Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology (2012)
© 2012 The British Psychological Society
The
British
Psychological
Society
www.wileyonlinelibrary.com
Perceived value congruence and team innovation
Rebecca Mitchell1,*, Vicki Parker2, Michelle Giles3, Pauline Joyce4
and Vico Chiang5
1University of Newcastle2University of New England3Hunter New England Area Health Service4Royal College of Surgeons5Hong Kong Polytechnic University, 1
This article develops and tests a model of perceived value congruence effects on team
innovation and explores a contingent-mediated pathway explaining this relationship.
Survey data from 346 members of 75 health care teams support a significant relationship
between value congruence and innovation. The study data indicate that one of the
mechanisms throughwhich perceived value congruence facilitates the generation of novel
ideas is through the development of team identification. This mechanism is contingent,
however, on the extent towhichmembers focus on profession as a salient social category.
Our data support amoderatedmediation pathway inwhich the effect of value congruence
is explained through team identification and its interactive effect on innovation.
Practitioner Points
� Highlights to organizations, particularly in the health care industry, the importance of
perceived value congruence in generating innovative team outcomes, and reinforces
the merit of strategies to develop perceived congruence through, for example,
leadership and interprofessional education.
� Reinforces the value to leaders tasked with innovation of heightening member
awareness of professional diversity and associated knowledge differences, within an
overarching framework of shared values.
Organizations continue to utilize teams to achieve multifaceted and interdependent tasks
(Lawler, Mohrman, & Ledford, 1995). For teams to be successful in these complex
activities, they require effective dynamics, which precipitates a research focus on deep-
level cognitive features that influence intra-team interaction and mutual understanding
(Kristof-Brown, Barrick, & Kay Stevens, 2005; Marks, Mathieu, & Zaccaro, 2001; Postrel,
*Correspondence should be addressed to Rebecca Mitchell, University of Newcastle, XXXXXX, XXXXX (e-mail: [email protected]) 2.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
DOI:10.1111/j.2044-8325.2012.02059.x
1
J O O P 2 0 5 9 B Dispatch: 20.8.12 Journal: JOOP CE: Priya Lakshmi
Journal Name Manuscript No. Author Received: No. of pages: 23 PE: Pouline
2002). One research stream that has emerged as relevant to this aspect of effective
teamwork is person–environment fit (Kristof-Brown, Barrick, et al., 2005).
A key conceptualization of person–environment fit is supplementary fit, when both
the employee and environment possess the same or similar characteristics includingvalues, attitudes, personality traits, and goals (Kristof, 1996). Of these, value congruence
represents the similarity between individual values and those of the organization, group,
or supervisor (Chatman, 1989). Value congruence has been identified as a particularly
salient dimension of fit because values are relatively enduring and guide attitudes and
behaviour (Chatman, 1991; Schein, 1992).
Value congruence has been investigated at many different levels of analysis including
person–organization, person–job, person–supervisor, and person–group (Kristof, 1996).
A substantial volume of research has evidenced the benefits of value congruence, bothwithin teams and between individuals and their occupational environment at different
levels of analysis (Edwards & Cable, 2009; Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, & Johnson, 2005).
This research indicates that value congruence reduces turnover and also increases
employee satisfaction and performance (Edwards & Cable, 2009; Hoffman & Woehr,
2006). While much extant work has focused on the impact of value congruence on
individual-level outcomes (Good&Nelson, 1971; Pelled, Eisenhardt, &Xin, 1999b), those
that have focused on group-level effects have also found evidence of a significant
relationship between value congruence and team dynamics (Barry & Stewart, 1997; Jehn,Northcraft, & Neale, 1999). However, while workteams have become widely used in
organizations (Guzzo & Dickson, 1996), the investigation of person–group fit has
remained underexplored (Kristof-Brown, Zimmerman, et al., 2005). This study explores
value congruence in the context of person–group fit. When pertaining to workplace
teams, person–group value congruence suggests that each member’s values will interact
to affect team dynamics and task performance (Shin, 2004).
One aspect of value congruence, perceived value congruence, has been identified as a
particularly significant factor in determining group performance (Liao, Chuang, & Joshi,2008). Perceived value congruence exists when members’ believe that they hold similar
or shared beliefs about issues relevant to the team’s task (Liao et al., 2008; Williams,
Parker, & Turner, 2007). This study investigates value congruence as a team-level
construct. We assume that perceived congruence is a unique construct that emerges at
the group level through the dynamic interaction of members and that this variable does
not exist in the sameway at the individual level of analysis despite arising from individuals’
subjective perception of their own and others values (Klein & Kozlowski, 2000).
Perceived value congruence can be differentiated from related constructs, such ascohesion and performance norms. Perceived value congruence relates to an awareness of
similarity regarding beliefs about what is important, while cohesion reflects an emotional
attachment to a group (Chang & Bordia, 2001). Previous research has supported the role
of perceived congruence in predicting cohesion, on the basis that perceived similarity
enhances attraction (Good & Nelson, 1971). Perceived congruence has also been
differentiated from work-related beliefs, with support for its role as a predictor of both
attitude towards individuals and tasks, as well as satisfaction and commitment (Resick,
Baltes, & Shantz, 2007).The impact of perceived congruence on performance is argued on the basis that
perceptions of differences and similarities are closely linked member behaviour (Carless,
2005; Harrison, Price, Gavin, & Florey, 2002; Liao et al., 2008; Piasentin & Chapman,
2007; Williams et al., 2007). Previous authors have consistently emphasized that the
impact of comparative similarities and differences is based largely on perception (Jung &
2 Rebecca Mitchell et al.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Avolio, 2000; Posner& Schmidt, 1993;Williams et al., 2007). In particular, perceptions of
attitudinal similarity, rather than actual congruence, have been found to better predict
group outcomes includingmember satisfaction and performance (Turban& Jones, 1988).
