JOURNAL OF COMPUTER INFORMATION SYSTEMS

2017, VOL. 57, NO. 1, 22–30

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08874417.2016.1181490

Team Diversity, Learning, and Innovation: A Mediation Model

Hongyi Suna, Pei-Lee Tehb, Karis Hoa, and Binshan Linc
a
City University of Hong Kong, Kowloon, Hong Kong; bMonash University, Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia; cLouisiana State University Shreveport,
Shreveport, LA, USA

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
This study aims to examine the direct and mediating relationships between team diversity, individual Team diversity; individual
and team learning, and individual and team innovation performance. Using a sample of 266 white-collar learning; team learning;
professionals in Hong Kong, we found that team diversity plays a substantial role in improving both individual innovation
individual and team learning. Individual learning and team learning are independent and positively performance; team
innovation performance
related to individual and team innovation performance. Individual learning partially mediates the
relationship between team diversity and team learning. Individual innovation performance is found to
be a partial mediator of team learning and team innovation performance. This study contributes in
understanding the unexplored mediating effects of individual learning on team learning, and the
individual innovation performance on team innovation performance. Team diversity is found to be
the main enabler in the overall model. It is hoped that the research paradigm of this article will generate
further development of information systems and technology literature.

Introduction gender, and ethnicity [39], and team diversity may be critical
to learning and performance. Although there are substantial
In today’s business world, many companies are no longer able
management studies advocating the role of teams for organi-
to depend only on the strengths of individual staff members
zational success in today’s economy [18, 23], there is a gap in
to work on their own to respond to the market’s changing
the literature on research about specific individual-level and
trends and demands [74]. To optimize organizational compe-
team-level innovation performances that are affected by both
titiveness, many companies increasingly recognize the impor-
individual and team learning. Therefore, understanding the
tance of leveraging the characteristics and abilities of all their
dynamics of team diversity, individual and team learning, as
employees through work teams [64]. For example, white-
well as individual and team innovation performance can pro-
collar professionals (e.g., engineers, researchers, etc.) often
vide new insights for organizational managers and adminis-
team up on projects in which they may be required to inno-
trators in their efforts to improve innovation performance.
vate rather than just follow trends and practices [68]. In
From an academic viewpoint, empirical research to date
reality, work teams are often regarded as the building blocks
has examined the relationship between learning and perfor-
of organizations [58], and many organizations rely more and
mance [2, 24, 25], learning capability and innovation ambi-
more on teams to establish cross-functional collaboration in
dexterity [50], differentiated structures on innovation
response to changing product developments [34] and compe-
performance [21], organizational characteristics and innova-
titive challenges [18, 60]. Through work teams, most compa-
tion performance [56], functional and geographical diversity
nies can facilitate the sharing of knowledge and resources
on innovation performance [70], and effects on diversity on
critical to the success of innovation performance.
innovation and perceptions of consideration [11]. Prior lit-
Essentially, there is a need to understand how team mem-
erature [6, 17, 25, 35, 36, 48, 59], however, has not collectively
bers experience their work [3]. The motivation for this study
focused on the multidimensional relationships between team
springs from two perspectives, namely industrial and aca-
diversity, learning, and performance. These unexplored rela-
demic. A growing reliance on teams in striving to achieve
tionships are examined in this article. Specifically, our article
innovation performance creates a managerial imperative to
presents the findings of a study that addresses the gap in the
understand the preconditions that facilitate innovation per-
information systems and technology literature. This study is
formance. With work teams increasingly more diversified and
also distinctive in that we use a different approach to under-
cosmopolitan, leaders nowadays face the challenges of mana-
stand learning and performance in organizations by examin-
ging such teams, caused by cultural diversity, ethnicity,
ing the mediating effects of individual learning on team
nationality, and mindset differences [35]. However, there
learning, and individual innovation performance on team
have been only a few studies on the influence of diversity on
innovation performance. In what follows, we first review the
innovation in teams [11]. Yet, in the workplace, employees are
extant literature and develop the research hypotheses. We
becoming more diverse across numerous aspects such as age,

CONTACT Pei-Lee Teh teh.pei.lee@monash.edu Monash University School of Business, Jalan Lagoon Selatan, Bandar Sunway, Selangor Darul, Ehsan
47500, Malaysia.
© 2017 International Association for Computer Information Systems

