selected constructs. An important point for future
research is the long-term effects (i.e., whether team members’
reactions to constructs were temporary or permanent) of demo-
graphic diversity, shared leadership, and knowledge sharing. Fu-
ture studies need to gather longitudinal data so as to examine
 D.S. Lee et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 42 (2015) 47–56 55

the causality and interrelationships between variables. Finally, we James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1993). RWG: An assessment of within-group
interrater agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(2), 306–309.
did not make allowance for many other important antecedents of
Jehn, K. A. (1997). A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in
team creativity. Future researchers should explore how personal organizational groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(3), 530–557.
traits (e.g., level of education and working experience) and organi- Jehn, K. A., Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. (1999). Why differences make a
zational characteristics (e.g., firm size and industry type) may difference: A field study of diversity, conflict, and performance in workgroups.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(4), 741–763.
moderate the relationships among model constructs. Shared lead- Kankanhalli, A., Tan, B. C. Y., & Wei, K. K. (2005). Contributing knowledge to
ership is well suited to the social network approach, so future electronic knowledge repositories: An empirical investigation. MIS Quarterly,
researchers should consider introducing other measures of social 29(1), 113–143.
Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions
network analysis into the team creativity model. on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a
preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2),
254–284.
Acknowledgment Lapierre, J., & Giroux, V. (2003). Creativity and work environment in a high-tech
context. Creativity and Innovation Management, 12(1), 11–23.
Lawrence, B. S. (1997). The black box of organizational demography. Organization
This work was supported by the National Research Foundation Science, 8(1), 1–22.
Grant funded by the Korean Government (NRF-2009-342-B00015). LeBreton, J. M., & Senter, J. L. (2008). Answers to twenty questions about interrater
reliability and interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 11,
815–852.
References LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. (2001). Voice and cooperative behavior as contrasting
forms of contextual performance: Evidence of differential relationships with big
five personality characteristics and cognitive ability. Journal of Applied
Akgun, A. E., Byrne, J., Keskin, H., Lynn, G. S., & Imamoglu, S. Z. (2005). Knowledge
Psychology, 86(2), 326–336.
networks in new product development projects: A transactive memory
Loden, M., & Rosener, J. B. (1991). Workforce America! Managing employee diversity
perspective. Information & Management, 42(8), 1105–1120.
as a vital resource. Homewood, IL: Business One Irwin.
Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Lubart, T. I. (1994). Creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Thinking and problem solving
Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the
(pp. 289–332). London: Academic Press.
work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39(5),
Mamykina, L., Candy, L., & Edmonds, E. (2002). Collaborative creativity.
1154–1184.
Communications of the ACM, 45(10), <http://www.dl.acm.org/
Ancona, D. G., & David, F. C. (1992). Demography and design: Predictors of new
citation.cfm?doid=570907.570940>.
product team performance. Organization Science, 3(3), 321–341.
Mayo, M., Meindl, J. R., & Pastor, J. C. (2003). Shared leadership in work teams: A
Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., & Sivasubramaniam, N. (1996). Building highly developed
social network approach. In C. L. Pearce & J. A. Conger (Eds.), Shared leadership:
teams: Focusing on shared leadership processes, efficacy, trust, and
Reframing the hows and whys of leadership (pp. 193–214). Thousand Oaks, CA:
performance. In M. M. Beyerlein & D. A. Johnson (Eds.), Advances in
Sage.
interdisciplinary study of work teams: Team leadership, 3 (pp. 173–209).
McGraw, K. O., & Wong, S. P. (1996). Forming inferences about some intraclass
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
correlation coefficients. Psychological Methods, 1(1), 30–46.
Bakker, M., Leenders, R. T. A. J., Gabbay, S. M., Kratzer, J., & Van Engelen, J. M. L.
Mehra, A., Smith, B., Dixon, A., & Robertson, B. (2006). Distributed leadership in
(2006). Is trust really social capital? Knowledge sharing in product
teams: The network of leadership perceptions and team performance.
development projects. The Learning Organization, 13(6), 594–605.
Leadership Quarterly, 17(3), 232–245.
Bock, G. W., & Kim, Y. G. (2002). Breaking the myths of rewards: An exploratory
Milliken, F. J., & Martins, L. L. (1996). Searching for common threads: Understanding
study of attitudes about knowledge sharing. Information Resources Management
the multiple effects of diversity in organizational groups. Academy of
Journal, 15(2), 14–21.
Management Review, 21(2), 402–433.