This study investigates the impact of perceived value congruence in health care teams,in particular interprofessional health care teams, that is, teams composed of different
professions (Reeves et al., 2008). The potential benefit of teamwork, and the significant
challenge, is well evidenced in studies of teams in health care settings (Fay, Borrill, Amir,
Haward, & West, 2006; West et al., 2003). There are many advantages associated with
team approaches to health care delivery including enhanced organizational efficiency,
better patient and staff outcomes, and increased innovation (Basset & Bryson, 1989;
Younghusband, 1959). However, research also indicates that health care teams,
particularly interprofessional teams, are likely to engage in conflict and underperform(Hudson, 2002; Zwarenstein & Reeves, 2000), and it has found that more than 70% of
medical errors are linked to dysfunctional team dynamics (Schaefer, Helmreich, &
Scheideggar, 1994). Even though perceived value congruence has been shown to be
highly influential in the dynamics and outcomes of teams, its role in health care teams
remains largely unexplored (Elfenbein & O’Reilly, 2007). Investigating perceived value
congruence is particularly important in health care organizations, as they continue to
prioritize value-based approaches to performance enhancement, including patient-
centred and interprofessional care (Blount, 2000; Centre for the Advancement ofInterprofessional Education, 2008; Lewin, Skea, Entwistle, Zwarenstein, & Dick, 2001).
This study investigates the role of perceived value congruence on innovation in health
care teams. Innovation is a neglected performance facet of health care teams (Fay et al.,
2006). Innovation in health care is being driven by both external government policy and
internal clinically led pressure to adopt evidence-based medicine (Fitzgerald, Ferlie, &
Hawkins, 2003), and it is a priority for clinicians, managers, and policy makers due to
consistent support for its positive impact on patient, staff, and organizational outcomes
(West et al., 2003). Health care organizations exist in an environment characterized bycontinuous changes in medical information, technology, patterns of organization, and
delivery, which requires innovative use of resources and models of care (Cohen et al.,
2004). Innovation has been shown to significantly benefit health care organizations, for
example, through the use of electronic health records to support evidence-based practice
(Geibert, 2006) or the use of remote patient management (telehealth) technologies to
minimize emergency department and hospital admissions (Coye, Haselkorn, & DeMello,
2009). Innovation has therefore become a core capability for health care organizations
globally (Lansisalmi, Kivimaki, Aalto, & Ruoranen, 2006), indicating that processes thatcontribute to innovation merit continued investigation.
In addition to investigating the main effect of perceived value congruence on
innovation, this study explores a contingent pathway between congruence and
innovation. Building on existing studies in social identity theory, a model of team
innovation is constructed in which the relationship between value congruence and
innovation is mediated by team identification and moderated by salience of profession.
We hypothesize that team identity mediates the relationship between value congruence
and innovation, and that this relationship is contingent on professional salience.We seek to make a number of important contributions through this article by
responding to calls to investigate the role of perceived value congruence in work teams
(Chou, Wang, Wang, Huang, & Cheng, 2008). To the best of our knowledge, little prior
study has investigated the influence of perceived value congruence on innovation in
health care teams, and moreover, our study is one of very few to investigate value
Value congruence and team innovation 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
congruence outside laboratory settings and one of the first attempts to investigate the
mediating and moderating mechanisms influencing its impact. The contribution of this
study is particularly important as perceptual factors underlying the impact of similarity
and dissimilarity have rarely been studied (Harrison et al., 2002), despite acknowledge-ment that much relevant theory refers to perceptions of similarity as the major cause for
enhanced performance (Riordan, 2000).
Model development and hypotheses
The following sections present the rationale underlying our model development and
develop theoretical arguments supporting the proposed relationships. We discuss how
perceived value congruence is linked to team identity and, through this, innovation. Wealso argue the moderating role of salience of profession in this relationship.
The connection between perceived value congruence and innovation is built on a
well-evidenced link between perceived similarity, trust, and attraction, frequently termed
the similarity–attraction paradigm (Edwards & Cable, 2009; Muchinsky & Monahan,
1987). Following from this paradigm, perceived similarity acrossmembers regarding task-
relevant values reflects a group-level dynamic that is likely to significantly impact on intra-
team attitudes and interaction patterns (Williams & O’Reilly, 1998).
Value congruence is argued to increase trust and cooperation between teammembers(Tsui & O’Reilly, 1989), because people are more attracted to those who they perceive as
similar (Festinger, 1954; Williams & O’Reilly, 1998), and prefer to work with others who
share their values and perspective (Cable & Edwards, 2004). There is evidence that
attraction and trust, consequent to perceived congruence (Good & Nelson, 1971),
enhances team innovation in diverse teams through a number of mechanisms.
Attraction to, and trust between, teammembers increases the accuracy and frequency
of communication and leads individuals to search out more information from other team
members (Byrne, 1971). Such information sharing provides members with access to abroader range of alternative perspectives (Carpenter, Geletkanycz, & Sanders, 2004). The
availability of alternative positions has been shown to enhance team ability to resist
conformity pressures (Nemeth, 1986; Nemeth, Connell, Rogers, & Brown, 2001; Nemeth
& Nemeth-Brown, 2003) and increases the tendency for conceptual differentiation and
divergent thinking (Gruenfeld, Thomas-Hunt, & Kim, 1998; Van Dyne & Saavedra, 1996),
all of which have been linked to the generation of new ideas (DeDreu & West, 2001).
Perceived similarity in values also increases the likelihood of innovative outcomes
because members are likely to feel more comfortable proposing novel ideas (Dose &Klimoski, 1999). Furthermore, the perception of value congruence leads to a greater
acceptance of the validity of others opinions and leads members to be more open to
others’ opinions regarding alternative solutions and perspectives (Lott & Lott, 1961).