then describe the research methodology, followed by the
research findings. We conclude by discussing issues for
research and practice.
Theoretical background and research hypotheses
Team
A great deal of team literature has been published after
Bettenhausen [7] reviewed the group research for the Journal
of Management [18]. Drawing from the work of Alderfer [1],
Hackman [31] and Cohen and Bailey [18] defined a team as:
a collection of individuals who are interdependent in their tasks,
who share responsibility for outcomes, who see themselves and
who are seen by others as an intact social entity embedded in one
or more larger social systems (for example, business unit or the
corporation), and who manage their relationships across organi-
sational boundaries.
In other words, a team is regarded as a small group of
individuals with complementary skills who have the same sets
of goals, purposes, and approaches for which they share respon-
sibility for outcomes [43]. In this article, we follow the terms
used in Devine and Philips [22] in which group, work group,
and team are used interchangeably in reference to a small set of
members who are interdependent in their tasks, and who inter-
act with each other to achieve a shared goal.
Learning
Learning is conceptualized as a process of gaining knowledge
through experience, which will alter one’s behavior [59]. Active
learning enables individuals to engage in ownership of their
learning [46, 47]. In the workplace, many organizations are recog-
nizing the importance of individual learning and initiatives [19].
Individual learning is regarded as a learning process incorporating
engagements, experiences, thinking, and generalization [57]. In
most instances, individual learning can contribute in building
organizational capacity for innovative development [41].
Learning within a team, which is known as “team learning”
is a stepping stone on which other teams can develop [5].
Team learning refers to the ability of individual members to
acquire teamwork skills [44, 67]. Team learning often involves
a series of experimentations, communications, and knowledge
codifications among the team members [27]. In this study, we
draw on Druskat and Kayes [24:331] definition which regards
team learning as “team members acquiring and sharing
unique knowledge and information and examining what is
helping and hurting team performance to continually improve
as a unit.” Following Remmen and Lorentzen [57], our study
examines learning as a process rather as an outcome. We are
interested to explore both individual and team learning, and
how these are affected by team diversity and, in turn, how
individual and team innovation performance are influenced.
Innovation performance
The innovation literature provides numerous definitions to
describe innovation. In the technical literature, the term inno-
vation is synonymous with “the generation, acceptance, and
JOURNAL OF COMPUTER INFORMATION SYSTEMS 23
implementation of new ideas, processes, products or services”
[69:2]. In a recent article published by the Journal of
Computer Information System, Chen [15] point out that inno-
vation is not only technology innovation, but anything that
generates new businesses and facilitates business growth. At
the operational level, Damanpour [20:694] defined innovation
“to encompass a range of types, including new products or
services, new process technologies, new organizational struc-
tures or administrative systems, or new plans or programs
pertaining to organizational members.” According to Yuan
and Woodman [73], several innovation studies applied the
efficiency-oriented perspective which holds the assumption that
innovation serves the economic function of improving effi-
ciency gains and that decisions in adopting innovation are
dependent on expected positive performance outcomes.
Consistent with various management, information, and tech-
nology studies [e.g., 4, 15, 20, 69, 71], in our study, we draw
from the efficiency-oriented perspective [73] to conceptualize
innovation as the introduction or application of new ideas,
products, or processes to individual’s work role in manufac-
turing, services, or business administration.
According to Michalski et al. [52:11], performance is defined
as “the ability to obtain desired financial and non-financial
goals and objectives.” Innovation performance is defined as
new product success in relation to other competitors [66].
One example of innovation performance is the launching of a
new product in less than half the usual time period [43]. Chen
et al. [16:156], in a recent article, delineated the term “indivi-
dual innovation performance” to be associated with three
aspects, namely generation, promotion, and realization of inno-
vative ideas and solutions. This definition of individual innova-
tion performance describes a general commitment to excellence
in team innovation performance.
Generally, individual members are able to accomplish sim-
ple innovations, while teams comprising members with
diverse knowledge are needed for the completion of more
complicated innovations [38, 42]. Given that team perfor-
mance is known as the degree to which the team achieved
its predetermined missions [22], we postulate team innovation
performance as the degree to which the team accomplished its
innovative tasks assigned. In today’s rapidly changing and
challenging environments, teams have been identified as quin-
tessential mechanisms for greater innovation performance in
companies [28]. It is therefore important to specify both
individual and team innovation performance constructs in
our model, as recommended in recent innovation perfor-
mance literature [14, 16]. Building on the innovation manage-
ment literature, research hypotheses are developed in the
subsequent paragraphs.
By way of definition, diversity is regarded as the variations
among members from the aspects of gender, ethnicity, race,
character, culture, and functional know-how [29]. In a recent
article, Hentschel et al. [33:35] studied the perceived diversity,
that is, individuals’ beliefs about the diversity within their
team. The concept of diversity is very important in the con-
text of teams [11]. Team diversity is defined as “any attribute
that people use to tell themselves that another person is
different” [39, 49:638]. The individual attributes were those
that can be readily detectable attributes (e.g., gender and
24 H. SUN ET AL.
ethnicity) or underlying attributes (e.g., knowledge and skills)
[9, 37]. According to Pelled [54], team diversity has an impact
on individual and team outcomes. In the workplace, team
diversity stimulates creativity and innovation, resulting in
better performance compared to homogeneous team [35].
Therefore, many organizations use diverse teams as these
teams are able to deal with complicated and interdependent
tasks beyond the ability of an individual member [60]. Given
that team effectiveness and performance are well-served by
teams with greater diversity [18, 29, 32, 36, 60], we propose
that team diversity enables a broader range of knowledge and
experiences to be applied in organizational learning, thereby
improving both individual and team learning. The following
hypotheses are proposed:
Hypothesis 1: Team diversity will have a positive influence on
team learning.
Hypothesis 2: Team diversity will have a positive influence on
individual learning.
A high level of individual learning helps to enhance one’s
ability to learn together in a team. In a study of automotive
manufacturing in United Kingdom, Barker and Neailey [5]
concluded that team learning requires a starting point of
individual learning. Put colloquially, team learning is intensi-
fied by individual learning.
In an article published in the Administrative Science
Quarterly, Edmondson [25:350] concluded that “learning
behavior mediates between team psychological safety and
team performance.” On the basis of such findings in the
literature, individual learning may be a mediator variable
between team diversity and team learning. We propose that
team diversity will foster individual learning, and individual
learning will promote team learning. Hence, individual learn-
ing may be a partial mediator between team diversity and
team learning. This reasoning led to the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 3a: Individual learning will have a positive influ-
ence on team learning.
Hypothesis 3b: Individual learning will partially mediate the
relationship between team diversity and team
learning.
Learning enhances the levels of team performance [24]. For
example, teams are able to produce innovative product
through a process of joint learning of their team members.
According to Gibson and Gibbs [28], the ability of teams to
innovate depends on how well they learn and apply techno-
logical and market knowledge. In some instances, team learn-
ing occurs when team members raise their views openly in the
process of addressing some gaps in the operational plans and
correcting errors [25]. In the manufacturing industry, a qual-
ity improvement team may understand the high costs of poor
product quality, but it is not until they collectively learned and
examined the different product defects to address the problem
of poor product quality [43]. Past studies [24, 25, 59] have
validated that team learning is positively associated with team
performance. In this article, we hypothesize that team learn-
ing helps to develop creativity and problem-solving skills in
product design, resulting in higher levels of team innovation
performance.
When teams understand a shared purpose, they will be
committed to the team performance, both as individuals and
as a team [43]. While team learning may affect the team
innovation performance, team learning may lead to insights
that improve individual innovation performance. An indivi-
dual may evaluate his or her collective learning as they work
in teams, and the evaluation may affect subsequent individual
innovation performance. Considering team learning
encourages an individual on a team to commit themselves,
as a team, to make a difference in both individual and team
innovation performance, we propose:
Hypothesis 4: Team learning will have a positive influence on
team innovation performance.
Hypothesis 5: Team learning will have a positive influence on
individual innovation performance.
The importance of individual learning in organizations has
been widely recognized in response to competitive challenges
[5, 13, 19, 41]. Individual learning is regarded as a process of
information sharing, reflective communication, and interac-
tion, resulting in personal changes in cognition, behavior, and
performance [51]. In a study of cross-institutional innovation
project, Seezink et al. [62] posited that individual learning is
essential to establish knowledge communities in the context of
innovation projects. A corresponding individual learning will
help an individual to understand the changes in organiza-
tional mission and goals [13], and subsequently discern his
or her new roles and expectations required in individual
innovation performance. Given that individual learning is an
individual disposition that relates to the degree to which an
individual engages in innovation performance, we suggest that
individual learning is a positive predictor of individual inno-
vation performance, leading to the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 6: Individual learning will have a positive influ-
ence on individual innovation performance.
Performance at one level may be different with perfor-
mance at another level [18]. Therefore, we distinguish
between innovation performance at both individual and
team levels. An innovative idea occurs to individuals rather
than to organizations [19, 65]. According to Burningham [10],
the innovation process starts at the individual level, and team
innovative performance will be influenced by the individual
innovative performance of members who form the team. In
light of these notions, we posit that individual innovation
performance will facilitate the team’s innovative endeavors,
resulting in higher team innovation performance.
Edmondson [25] reported that learning behavior is a med-
iator between team psychological safety and team perfor-
mance. The findings of Edmondson [25] call attention to the
idea of mediating effect of individual innovation performance
between team learning and team innovation performance. In