Bock, G. W., Zmud, R. W., Kim, Y. G., & Lee, J. N. (2005). Behavioral intention
Morrison, E. W., & Phelps, C. C. (1999). Taking charge at work: Extrarole efforts
formation in knowledge sharing: Examining the roles of extrinsic motivators,
to initiate workplace change. Academy of Management Journal, 42(4),
social-psychological forces, and organizational climate. MIS Quarterly, 29(1),
403–419.
87–111.
Nelson, A., Sabatier, R., & Nelson, W. (1996). Toward an understanding of global
Brand, A. (1998). Knowledge management and innovation at 3M. Journal of
entrepreneurial knowledge management (EKM) practices: A preliminary
Knowledge Management, 2(1), 17–22.
investigation of EKM in France and the US. Journal of Applied Management and
Breckler, S. J. (1990). Applications of covariance structure modeling in psychology:
Entrepreneurship, 11(2), 70–89.
Cause for concern? Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 260–273.
Offerman, L. R., & Gowing, M. K. (1990). Organization of the future: Change and
Buhler, P. (1997). Scanning the environment: Environmental trends affecting the
challenges. American Psychologist, 45(2), 95–108.
workplace. Supervision, 58(7), 24–26.
Ojha, A. K. (2005). Impact of team demography on knowledge sharing in software
Campbell, D. J. (1988). Task complexity: A review and analysis. Academy of
project teams. South Asian Journal of Management, 12(3), 67–78.
Management Review, 13(1), 40–52.
Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: Personal and contextual
Carson, J. B., Tesluk, P. E., & Marrone, J. A. (2007). Shared leadership in teams: An
factors at work. Academy of Management Journal, 39(3), 607–634.
investigation of antecedent conditions. Academy of Management Journal, 50(5),
Oldham, G. R. (2003). Stimulating and supporting creativity in organizations. In S. E.
1217–1234.
Jackson, M. A. Hitt, & A. S. DeNisi (Eds.), Managing knowledge for sustained
Chattopadhyay, P. (1999). Beyond direct and symmetrical effects: The influence of
competitive advantage: Designing strategies for effective human resource
demographic dissimilarity on organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of
management (pp. 243–273). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Management Journal, 42(3), 273–287.
Parker, G. M. (1994). Working with allies, enemies, and other strangers. San Francisco,
Chattopadhyay, P., George, E., & Lawrence, S. A. (2004). Why does dissimilarity
CA: Jossey-Bass.
matter? Exploring self-categorization, self-enhancement, and uncertainty
Pearce, C. L., & Conger, J. A. (2003). Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of
reduction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 892–900.
leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation
Pearce, C. L., & Sims, H. P. (2002). The relative influence of vertical vs. shared
modeling. In G. A. Marcoulides (Ed.), Modern methods for business research.
leadership on the longitudinal effectiveness of change management teams.
Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 6(2), 172–197.
Connelly, C. E., & Kelloway, K. (2003). Predictors of employees’ perceptions of
Pearce, C. L., Yoo, Y., & Alavi, M. (2004). Leadership, social work and virtual teams:
knowledge sharing cultures. Leadership and Organizational Development Journal,
The relative influence of vertical vs. shared leadership in the nonprofit sector. In
24(5), 294–301.
R. E. Riggio & S. Smith-Orr (Eds.), Improving leadership in nonprofit organizations
Day, D. V., Gronn, P., & Salas, E. (2004). Leadership capacity in teams. The Leadership
(pp. 180–203). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Quarterly, 15(6), 857–880.
Pelled, L. H. (1996). Demographic diversity, conflict, and work group outcomes: An
De Vries, R. E., Van den Hooff, B., & De Ridder, J. A. (2006). Explaining knowledge
intervening process theory. Organization Science, 7(6), 615–631.
sharing: The role of team communication styles, job satisfaction, and
Pelled, L. H., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Xin, K. R. (1999). Exploring the black box: An
performance beliefs. Communication Research, 33(2), 115–135.
analysis of work group diversity, conflict, and performance. Administrative
Dean, J. W., & Snell, S. A. (1991). Integrated manufacturing and job design. Academy
Science Quarterly, 44(1), 1–28.
of Management Journal, 34(4), 776–804.
Pfeffer, J., & O’Reilly, C. (1987). Hospital demography and turnover among nurses.
DeNisi, A. S., Hitt, M. A., & Jackson, S. E. (2003). Managing knowledge for sustained
Industrial Relations, 36, 158–173.
competitive advantage: Designing strategies for effective human resource
Phang, M., & Foong, S. Y. (2005). Knowledge sharing in professional accountancy
management. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
firms: The effects of task complexity and management control system. In
Gibson, C., & Vermeulen, F. (2003). A healthy divide: Subgroups as a stimulus for
Proceedings of the 4th Global Conference on Business and Economic 2005.
team learning behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2), 202–239.