Members will be more likely to see others within the team as sources of informational
influence (Dose & Klimoski, 1999) and openness to alternative positions has been linked
to innovation in previous research (DeDreu & West, 2001; Tjosvold & Sun, 2003). This
leads to the first hypothesis.
Hypothesis 1: Perceived value congruence is positively related to innovation in teams.
Social identity theory suggests team identification as a mechanism explaining this
relationship. Team identification reflects the extent to which membership is valued and
contributes to a sense of self (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). Previous research indicates that
similarity facilitates a sense of belonging to a common group (Tajfel & Turner, 2001).
4 Rebecca Mitchell et al.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Through a process of self-categorization (Turner, 1987), the categorization of oneself as
part of a specific social group, individual members may categorize themselves as part of
the team based on perceived similarity. This self-categorization can contribute to the
development of a collective team identity (Tyler & Blader, 2001). Under suchcircumstances, members aremore likely to perceive themselves as important participants
in the group’s work and start thinking of their contribution to the collective group goals
(Wang, Law, Hackett, Wang, & Chen, 2005).
Perceived value congruence provides a cognitive connection between the member
and team (Ellemers, Kortekaas, & Ouwerkerk, 1999) which has been linked to increased
team identification (Sleebos, Ellemers, & Gilder, 2006). Deep-level cognitive alignment
increases the likelihood that members will identify with the team as individuals tend to
identify with groups that provide them with a sense of compatibility and connection(Pickett, Bonner, & Coleman, 2002). Finally, the perception of congruence has been
previously linked to increased team integration (O’Reilly, Caldwell, & Barnett, 1989), and
the promotion of interdependence and integration have, in turn, been connected to the
development of team identity (Gaertner, Mann, Murrell, & Dovidio, 1989; Homan et al.,
2008). This leads to the following hypothesis.
Hypothesis 2: Perceived value congruence will have a positive relationship with team identity.
Previous research provides continued support for the role of team identity in reducing
‘ingroup’ bias, and in extending attributes such as integrity, trustworthiness, andsupportiveness to traditional ‘outgroup’ members (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; van Dick, van
Knippenberg, Hagele, Guillaume, & Brodbeck, 2008). Members of teams with common
identity view one another as embodying the key attributes of the team (Ashforth & Mael,
1989). By perceiving themselves and others within a common framework, members
becomemore accepting of the diverse ideas and approaches of other professions (Mackie
& Goathals, 1987; Mitchell, Parker, & Giles, 2011). Members are therefore more likely to
engage in collaborative discussion and information sharing, and consider the alternative,
even opposing, suggestions of other professions fromanopenmindedperspective (Wang,Chen, Tjosvold, & Shi, 2010). Members are also motivated to challenge and debate
alternative positions, and justify, and seek justification for, conflicting ideas (Deshpande&
Zaltman, 1982; Maltz & Kohli, 1996).
Evidence also indicates that team identity influences team member motivation to
engage in thorough evaluation of others’ positions and propositions (Gaertner et al.,
1989; van Knippenberg, 1999). Individuals are more likely to engage in comprehensive
analyse and deliberate ingroup positionswhen comparedwith those of the outgroup (van
Knippenberg, 1999). By extending the ingroup category beyond traditional outgroupboundaries, team identity increases the likelihood of a more systematic and analytical
evaluation of the diverse perspectives presented by different professions (Kane, Argote,&
Levine, 2005).
In summary, sharing a common team identity enhances the likelihood that members
will engage in information sharing and collaborative interaction, and that they will
constructively analyse the alternative positions presented by other members. These
behaviours have been linked to the generation of new ideas and innovation (DeDreu &
West, 2001; Miller, Burke, & Glick, 1998; Talaulicar, Grundei, & Werder, 2005). Inaddition, the thorough analysis of a range of positions promotes the adoption of superior
over lesser choices (Kane et al., 2005) and prioritizes high quality over inferior arguments
(Gaertner et al., 1989), which, in turn, supports effective decision making. This leads to
the following hypotheses.
Value congruence and team innovation 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Hypothesis 3: Team identity will be positively related to innovation in interprofessional teams
and will mediate the positive relationship between leader inclusiveness and
innovation.
Despite the proposed link between team identity and performance, there is evidence
that sharing a common identity is unlikely to completely subsume professional
distinctions (Dovidio, Gaertner, & Saguy, 2008) particularly given then the strength and
priority of professional identity in health care environments (Cohen, 1981). This indicates
that professionally based differentiation may exist in interprofessional teams despitestrong collective identity and suggests the role of professional salience as a moderator of
team identity–performance relationship (Mitchell, Parker, & Giles, 2012).
Professional salience refers to circumstances under which professional identity
becomes the primary operational basis for categorizing the self and others (Randel, 2002).
When profession is a salient social category, team members are more aware of others
professional characteristics and differences associated with profession have a more
significant impact on team interaction (Dovidio et al., 2008; Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000).
When profession salience is strongwithin a team,members are likely to bemore attentiveto the diverse perspectives and priorities of different professional groups, and more
focused on professionally based representation of these priorities in interprofessional
interactions (Lingard, Reznick, DeVito, & Espin, 2002; Timmermans, 2002). Under these
circumstances, team members become more aware of the broad-ranging ideas presented
by different members and more likely to attend to these differences in their discussions
(Phillips, 2003). In teams with strong team identity, this attention to diverse perspectives
enhances the beneficial impact of information sharing and collaboration, as members
work together to best utilize the range of knowledge-sources available to the team(Mitchell et al., 2012). Therefore, in situations in which members are more aware of the
breadth and depth of knowledge available through their diverse membership, the link
between team identity and team innovation is likely to be strengthened. This leads to the
following hypotheses.
Hypothesis 4: Professional salience will moderate the relationship between team identity and
innovation, such that the positive relationship between team identity and
innovation will be stronger when professional salience is stronger.