a work environment, a team member collectively learns and
works together to perform an innovative task. Individual
innovation performance might have an indirect effect on
team innovation performance. Therefore, individual innova-
tion performance will partially mediate the effects of team
learning on team innovation performance. Based on these
assertions, the following hypotheses are proposed:
Hypothesis 7a: Individual innovation performance will have a
positive influence on team innovation
performance.
Hypothesis 7b: Individual innovation performance will par-
tially mediate the relationship between team
learning and team innovation performance.
Research methodology
Sample, task, and procedures
Our research model with the directional hypotheses is shown
in Figure 1. The unit of analysis for this research was indivi-
dual white-collar professional. The target respondents of this
survey were white-collar professionals working in new pro-
duct development in manufacturing engineering technology
companies in Hong Kong. Three screening criteria used in
collecting the sample are:
(1) Full-time salaried white-collar professionals working
in the manufacturing engineering technology organi-
zations in Hong Kong.
(2) White-collar professionals who possess the experi-
ence of working in teams, that is, company small
project teams related to new product development.
(3) White-collar professionals who are willing to express
opinions about the effect of team diversity on learn-
ing and innovation performance in new product
development.
Team
Learning
H1
Team
Diversity H3a
H3b
H2
Individual
Learning
Figure 1. Research model.
JOURNAL OF COMPUTER INFORMATION SYSTEMS 25
Five hundred copies of survey questionnaires were person-
ally administered to the graduate students in three Master of
Science (MSc) programs in the Department of Manufacturing
Engineering and Engineering Management (MEEM) in a uni-
versity in Hong Kong. The participants were informed that
this was a survey about the effect of team diversity on learning
and innovation performance in new product development.
Survey participation was completely voluntary. To validate
the first two screening criteria, survey participants were
asked to indicate their employment status (i.e., full-time sal-
aried staff or part-time salaried staff) and their team involve-
ment in company small project teams related to new product
development. Participants who did not meet these screening
criteria were excluded from the sample analyzed. Of the 500
survey questionnaires, 266 responses were completed and
used in the analysis. As a result, the net response rate for
this study was 53.2%.
Our sample consisted of 88% males and 12% females. The
range of age groups of respondents is as follows: 38 (14%) are
below 25 years old, 118 (44%) are between 26 and 30 years
old, 52 (20%) are between 31 and 35 years old, and 58 (22%)
are above 35 years old. More than 63% of the respondents had
more than five years of working experiences. In terms of
business types, 30% are in electronics, 12% are in toys, 9%
are in information technology, 12% are in machinery, 33% are
in manufacturing, and the remaining 4% are others.
Measures
Team diversity
To access team diversity, we adapted the ideas and items
from Camelo-Ordaz et al. [12, 45]. Participants provided
their answers by rating the degree of their perception on
7-point scale ranging from “strongly disagreed” to “strongly
agreed.” Two sample items were “In my team, members
have different education backgrounds” and “In my team,
members have different working experiences in different
industries or areas.” The reliability of the scale was α =
0.70, composite reliability (CR) = 0.860, and average var-
iance extracted (AVE) = 0.620.
H4 Team
Innovation
Performance
H5 H7a
H7b
H6 Individual
Innovation
Performance
26 H. SUN ET AL.