Oxford, England.
Jackson, S. E., Brett, J. F., Sessa, V. I., Cooper, D. M., Julin, J. A., & Peyronnin, K. (1991).
Phillips, K. W., Mannix, E. A., Neale, M. A., & Gruenfeld, D. H. (2004). Diverse groups
Some differences make a difference: Individual dissimilarity and group
and information sharing: The effects of congruent ties. Journal of Experimental
heterogeneity as correlates of recruitment, promotions and turnover. Journal
Social Psychology, 40(4), 497–510.
of Applied Psychology, 76(5), 675–689.
56 D.S. Lee et al. / Computers in Human Behavior 42 (2015) 47–56
Purvis, R. L., Sambamurthy, V., & Zmud, R. W. (2001). The assimilation of knowledge
platforms in organizations: An empirical investigation. Organization Science,
12(2), 117–135.
Ryan, A. J. (1991). Job rotations grease long-term IS wheels. Computer-World, 25(24),
76.
Ryu, S., Ho, S. H., & Han, I. (2003). Knowledge sharing behavior of physicians in
hospitals. Expert Systems with Applications, 25(1), 113–122.
Sawng, Y. W., Kim, S. H., & Han, H. S. (2006). R&D group characteristics and
knowledge management activities: A comparison between ventures and
large firms. International Journal of Technology Management, 35(1–4),
241–261.
Sessa, V. I., & Jackson, S. E. (1995). Diversity in decision-making teams: All
differences are not created equal. In M. M. Chemers, S. Oskamp, & M. A.
Costanzo (Eds.), Diversity in organizations: new perspectives for a changing
workplace (pp. 133–156). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Shalley, C. E. (1995). Effects of coaction, expected evaluation, and goal setting on
creativity and productivity. Academy of Management Journal, 38(2), 483–503.
Shin, S. J., & Zhou, J. (2003). Transformational leadership, conservation, and
creativity: Evidence from Korea. Academy of Management Journal, 46(6),
703–714.
Song, S. (2008). Work unit’s knowledge processing style: An empirical examination
of its determinants. International Journal of Knowledge Management, 4(2), 1–16.
Song, S., Nerur, S., & Teng, J. T. C. (2007). An exploratory study on the roles of
network structure and knowledge processing orientation in work unit
knowledge management. ACM SIGMIS Database, 38(2).
Sosik, J. J., Kahai, S. S., & Avolio, B. J. (1998). Transformational leadership and
dimensions of creativity: Motivating idea generation in computer-mediated
groups. Creativity Research Journal, 11(2), 111–121.
Srivastava, A., Bartol, K. M., & Locke, E. A. (2006). Empowering leadership in
management teams: Effects on knowledge sharing, efficacy, and performance.
Academy of Management Journal, 49(6), 1239–1251.
Staples, D. S., & Webster, J. (2008). Exploring the effects of trust, task
interdependence and virtualness on knowledge sharing in teams. Information
Systems Journal, 18(6), 617–640.
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1995). Defying the crowd: Cultivating creativity in a
culture of conformity. New York: Free Press.
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1999). The concept of creativity: Prospects and
paradigms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Thomas-Hunt, M. C., Ogden, T. Y., & Neale, M. A. (2003). Who’s really sharing?
Effects of social and expert status on knowledge exchange within groups.
Management Science, 49(4), 464–477.
Tsui, A. S., Porter, L. W., & Egan, T. D. (2002). When both similarities and
dissimilarities matter: Extending the concept of relational demography. Human
Relations, 55(8), 899–929.
Wasko, M. M., & Faraj, S. (2005). Why should I share? Examining social capital and
knowledge contribution in electronic networks of practice. MIS Quarterly, 29(1),
35–57.
Weingart, L. (1992). Impact of group goals, task component complexity, effort, and
planning on group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(5), 682–693.
West, M. A. (1990). The social psychology of innovation in groups. In M. A. West & J.
L. Farr (Eds.), Innovation and creativity at work: Psychological and organizational
strategies (pp. 101–122). Chichester: Wiley.
Williams, K. Y., & O’Reilly, C. A. III, (1998). Demography and diversity in
organizations: A review of 40 years of research. In B. M. Staw & L. L.
Cummings (Eds.). Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 20, pp. 77–140).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin, R. W. (1993). Toward a theory of
organizational creativity. Academy of Management Review, 18(2), 293–321.
Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in organizations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Zhou, J. (1998). Feedback valence, feedback style, task autonomy, and achievement
orientation: Interactive effects on creative performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 83(2), 261–276.