Hypothesis 5: Professional salience will moderate the relationship between value congruence
and innovation, such that the positive relationship between value congruence
and innovation through team identity will be stronger when professional salience
is stronger.
Method
Procedure and sample
Targeted participants worked in teams in an acute care, hospital setting. Awork teamwas
defined as two or more team members and a team leader who had shared goals and
pursued interdependent tasks towards their achievement (Kozlowski &Bell, 2003). To be
included as a participant team, the following criteria had to bemet: (a) the team leader had
to complete the leader’s survey, which assessed team demographic characteristics and
innovation, and (b) teammembers had to complete themember’s surveywhich collecteddata on team dynamics.
Tominimize the risk of commonmethod bias, we used two different questionnaires to
collect data (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). Data on the dependent
6 Rebecca Mitchell et al.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
variable, team innovation, were collected from the team leader. Data on independent
variables were collected from team members.
Questionnaires were distributed to 210 teams, and members and leaders of 75 teams
responded, representing a 36% response rate. Each team was assigned a unique code sothat member and leader response could bematched. As teamswere invited to participate,
and responded, over an extended study period, an independent samples t-test was used to
test for significant mean differences between those teams responding early and those
teams who responded following further calls to participate. Analyses indicated no
significantmean differences existed between these categories of respondent teams on the
basis of team performance, team composition, and predictor variables.
To investigate sample representativeness, we compared specific attributes of our
sample with known population values. We used data on professional composition andaverage employee age as the comparison attributes. We obtained data at country and
regional level for health care institutions (AIHW, 2006). For our study sample, the
average age of 41.8 years was close to the average age for health care professionals at a
national (42 years) and regional (43 years) level. In addition, the study sample showed
a very similar distribution of health care professional groups to the national and
regional level. Nurses comprised 54% of the study sample, and comprise 51.4% of
health care professionals employed nationally and 54% regionally. Medical practitioners
comprised 13.8% of the study sample, and comprise 13.7% of health care professionalsemployed nationally and 14.6% regionally. Allied health professionals comprised 23.6%
of the study sample, and comprise 22% of health care professionals employed
nationally and 25.38% regionally. This provides support for the representativeness of
our sample.
The mean number of professions represented in groups was 4, with the majority of
teams comprising between 3 and 5 different professional groups. A broad range of health
care profession categories comprised team membership including nurse, dietician,
physiotherapist, social worker, medical practitioner, pharmacist, occupational therapist,speech pathologist, radiographer, and psychologist. On average, members had been
working together as a team for approximately 2 years. The leaders of teamsweremade up
of different professions including nursing, medicine, physiotherapy, and social work. The
most frequent leader profession was nursing (48%).
We received an average of 4.6 responses per team, with an average of 52% responses
per team. Dawson’s (2003) selection rate formula was used to investigate whether the
number of responses within each team would allow group-level generalization. This
assesses the accuracy of incomplete group data in predicting true scores as a function ofnumber of responses per group (n) and group size (N) using the formula ([N–n]/Nn)
(Dawson, 2003). Scores from teams with a value of less than or equal to .32 are correlated
with true scores at .95 or higher (Dawson, 2003; Richter, West, van Dick, & Dawson,
2006). Based on this cut-off point, no teams were excluded as all were within the
acceptable parameter.
Measures
For hypotheses testing, the level of analysiswas team level. In commonwith similar recent
research (Schaubroeck, Lam, & Cha, 2007), two intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs)
are recommended for justifying aggregation of measures to group level (James, 1982).
ICC(1) indicates the ratio of between-group variance to total variance and ICC(2) indicates
the reliability of average team perceptions. Inter-rater agreement level was also used to
Value congruence and team innovation 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
justify team-level aggregation (James, Demaree, & Wolf, 1984). All mean rwg values were
above the acceptable level of .70 (George, 1990).
Perceived value congruence
Three scale items were used to measure perceived value congruence developed from
previous research (Becker, Billings, Eveleth, & Gilbert, 1996; Brown & Trevino, 2006).
These scales directed respondents to rate values relating to the teams work-related
activities, for example, ‘Didmembers of the team have similar values regarding the team’s
work?’ The measure of perceived value congruence that we used in this study follows
previous research that directly asks individuals the extent to which they believe that they
are a good fitwith a referent article, for example, organization, job, or group (e.g., Cable &Judge, 1996; Resick et al., 2007). This approach focuses on the perceivedmatch,which is
argued to relate more proximally to behaviours and attitudes than an objective match
(Cable & DeRue, 2002). Although some studies utilize a measure of perceived fit against
broad value elements, we followed previous studies that assessed value similarity on the
basis of a specified referent (Cable & Judge, 1996; Resick et al., 2007; Saks & Ashforth,
1997). This method of assessing value congruence involves asking participants to assess
the extent towhich the referent team/organization holds values similar to their own (Saks
& Ashforth, 1997). Our measure used a team referent, which aimed to increase thelikelihood that memberswould respond based on their perception of similarity across the
range of values thatwere held as specifically relevant to the team’s task. This perception of
similarity is argued to be relatively cognitively accessible to participants (Judge & Cable,
1997) and to have a significant influence on their attitude towards the team and its work
(Cable&DeRue, 2002), and is alsoparticularly important in an environment such as health
care, in which shared task-related values, such as interprofessional and patient
centredness, are increasingly utilized as a mechanism to bridge professional divides
(Berntsen, 2006; Loutzenhiser & Hadjistavropoulos, 2008). The alpha coefficient for thismeasure was 0.80, ICC(1) was .20, F(74, 270) = 3.64, p = .00, and ICC(2) was .54. The
mean rwg for perceived value congruence was .70.