Team learning Table 1. Mean, standard deviations, and correlations.

The construct of team learning measures the collective envir-
onment and opportunities for learning amongst members and
task improvements. To measure team learning, we adapted
the items from Edmondson [25] and Gibson and Vermeulen
[27]. Respondents used 7-point Likert scale, with response
options ranging from 1 = strongly disagreed to 7 = strongly
agreed. Two sample items were “My team has encouraged a
greater level of collaboration among individuals” and “My
team builds up a strong support on member’s learning new
things.” The reliability of the scale was α = 0.941, CR = 0.950,
and AVE = 0.623. These test results showed that the construct
was reliable and valid.
Individual learning
The construct of individual learning measures a person’s
attitude and motivation to learn. We measured this construct
using a 7-point Likert scale. We adapted the items from
Birdi et al. [8]. Two sample items included “I would like to
widen my knowledge and horizon to compete with my
colleagues” and “I have a high internal motivation in learn-
ing.” The reliability of the scale was α = 0.883, CR = 0.910,
and AVE = 0.462.
Team innovation performance
To measure this construct, we adapted the items from Guzzo
and Shea [30] and West and Farr [72]. Survey participants
responded on a 7-point scale, with response options ranging
from 1 = strongly disagreed to 7 = strongly agreed. Two
sample items were “The rate of introduction of new products
or services from my team into my company has grown
rapidly” and “In comparison to other teams, my team has
become much more innovative than other teams.” The relia-
bility of the scale was α = 0.930, CR = 0.944, and AVE = 0.679.
Individual innovation performance
The construct of individual innovation measures the outcome
in terms of new idea, implementation, award, and commit-
ment to innovative activities. To measure this construct, we
adapted the items from Farmer et al. [26], Ong et al.[53], and
Scott and Bruce [61]. Respondents answered on a 7-point
Likert scale, with response options ranging from 1 = strongly
disagreed to 7 = strongly agreed. Two sample items included
“In comparison to others, I received more awards or recogni-
tion on innovation areas” and “My overall innovation perfor-
mance is higher than expected.” The reliability of the scale
was α = 0.877, CR = 0.908, and AVE = 0.623.
Mean SD TD TL IL TIP IIP
TD 4.969 1.156 0.788
TL 4.926 1.059 0.697** 0.795
IL 5.431 0.737 0.430** 0.582** 0.680
TIP 4.596 1.074 0.504** 0.691** 0.511** 0.824
IIP 4.915 0.884 0.266** 0.456** 0.521** 0.657** 0.790
Note: **All correlations are significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed). The bold
values in the diagonal row are square roots of the AVE. SD = standard
deviations; TD = team diversity; TL = team learning; IL = individual learning;
TIP = team innovation performance; IIP = individual innovation performance.
However, the AVE of individual learning was very close to
0.5, which suggests adequate convergence. Discriminant valid-
ity was examined through the comparison of square roots of
the AVE of variable pairs to the correlation between variable
pairs. As shown in Table 1, all the square roots of AVE values
were greater than the off-diagonal coefficients of variable
pairs, indicating a strong evidence of discriminant validity.
The hypotheses were tested using structural equation mod-
eling (SEM) via analysis of moment structures (AMOS) 20.0.
Table 2 presents the results of SEM. The model fit was
assessed using both absolute and incremental fit indices
including normed chi square (NC), goodness-of-fit (GFI)
index, adjusted goodness-of-fit (AGFI) index, root mean
square error of approximation (RMSEA), normed fit index
(NFI), Tucker Lewis index (TLI), and comparative fit index
(CFI). In this study, the GFI indices yield a good fit to data
with NC = 1.031, GFI = 0.896, AGFI = 0.862, RMSEA = 0.011,
NFI = 0.919, TLI = 0.997, and CFI = 0.997.
As shown in Table 2, all the path coefficients of each
construct had acceptable statistical significance levels. Team
diversity was found to be positively related to team learning
(β = 0.784, p < 0.001). Team diversity also had a positive
influence on individual learning (β = 0.409, p < 0.01). As
hypothesized, team learning was positively affected by indivi-
dual learning (β = 0.172, p < 0.001). In terms of innovation
performance, team learning had a positive relationship with
team innovation performance (β = 0.500, p < 0. 001) and
individual innovation performance (β = 0.292, p < 0.001). As
expected, individual learning was also found to be positively
related to individual innovation performance (β = 0.367,
p < 0.001). Individual innovation performance had a positive
influence on team innovation performance (β = 0.492,
p < 0.001). Therefore, H1, H2, H3a, H4, H5, H6, and H7a
were supported.
The bootstrap approach introduced by Preacher and Hayes
[55] has been recognized as one of the most widely used

Results and discussion Table 2. SEM results.