Team identity
A3-item scalewas used to assess team identity adapted frompast research (VanDerVegt&
Bunderson, 2005), and asked, for example, whether members ‘identify strongly with the
team?’ The alpha coefficient for this measure was 0.85, ICC(1) was .16, F(74,270) = 31.55, p = .01, and ICC(2) was .46. The ICC(1) result for team identity was over
the median of .12 reported by James (1982). The ICC(2) result was lower than expected
but comparable to similar studies (Srivastava, Bartol, & Locke, 2006; Walker, Smither, &
Waldman, 2008). It can be argued that as ICC(2) is dependent on ICC(1) and team size, the
relative small sample team size may contribute to the lower ICC(2) results (Bliese, 1998).
George (1990) argued that large differences are less likely to be found when investigating
teamswithin the same organization and this may also account for the small ICC(2) results.
The mean rwg for team identity was .74, and provides justification for the aggregation ofour data to team level.
Salience of profession
Three scale items were used to measure salience of profession taken from previous
research (Randel, 2002), for example, participants were asked to rate the extent to which
8 Rebecca Mitchell et al.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
they agreedwith the following statement: ‘When people askme about who is in the team,
I initially think of describing team members in terms of their profession’. The alpha
coefficient for this measure was 0.73, ICC(1) was .17, F(74, 270) = 1.55, p = .01, and ICC
(2) was .48. The mean rwg for salience of profession was .82. We chose to treatprofessional salience as a group construct for two reasons. First, our F ratiowas significant
which supports our decision to aggregate individual responses, and second, the rwg
results were satisfactory.
Team innovation
The dependent variable, team innovation, was measured by the team leader using a
separate questionnaire to the team member survey. Three items measured teaminnovation based on previously validated measures (West & Anderson, 1996), for
example, ‘To what extent was this team innovative?’ and ‘To what extent does this team
producenew ideas and introduce specific changes?’ The alpha coefficient for thismeasure
was 0.94.
Control variables
Following previous research, we controlled for team size and team job-related diversity(Hobman&Bordia, 2006; Tushman&Nadler, 1978),which have both been linked to team
performance. To assess team size, respondent leaders were asked to indicate the number
of teammembers. To assess team diversity, respondent leaders were asked to indicate the
number of different professions represented on the team. Diversity was measured using
Blau’s (1977) index of heterogeneity: (1-ΣPi2), where Pi is the proportion of topmanagers
in ith category. Blau’s (1977) index has widespread usage as a measure of group diversity,
including national diversity (Kilduff, Angelmar, & Mehra, 2000; Pelled, Eisenhardt, & Xin,
1999a). A higher score on Blau’s index indicates greater professional diversity. We alsocontrolled for professional identification. Two itemsmeasured professional identification
based on previously validated measures (Bartels, Pruyn, & Jong, 2009; van Knippenberg,
van Knippenberg, Monden, & de Lima, 2002), for example, ‘I identify strongly with my
professional group’. The alpha coefficient for this measure was 0.91, ICC(1) for
professional identification was .13, F(74, 270) = 3.36, p = .00, and ICC(2) was .42.
Analysis and results
Table 1 shows the means, standard deviations (SDs), and correlations among the
variables.
Pattern coefficient matrices are argued to provide a sound basis for evaluating the
extent to whichmeasured constructs are empirically distinct (Thompson, 1997). Table 2
shows the factor coefficients for each of the constructs measured in this study and shows
that all items are correlated more highly within each construct than between constructs.In addition, all coefficients are greater than .6. These coefficients indicate sufficient
homogeneity within scales and heterogeneity between scales, to support claims of
discriminant validity (Thompson, 1997).
Discriminant validity was further evidenced by the fact that the square root of the
average variance extracted (AVE) for each of the variables was higher than its correlations
with other variables, as shown in Table 1 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).
Value congruence and team innovation 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Given the moderately high correlation between value congruence and team identity,
additional checks were undertaken to assess the threat of multicollinearity. In particular,
variance inflation factor (VIF) was generated when both of these predictors were
incorporated into regression equations during hypothesis testing. Stevens (1992) noted
that VIF should be below 10. All VIFs were below 1.8 when value congruence and team
identity were both entered as predictors in the regression equation which indicates that
multicollinearity is not likely to be a significant problem in this study.
This study employed partial least squares (PLS) structural equationmodelling (SEM) toanalyse data. PLS is a second-generation modelling technique is increasingly utilized in
health, engineering chemistry, and organizational study research (Sosik, Kahai,&Piovoso,
2009). PLSwas chosen for this data analysis as it is a robust causalmodelling technique that
aims tomaximize the dependent construct variance (Henseler, Ringle,& Sinkovics, 2009).
PLS SEM’s primary objective is tomaximize explained variance in the dependent variable,
as well as evaluate data utility through assessment of the measurement model (Hair,
Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2011). PLS-SEM works on the basis of a less restrictive set of
assumptions than covariance-based SEM, for example, PLS-SEM uses non-parametricinference methods (in this case bootstrapping) and is relatively free of distributional
Table 1. Means, standard deviations, and correlations (N = 75 teams)
M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 Team size 8.82 7.63
2 Team diversity .51 0.15 �.13
3 Professional identification 5.72 0.68 .08 �.01 .89a
4 Value congruence 4.51 0.89 .09 �.15 .39** .85
5 Team identification 5.60 0.70 .08 �.08 .49** .66** .88
6 Salience of profession 4.06 0.93 �.07 .00 .09 �.08 �.02 .82
7 Innovation 5.14 1.05 .03 .04 .27* .40** .38** .07 .95
Note. *p < .05, **p < .01.aBoldface numerals on the diagonal represent the square root of the average variance extracted.
Table 2. Factor coefficients (N = 75 teams)
Value congruence Team identification Salience of profession Innovation
Value congruence 1 .74 .42 �.09 .16
Value congruence 2 .80 .09 �.10 .22
Value congruence 3 .69 .39 .09 .17
Team identification 1 .38 .79 �.07 .26
Team identification 2 .48 .71 .00 .13
Team identification 3 .01 .87 .02 .17
Salience of profession 1 .16 �.01 .82 .17
Salience of profession 2 �.28 .18 .81 �.15
Salience of profession 3 �.02 �.14 .79 .05
Innovation 1 .12 .25 .04 .91
Innovation 2 .13 .22 .02 .93
Innovation 3 .18 �.00 .06 .92
Note. Boldface values are standardized parameter estimates.
10 Rebecca Mitchell et al.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
assumptions (Squillacciotti, 2010). In addition, and of relevance for the current study, PLS
modelling has been shown to be a more useful analytical approach when independent
variables may be correlated. Under these circumstances, multiple regression has been
demonstrated to produce coefficient values that are significantly different to true values,while PLS generates more accurate coefficients (Sosik et al., 2009). While PLS-SEM has
significant advantages, it also has some disadvantages. It provides no adequate global
measure of goodness of fit for investigated models (Hair, Ringle, et al., 2011). There have
also been some concerns raised that PLS parameter estimates are not optimal with regard
to bias; however, simulation studies indicates that the differences between CB- and PLS-
SEM are at very low levels (Reinartz, Haenlein, & Henseler, 2009).
Of particular relevance for this study, PLS-SEM can be used to analyse data from small
samples, ranging from 30 observations (Sosik et al., 2009). Studies that have rigourouslyevaluated the performance of PLS-SEM when sample sizes are small have showed that
PLS-SEM is able to achieve high levels of power, when compared with covariance-based
SEM, when sample sizes are small (Hair, Sarstedt, Ringle, & Mena, 2011). We utilized
SmartPLS software (Ringle, Wende, & Will, 2005).
PLS provides parameter estimates to enable assessment of the structural component of
the research model. Bootstrapping was used to generate t-test statistics to evaluate the
statistical significance of the path coefficients. Bootstrapping involves generating a large
number of random samples by sampling with replacement from the original data (Sosiket al., 2009). Following Chin (1998), we ran 1,000 bootstrap samples.
Figure 1 depicts the results of PLS analysis. Prior to the inclusion of team identity in the
PLS model, the PLS analysis yielded a significant path coefficient for the impact of value
congruence on innovation (b = .37, t = 2.37, p = .02) supporting hypothesis 1. The PLS
full model analysis revealed a significant path coefficient for the impact of value
congruence on team identity (b = .63, t = 6.68, p = .00) supporting hypothesis 2, and a
significant path coefficient for team identity regressed on team innovation (b = .39,
t = 3.03, p = .00). The path coefficient for the impact of value congruence on innovationwas not significant in the full model (b = .09, t = .51, p = .61). We used an approach
developed by Preacher and Hayes (2008) to generate bias corrected bootstrapped
confidence intervals (CIs) for the indirect of team identity asmediator of the path between
value congruence and innovation (MacKinnon, Lockwood, & Williams, 2004). In
confirmation of hypotheses 3, analysis generated CIs that did not include zero (95% CI:
.04–.43).
To test hypotheses 4, a standardized cross-product interaction construct was
computed and included in the model as suggested for PLS analysis (Chin, Marcolin, &Newsted, 2003). The results show that professional salience moderated the impact of
team identity on innovation supporting hypothesis 4. The PLS analysis revealed a
significant path coefficient for the interaction variable regressed on innovation (b = .27,
t = 2.65, p = .02).
To explore the nature of the moderating effect further, we used simple slopes
computations and graphed the interactions using high (1 SD above the mean) and low
(1 SD below themean) levels of themoderator. These analyses revealed that team identity
was strongly associated with performance when professional salience was high (simpleslope = 1.09, t = 4.49, p = .00) and was less strongly, but not significantly, related to
performancewhenprofessional saliencewas at a low level (simple slope = 0.32, t = 1.81,
p = .08), as depicted in Figure 2. These results provide support for hypothesis 4 by
indicating that team identity impacts performance more strongly when professional
salience is high.
Value congruence and team innovation 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Hypothesis 5 posited that the indirect effect of value congruence on innovation via
team identity depends on professional salience levels. To test moderated mediation, the
data were investigated to assess whether the strength of the mediation via team identity
differs across two levels (high and low) of themoderator, professional salience (Preacher,Rucker, &Hayes, 2007). Moderatedmediation is evidencedwhen the conditional indirect
effect of leader inclusiveness on performance via team identity differs in strength across
lowandhigh levels of professional salience. Preacher et al.’s (2007) statistical significance
test was used to analyse the data. This applies Aroian’s (1947) exact standard error for
indirect effects to compute a z statistic for the conditional indirect effect. Again, high and
low professional salience was operationalized as 1 SD above and below the mean
respectively. The results of this analysis indicate that the relationship between leader
inclusiveness and innovation via team identity was weaker when professional saliencewas low (z = 0.11, p = .44) and stronger when professional salience was high (z = 2.49,
Value Congruence
Professional Salience
Performance Team
Identity
く = .63**
く = .39**
く = .27*
Professional Identification
Team Size Professional
Diversity
く = –.01
く = .02 く = .09
Figure 1. Model of value congruence effects.
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
Low Team
Identity
High Team
Identity
Innovat
ion
High Professional Salience
Low Professional Salience
Figure 2. Moderating effect of professional salience on team identity’s impact on innovation.
12 Rebecca Mitchell et al.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
p = .01). This analysis supports hypothesis 5. To investigate this effect further, an
extension of the Johnson–Neyman technique to moderated mediation was applied
(Preacher et al., 2007). This technique involves testing the significance of the indirect
effect of leader inclusiveness at a range of values of professional salience until the value isfound for which the indirect effect becomes significant (a = 0.05). Table 3 shows that at
professional salience values above 3.9, the mediating effect of team identity is significant.