Causal Parameter Standard Critical
Table 1 presents means, standard deviations, and correlations Hypotheses path estimates error ratios p-value
for all the variables of interest. Reliability of the scales was H1 TD ! TL 0.784 0.465 3.865 0.000***
tested using Cronbach alpha and CR. As described in the H2 TD ! IL 0.409 0.111 2.887 0.004**
H3a IL ! TL 0.172 0.138 3.650 0.000***
“Measures” section, all scales were reliable as the values for H4 TL ! TIP 0.500 0.048 8.464 0.000***
Cronbach alpha were greater than 0.70, and CR was higher H5 TL ! IIP 0.292 0.039 3.985 0.000***
than 0.60. Convergent validity was assessed using AVE. As H6 IL ! IIP 0.367 0.136 4.210 0.000***
H7a IIP ! TIP 0.492 0.097 7.656 0.000***
described in the “Measures” section, the values of AVE for all
Note: **p< 0.05; ***p< 0.001; TD = team diversity; TL = team learning; IL =
variables were greater than the desirable composite of 0.50, individual learning; TIP = team innovation performance; IIP = individual
except for one variable: individual learning (AVE = 0.462). innovation performance.

methods to test the mediation hypotheses. Hence, the media-
tion hypotheses in this article were analyzed using the boot-
strap approach. The indirect effect of individual learning on
team learning was calculated as the product of the path
coefficients between team diversity and individual learning
(β = 0.409) and between individual learning and team learn-
ing (β = 0.172). This indirect effect coefficient was equal to
0.070, which can be tested for significance using a bootstrap
approach [55]. Similarly, the indirect effect of individual
innovation performance on team innovation performance
was computed as the product of the estimates between team
learning and individual innovation performance (β = 0.292)
and between individual innovation performance and team
innovation performance (β = 0.492). This indirect effect esti-
mate was equal to 0.144. The results of bootstrapped tests are
tabulated in Table 3. The indirect effects were significant as
the lower confidence interval of the bias-corrected bootstrap
does not contain zero. Given that both direct and indirect
effects were significant, the partial mediating effects were
supported for individual learning and individual innovation
performance. In other words, H3b and H7b were supported.
First, our findings highlight the predominant role of team
diversity as a significant influence on both individual and
team learning. In particular, team diversity is found to be an
enriching modus operandi that can lead to higher levels of
individual and team learning. In a work environment, two
employees from different races (social category diversity) may
have different educational background (informational diver-
sity) and may embrace different values (value diversity) [39].
The present findings demonstrate that the knowledge shared
and gained by establishing relationships with diverse teams
facilitates both individual and team learning.
Second, our empirical findings support the assertion that
individual learning has a positive influence on team learning.
There is a reasonable degree of consensus that what staff
members have learned as individuals will contribute to a
more effective team learning. This notion is further supported
by Barker and Neailey [5] in which individual learning is a
prerequisite of team learning. One interesting finding from
this study is the mediating effect of individual learning
between team diversity and team learning. To be precise,
individual learning is found to be a partial mediator of team
diversity and team learning. This outcome may strengthen
one of the core arguments in this article, namely effective
individual learning across a diverse team appears to foster
team learning.
Third, our findings indicate that the precondition for
enhancing team innovation performance is the ability of
team members to engage in team learning. When team learn-
ing takes place in the team, members’ ability to learn new
knowledge is developed, and creativity and willingness to
perform in team-level innovations are increased, which leads
Table 3. Bootstrap results for indirect effects.
Lower 95%
Constructs Estimate confidence interval confidence interval
Individual learning 0.070 0.027
Individual innovation 0.144 0.069
performance
JOURNAL OF COMPUTER INFORMATION SYSTEMS 27
to a significant improvement in team innovation perfor-
mance. This result is consistent with preceding studies [24,
25, 59] in which team learning has a positive effect on team
performance. The outcome of our study also confirms that a
greater level of individual innovation performance is depen-
dent on a higher level of team learning. One possible explana-
tion for this result is that the collective acquisition and sharing
of knowledge and feedback by team members helps to opti-
mize the individual innovation performance.
Fourth, our result shows that individual learning is posi-
tively related to individual innovation performance. The infer-
ence of this result is that learning at the individual level
improves the individual innovation performance. Therefore,
individual learning should be valued as an effective mechan-
ism for enhancing individual innovation performance.
Last, our research indicates that individual innovation per-
formance has a positive impact on team innovation perfor-
mance. All team members are required to perform their duties
to attain the team’s collective outcomes [18]. Conversely, our
findings underline the importance of an individual to be able
to meet established innovation performance goals and objec-
tives, because, as opposed to weak individual innovation per-
formance, teams are better able to achieve its set goals and
enhance their team innovation performance. Another notable
aspect of our findings is that the relationship between team
learning and team innovation performance is partially
mediated by individual innovation performance. This seems
evident in light of the fact that the engagement in team
learning contributes to individual innovation performance,
in turn leading to higher team innovation performance.
Conclusion
Implications
Our results have implications for both academic scholars and
industrial practitioners in four aspects. First, the use of SEM
in our study allows the simultaneous investigation of multi-
dimensional and mediating relationships between team diver-
sity, team learning, individual learning, individual innovation
performance, and team innovation performance. Team diver-
sity has the dominant effect on the overall research model. In
practice, if a team has a high degree of diversity, the team will
have a strong influence on both individual and team learning,
and subsequently enhance the innovation performance at
multiple levels. Clearly, the management should recognize
that a diverse team enhances different skills and knowledge
needed for optimal individual and team learning in an effort
to gain greater innovation performance at both individual and
team levels. According to Shen et al. [63], high-quality diver-
sity awareness training can help to develop a common under-
standing of the diversity values and foster social cohesion