At professional salience levels of 3.9 and above, the mediating role of team identity is
significant and becomes stronger. Below this level of professional salience, the mediating
effect of team identity weakens and is not significant.
We also generated a bootstrap-based CI for the specific indirect effect at the mean
value of professional salience. The 95% CI did not include zero (95% CI: .02–.52),
supporting our moderated mediation hypothesis.Unlike other SEM techniques, PLS does not test for model fit (Fornell & Bookstein,
1982); however, the r2 statistics has been argued to provide an approximation of the
models utility by depicting the extent to which the predictors account for variance in the
dependent construct. PLS analysis revealed that the overall model explained 32% of the
variance in performance, which can be interpreted as an indicator of moderate fit (Chin,
1998).
To further investigate the quality of the structural model, we chose to assess the
models capacity to predict performance. To assess predictive relevance,we used PLS-SEMto generate the Stone–Geisser criterion (Q2) with an omission distance of 7. Analysis
resulted in a Stone–Geisser criterion Q2 value of 0.29, which is substantially above the
threshold value of zero, and which indicates the model’s predictive relevance (Henseler
et al., 2009). This supports our claim that value congruence is a valuable predictor of team
innovation and also supports the utility of the pathways that we have investigated.
Supplemental analysis
As the number of teamswas relatively small, particularly for testingmoderating effects, we
followed theprocedure todetectpotential outliers recommendedbyFidell andTabachnick
(2003). For each team,wecalculated theMahalanobis distancebasedonpredictor variables
and determined the probability of each distance. The maximumMahalanobis distance was
14.62, which is well below the critical value of 20.52 (a = .001) for our study (Fidell &
Tabachnick, 2003). This indicates that outliers among the data points are not a significant
issue in this study and provides support for the robustness of our findings.
Discussion
The purpose of this research was to investigate the consequences of value congruence in
health care teams. To achieve this objective, this study investigated the relationship
Table 3. Conditional indirect effect at range of values of professional salience
Professional salience value Z statistic Significance (p)
2.5 �0.15 .88
3.1 0.66 .51
3.9 1.96 .05
4.6 2.42 .02
5.4 2.52 .01
Value congruence and team innovation 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
between perceived value congruence and innovation, as well as a contingent explanatory
pathway. The results provide support for a positive relationship between the perception
of value congruity and innovation mediated by team identification. Results also support a
moderated–mediated relationship in which the mediating effect of team identity isdependent on professional salience.
Theoretical contributions
We attempt to make several primary theoretical contributions to the literature. An
important contribution of this article lies in the application of perceived value congruence
in health care teams. Although health care teams, particularly those of professionally
diverse composition, have been extensively studied over the last decade, themechanismsexplaining innovation in such teams remain underexplored, as do the factors influencing
these mechanisms (Zwarenstein & Reeves, 2000). Health care services are increasingly
structured around team activities as opposed to individual responsibilities (Meads,
Ashcroft, Barr, Scott, & Wild, 2005). In this new environment, clinical professions are
required to blur professional boundaries, decrease their historical territoriality, and focus
on shared values, such as patient-centred, interprofessional, and integrated care (Baldwin,
2007; Blount, 2000; Butt, Marke-Reid & Browne, 2008; Health Canada, 2004). In this
study, we took the initiative by exploring the contingent role of value congruence toprovide a clearer understanding how perceptions of deep-level congruity influence
innovation in a sample of professionally diverse teams.
The findings indicate that common group identity is a critical mechanism explaining
team innovation. When members perceive that the team shares values that are central to
their task, their perceptions of cooperation is enhanced and the importance of each
member’s contributions to the team’s goal is reinforced. This builds commitment and
develops a shared team identity,which stimulates collaborative interpersonal interactions
and constructive analysis of member’s diverse perspectives. Previous studies have linkedsocial identity to professions, and this has been argued as a critical source of
interprofessional conflict; however, the current study is one of the first to provide
confirmatory evidence supporting the valuable role of common identity in interprofes-
sional teams.
A key contribution of this study relates to the finding that professional salience
moderates the mediated relationship between value congruence and innovation. Our
results suggest that although value congruence and team identity provide a context that
motivates members to engage in information sharing and constructive evaluation, thiscontributes to team performance only whenmembers are strongly focused on profession
as a source of differentiation between each other. When professional salience is strong,
members are more likely to articulate, and attend to, the positions and perspectives of
their different professions, which enhance the impact of team identity in promoting
collaborative interaction and analysis. When professional salience is weak, the mediating
impact of team identity is not significant. This is in alignment with previous research,
which suggests that without a focus on knowledge differences, collective approaches
may increase the risk of conformity and premature consensus (Stasser & Titus, 2003;Turner, Pratkanis, Probasco, & Leve, 1992).
The finding that value congruence increases innovation under conditions of high
professional salience significantly enhances our understandingof the contingent natureof
the value congruence–innovation relationship. While value congruence provides a
context that encourages the development of team identification thereby enhancing
14 Rebecca Mitchell et al.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
knowledge sharing and constructive analysis, this strongly contributes to the generation
of new ideas when members are focused on profession as a salient characteristic. This
suggests that professional salience stimulates members’ awareness of the diverse
knowledge assets that stem from professional expertise and prompts the use of a broaderarray of perspectives which stimulates novel connections and ideas.
An important contribution of this research lies in its focus on innovation. While much
of the limited research into interprofessional teams has focused on quality, much less has
aimed to understanding the factors that influence whether teams are innovative, that is,
whether teams lead to new ideas and changes (Lansisalmi et al., 2006). Like many
industries, the health care sector is undergoing major changes, simultaneously dealing
with increases in multiple traumas and acuity (Lansisalmi et al., 2006), and important
structural changes (Ferlie, Fitzgerald, McGivern, Dopson, & Exworthy, 2010). Innovationin health care settings is a growing priority in recognition of both the dynamic health
policy and operational environment, and empirical research linking innovation to positive
organizational and patient outcomes (West et al., 2003).