which will enhance individual and organizational outcomes.
Therefore, it is recommended that the organizational admin-
istrators and managers could provide diversity awareness
Upper 95% training for their staff members.
Second, our findings show that individual learning can foster
0.122 team learning, and it is a mechanism that partially mediates team
0.238
diversity and team learning behavior. Whether the individual
28 H. SUN ET AL.
learning is effective will depend on the other organizational
factors, and whether those factors present in the organization
are visible and feasible. It is therefore worthwhile for the man-
agement to assess the existing tools and policies and devise
strategies to assist individual employees to enhance individual
learning. For example, individual employee can be rewarded for
sharing work-related articles in knowledge management system
such as Microsoft SharePoint portal server.
Third, our empirical results indicate that team learning
impacts both individual and team innovation performance.
Team learning helps team members to understand their
roles and expectations required in innovation performance
at individual and team levels. From this aspect, it is impor-
tant for the organizational administrators to appreciate the
dynamics of team learning and take corrective actions to
foster team learning, which in turn will increase the indi-
vidual and team innovation performance. According to
Jiang et al. [40], the impact of team-based knowledge, skills,
and abilities accentuated by training may be demoralized by
the individual-based performance appraisal practices. One
effective way is to revisit the performance appraisal system
to incorporate team learning. Given that higher levels of
individual and team innovation performance require pre-
serving functional excellence through team learning, the
industrial practitioners should assess and reward team
learning by incorporating it into their performance apprai-
sal system.
Fourth, team leaders can leverage on the innovation per-
formance of the individual members to improve team innova-
tion performance. We also found that the positive effect of
team learning on team innovation performance is partially
mediated by individual innovation performance. This result
indicates that the organizational managers should recognize
an individual’s unique potential to contribute in innovation
performance and take initiative to develop their skills and
competencies. By doing so, the organizational managers can
nurture a work environment that enables team innovation
performance.
Limitations and future research
This study has some limitations worthy of mention. First, the
sample was drawn from 266 white-collar professionals (mostly
engineers) in Hong Kong. This single-country dataset may
limit the generalizability of the findings. Given that cultural
differences may influence employees’ perceptions on team
diversity, learning, and performance, it would be interesting
for future researchers to replicate this study using samples
from other countries. Second, our findings were based on
cross-sectional data. Such a research design may not fully
test the causal relationships regarding team diversity, learning,
and innovation performance. Future research using a long-
itudinal design may provide more evidence on the causal
relationships in the model. Last, our data were analyzed
using SEM. We suggest that future research could expand
the methodological repertoire in small group literature by
using multilevel design, measurement, and analysis to study
the interrelationships between team diversity, individual, and
team learning as well as innovation performance at multiple
levels.
This study offers an insight into the underlying dynamic of
team diversity in relation to learning and innovation perfor-
mance at both individual and team levels. A well-managed
team is a sine qua non for an organization in this increasingly
competitive business environment. The first move to manage
a team effectively is to be aware of the relationship between
team diversity and team learning. Another interesting result
of this study is the window it provides into our understanding
of the mediating effects of individual learning on team learn-
ing, and the individual innovation performance on team
innovation performance. It is hoped that the research para-
digm and findings of this article will facilitate further devel-
opment of information systems and technology literature.
References
[1] Alderfer CP. 1977. Group and intergroup relations. In: Hackman
JR, Suttle JL editor. Improving the Quality of Work Life. Palisades,
CA: Goodyear.
[2] Aloini D, Martini A. 2013. Exploring the exploratory search for
innovation: a structural equation modelling test for practices and
performance. Int J Technol Manage. 61(1):23–46.
[3] Barczak G, Wilemon D. 2003. Team member experiences in new
product development: views from the trenches. R&D Manage. 33
(5):463–479.
[4] Baregheh A, Rowley J, Sambrook S. 2009. Towards a multidisci-
plinary definition of innovation. Manage Decis. 47(8):1323–1339.
[5] Barker M, Neailey K. 1999. From individual learning to project
team learning and innovation: A structured approach. J Workplace
Learn. 11(2):60–67.
[6] Bell ST. 2007. Deep-level composition variables as predictors of
team performance: A meta-analysis. J Appl Psychol. 92(3):595–
615.
[7] Bettenhausen KL. 1991. Five years of groups research: what we
have learned and what needs to be addressed. J Manage. 17
(2):345–381.
[8] Birdi K, Wood S, Patterson M, Wall T. August 2004. Individual,
team and organisational learning practices and organisational
performance. New Orleans, USA: Academy of Management
Meeting, pp. 6–11.
[9] Bowers CA, Pharmer JA, Salas E. 2000. When member homo-
geneity is needed in work teams: a meta-analysis. Small Group
Res. 31(3):305–327.
[10] Burningham C, West MA. 1995. Individual, climate, and group
interaction processes as predictors of work team innovation. Small
Group Res. 26(1):106–117.
[11] Cady SH, Valentine J. 1999. Team innovation and perceptions of
consideration: what difference does diversity make. Small Group
Res. 30(6):730–750.
[12] Camelo-Ordaz C, Hernández-Lara AB, Valle-Cabrera R. 2005.
The relationship between top management teams and innovative
capacity in companies. J Manage Dev. 24(8):683–705.
[13] Casey A. 2005. Enhancing individual and organisational learning:
a sociological model. Manage Learn. 36(2):131–147.
[14] Chen CY, Tseng K-H. 2011. Knowledge transfer and innovation
performance of competitive knowledge communities: Case of a
high-tech firm in Taiwan. Afr J Bus Manage. 5(22):9665–9675.
[15] Chen L. 2014. Understanding IT entrepreneurial intention: An
information systems view. J Comput Inf Syst. 55(1):2–12.
[16] Chen XH, Zhao K, Liu X, Wu DD. 2012. Improving employees’
job satisfaction and innovation performance using conflict man-
agement. Int J Conflict Manage. 23(2):151–172.
[17] Chuang CP, Chang TJ, Hsu PS. 2012. Validation of an algorithm
for dynamically diagnosing learning progress and innovation per-
formance at real-time base. Expert Syst Appl. 39(7):6419–6425.

[18] Cohen SG, Bailey DE. 1997. What makes teams work: Group
effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite.
J Manage. 23(3):239–290.
[19] Crossan MM, Lane HW, White RE. 1999. An organisational
learning framework: From intuition to institution. Acad Manage
Rev. 24(3):522–537.
[20] Damanpour F. 1996. Organizational complexity and innovation:
Developing and testing multiple contingency models. Manage Sci.
42(5):693–716.
[21] De Visser M, de Weerd-Nederhof P, Faems D, Song M, van Looy
B, Vissher K. 2010. Structural ambidexterity in NPD processes: A
firm-level assessment of the impact of differentiated structures on
innovation performance. Technovation 30(5)291–299.
[22] Devine DJ, Philips JL. 2001. Do smarter teams do better: A meta-
analysis of cognitive ability and team performance. Small Group
Res. 32(5):507–532.
[23] Devine DJ, Clayton LD, Philips JL, Dunford BB, Melner SB. 1999.
Teams in organisations: Prevalence, characteristics, and effective-
ness. Small Group Res. 30(6):678–711.
[24] Druskat VU, Kayes DC. 2000. Learning versus performance in
short-term project teams. Small Group Res. 31(3)328–353.
[25] Edmondson A. 1999. Psychological safety and learning behavior
in work teams. Adm Sci Q. 44(2):350–383.
[26] Farmer SM, Tierney P, Kung-McIntyre K. 2003. Employee crea-
tivity in Taiwan: An application of role identity theory. Acad
Manage. J 46(5):618–630.
[27] Gibson C, Vermeulen F. 2003. A healthy divide: subgroups as a
stimulus for team learning behaviour. Adm Sci Q. 48(2):202–239.
[28] Gibson CB, Gibbs JL. 2006. Unpacking the concept of virtuality:
The effects of geographic dispersion, electronic dependence,
dynamic structure, and national diversity on team innovation.
Adm Sci Q. 51(3):451–495.
[29] Guzzo RA, Dickson MW. 1996. Teams in organisations: recent
research on performance and effectiveness. Annu Rev Psychol. 47
(1):307–338.
[30] Guzzo RA, Shea GP. 1992. Group performance and intergroup
relations in organisations. In: Dunnette MD, Hough LM editors.
Handbook of Industrial and Organisational Psychology, Vol. 3.
Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, pp. 269–313.
[31] Hackman JR. 1987. The design of work teams. In: Lorsch J editors.
Handbook of Organisational Behaviour. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall, pp. 315–342.
[32] Hambrick DC, Cho TS, Chen MJ. 1996. The influence of top
management team heterogeneity on firms’ competitive moves.
Adm Sci Q. 41(4):659–684.
[33] Hentschel T, Shemla M, Wegge J, Kearney E. 2013. Perceived
diversity and team functioning: The role of diversity beliefs and
affect. Small Group Res. 44(1):33–61.
[34] Hoegl M, Parboteeah KP. 2003. Goal setting and team perfor-
mance in innovative projects: on the moderating role of teamwork
quality. Small Group Res. 34(1):3–19.
[35] Horwitz SK, Horwitz IB. 2007. The effects of team diversity on team
outcomes: A meta-analytic review of team demography. J Manage.
33(6):987–1015.
[36] Jackson SE, Joshi A. 2004. Diversity in social context: A multi-
attribute, multilevel analysis of team diversity and sales perfor-
mance. J Organ Behav. 25(6):675–702.
[37] Jackson SE, Joshi A, Erhardt NL. 2003. Recent research on team and
organisational diversity: SWOT analysis and implications. J Manage.
29(6):801–830.
[38] Janssen O. 2000. Job demands, perceptions of effort-reward fair-
ness and innovative work behaviour. J Occup Organ Psychol. 73
(3):287–302.
[39] Jehn KA, Northcraft GB, Neale MA. 1999. Why differences make
a difference: A field study of diversity, conflict, and performance
in workgroups. Adm Sci Q. 44(4):741–763.
[40] Jiang K, Lepak DP, Han K, Hong Y, Kim A, Winkler A. 2012.
Clarifying the construct of human resource systems: Relating
human resource management to employee performance. Hum
Resour Manage Rev. 22(2):73–85.
JOURNAL OF COMPUTER INFORMATION SYSTEMS 29
[41] Johnson H, Thomas A. 2007. Individual learning and building
organisational capacity for development. Publ Adm Dev. 27
(1):39–48.
[42] Kanter R. 1988. When a thousand flowers bloom: structural,
collective, and social conditions for innovation in organizations.
In: Staw, BM, Cummings LL editors. Research in Organizational
Behavior, Vol. 10. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, pp. 169–211.
[43] Katzenbach JR, Smith DK. 1993. The discipline of teams. Harv
Bus Rev (71):111–120.
[44] Kayes AB, Kayes DC, Kolb DA. 2005. Experiential learning in
teams. Simul Gaming 36(3):330–354.
[45] Konrad AM, Prasad P, Pringle J. 2006. Handbook of workplace
diversity. The Great Britain: Sage Publications Ltd, pp. 217–236.
[46] Koohang A. 2012. Active learning in e-learning: advancing a
systemic model. Issues Inf Syst 13(1):68–76.
[47] Koohang A, Paliszkiewicz J. 2013. Knowledge construction in
e-learning: An empirical validation of an active learning model.
J Comput Inf Syst 53(3):109–114.
[48] LeDoux JA, Gorman CA, Woehr DJ. 2012. The impact of inter-
personal perceptions on team processes: A social relations analy-
sis. Small Group Res. 43(3):356–382.
[49] Liang TP, Liu CC, Lin TM, Lin B. 2007. Effect of team diversity
on software project performance. Ind Manage Data Syst. 107
(5):636–653.
[50] Lin HE, McDonough EF, Lin SJ, Lin CYY. 2013. Managing the
exploitation/exploration paradox: The role of a learning capability
and innovation ambidexterity. J Prod Innov Manage. 30(2):262–
278.
[51] Luor T, Hu C, Lu HP. 2009. Mind the gap: An empirical study
of the gap between intention and actual usage of corporate
e-learning programmes in the financial industry. Br J Edu
Technol. 40(4):713–732.
[52] Michalski M, Yurov KM, Botella JLM. 2014. Trust and IT innova-
tion in asymmetric environment of the supply chain management
process. J Comput Inf Syst 54(3):10–24.
[53] Ong CH, Wan D, Chng S-H. 2003. Factors affecting individual
innovation: An examination within a Japanese subsidiary in
Singapore. Technovation 23(7):617–631.
[54] Pelled LH. 1996. Demographic diversity, conflict, and work
group outcomes: An intervening process theory. Organ Sci. 7
(6):615–631.
[55] Preacher K, Hayes A. 2004. SPSS and SAS procedures for estimat-
ing indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behav Res
Methods Instrum Comput. 36(4):717–731.
[56] Pullen A, de Weerd-Nederhof P, Groen A, Song M, Fisscher O.
2009. Successful patterns of internal SME characteristics leading
to high overall innovation performance. Creativity Innov Manage.
18(3):209–223.
[57] Remmen A, Lorentzen B. 2000. Employee participation and
cleaner technology: Learning processes in environmental teams.
J Cleaner Prod .8(5):365–373.
[58] Rousseau V, Aubé C. 2010. Team self-managing behaviors and
team effectiveness: The moderating effect of task routineness.
Group Organ Manage. 35(6):751–781.
[59] Savelsbergh CMJH, van der Heijden BIJM, Poell RF. 2009. The
development and empirical validation of a multidimensional mea-
surement instrument for team learning behaviors. Small Group
Res. 40(5):578–607.
[60] Schilpzand MC, Herold DM, Shalley CE. 2011. Members open-
ness to experience and teams creative performance. Small Group
Res. 42(1):55–76.
[61] Scott SG, Bruce RA. 1994. Determinants of innovative behavior: A
path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Acad
Manage. J 37(3):580–607.
[62] Seezink A, Poell R, Kirschner P. 2010. SOAP in practice: learning
outcomes of a cross-institutional innovation project conducted by
teachers, student teachers, and teacher educators. Eur J Teach
Edu. 33(3):229–243.
[63] Shen J, Chanda A, D’Netto B, Monga M. 2009. Managing diversity
through human resource management: An international
30 H. SUN ET AL.
perspective and conceptual framework. Int J Hum Resour
Manage. 20(2):235–251.
[64] Shen MJ, Chen MC. 2007. The relationship of leadership, team
trust and team performance: A comparison of the service and
manufacturing industries. Soc Behav Pers Int J. 35(5):643–658.
[65] Simons R. 1991. Strategic orientation and top management atten-
tion to control systems. Strat Manage J 12(1):49–62.
[66] Song M, Dyer B, Thieme RJ. 2006. Conflict management and
innovation performance: An integrated contingency perspective.
J Acad Market Sci. 34(3):341–356.
[67] Stevens MJ, Campion MA. 1994. The knowledge, skill, and ability
requirements for teamwork: Implications for human resource
management. J Manage. 20(2):503–530.
[68] Sundstrom E, De Meuse KP, Futrell D. 1990. Work teams:
Applications and effectiveness. Am Psychol. 45(2):120–133.
[69] Thompson VA. 1965. Bureaucracy and innovation. Adm Sci Q. 10
(1):1–20.
[70] van Beers C, Zand F. 2014. R&D cooperation, partner diversity,
and innovation performance: An empirical analysis. J Prod Innov
Manage. 31(2):292–312.
[71] West MA, Anderson NR. 1996. Innovation in top management
teams. J Appl Psychol. 81(6):680–693.
[72] West MA, Farr JL. 1990. Innovation and Creativity at Work:
Psychological and Organizational Strategies. Chichester: John
Wiley & Sons, 309–333.
[73] Yuan F, Woodman RW. 2010. Innovative behaviour in the work-
place: The role of performance and image outcome expectations.
Acad Manage. J 53(2):323–342.
[74] Zheng M, Zhu XP, Yang J. 2010. The influence of the team
climate on team innovation performance: An empirical study
based on Chinese high technology innovation teams.
Information Management, Innovation Management and
Industrial Engineering (ICIII), Kunming, China: 26–28
November, pp. 245–249.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.