The findings also have implications for future modelling of the impact of perceived fit
on group performance. Previous research has shown that value congruence is antecedent
to group cohesion and group attitudes to work-related tasks (Good & Nelson, 1971;
Kristof-Brown et al., 2005). This study builds on these previous findings by indicating an
additionalmediatingmechanism linking value congruence to innovation. It also suggests amoderating variable that may strengthen the link between cohesion and attitudes to
performance, particularly in tasks requiring innovation. In particular, while cohesion has
been found to potentially increase pressure to conform (Rovio, Eskola, Kozub, Duda, &
Lintunen, 2009), professional salience may act to minimize this risk of conformity by
drawing attention to job-related differences.
Practical contributions
Our findings have significant practical implications. For leaders of interprofessional
teams, the data reinforce the merit of utilizing some of the strategies shown to strengthen
perceptions of value congruence. For example, the development of a collective vision
through transformational leadership has been shown to enhance perception of shared
values (Kark, Shamir, & Chen, 2003). The data reinforce the merit of explicit emphasis on
shared notions of patient centredness and professionalism through interprofessional
education, which have been shown to enhance interprofessional collaboration (McNair,
2005; Reeves et al., 2008), and likely do so, in part, through the perception of commonvalues (Reeves, Goldman, &Oandasan, 2007). In addition, leaders tasked with innovation
are well advised to bring professional diversity to the attention of members and heighten
awareness of the associated knowledge differences, within an overarching framework of
shared values.
This study has a number of limitations. The sample size may have decreased the
likelihood that predicted relationships were identified, and this is compounded by our
investigation of moderating effects (Cohen, 1988). However, all our hypotheses were
supported and we utilized PLS-SEM, a method that has been demonstrated as robust tosmaller sample sizes (Ringle, Sarstedt, & Straub, 2012).
Our focus on interprofessional teams may limit the generalizability of the findings to
other forms of diversity. Writing on the sociology of the professions indicates that
concepts of identity may exist more intensely in interprofessional groups that with other
forms of job-related diversity (Abbott, 1988; Dingwall & Lewis, 1983). This recommends
Value congruence and team innovation 15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
future study across a number of bio-demographic and occupational domains and also
suggests the merit of investigating these relationships in more homogeneous groups. The
measurement of our independent constructs represents another limitation. The ICC(2)
results were low for some constructs, which may have resulted in undetected or weakerrelationships (Bliese, 1998, 2000). Thus, it may be possible that the moderating
relationships detectedwould have been higher if themean levels of team identification or
salience of profession had demonstrated greater variation across groups. This suggests
that future research would benefit from study of larger team sizes, which is likely to
generate higher ICC(2) values (Bliese, 1998), or from a wider range of organizations.
While there is significant evidence that our variable measures were valid, future research
could use more robust, extended scales to ensure stability in construct assessment.
While not a limitation, this study investigated perceived value congruence. Followingprevious research in this area, we chose to focus on perceptions of value congruence on
the basis that perceptions of differences and similarities have been found to be effective
predictors of attitude and behaviour (Jehn et al., 1999). In particular, perceptions of
attitudinal similarity, rather than actual similarity, are better predictors of both satisfaction
and performance (Turban & Jones, 1988). However, molar approaches, which focus on
perception of similarity, may reflect an effective response to the referent team rather than
an assessment of fit (Edwards, Cable, Williamson, Lambert, & Shipp, 2006). This suggests
that future research should utilize amethod of subjective and objective fit. In addition, ourmeasures focus on values relevant to the team’s task, rather than askingmembers to assess
their similarity on specified general values. While this allowed us to tap task-relevant
perceptions, it also limited our ability to identify any variance in perceived or actual
congruence across different value dimensions. This suggests that future research could
usefully investigate the impact of perceptions related to specified value, both general and
job related.
Despite these limitations, the findings reported here suggest that there is important
research potential in investigating the role of perceived value congruence in health careteams, particularly those of diverse composition. This study also indicates that our
understanding of the impact of value congruence is significantly enhanced through social
identity theory and reinforces the merit of investigating relationship contingencies.
References
Abbott, A. (1988). The system of professions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2006). Health and community services workforce
2006. Canberra: Author.
Aroian, L. A. (1947). The probability function of the product of two normally distributed variables.
Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 18, 265–271. 3
Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of
Management Review, 14, 20–39.
Baldwin, D. C., Jr. (2007). Territoriality and power in the health professions. Journal of
Interprofessional Care, 21, 97–107.
Barry, B., & Stewart, G. L. (1997). Composition, process, and performance in self-managed groups:
The role of personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 62–78.
Bartels, J., Pruyn, A., & de Jong, M. (2009). Employee identification before and after an internal
merger: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 82,
113–128.
Basset, T., & Bryson, T. (1989). A bridge to learning. Health Services Journal, 99, 1246–1247.
16 Rebecca Mitchell et al.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Becker, T. E., Billings, R. S., Eveleth, D. M., & Gilbert, R. L. (1996). Foci and bases for employee
commitment: Implications for jobperformance.AcademyofManagement Journal,39, 464–482.
Berntsen, K. J. (2006). Implementation of patient centeredness to enhancepatient safety. Journal of
Nursing Care Quality, 21, 15–19.
Blau, P. M. (1977). Inequality and heterogeneity: A primitive theory of social structure. NewYork:
Free Press.
Bliese, P. D. (1998). Group size, ICC values, and group-level correlations: A simulation.
Organizational Research Methods, 1, 355–373.
Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for
data aggregation and analysis. In K. J. Klein & S. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research,
and methods in organizations (pp. 349–381). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Blount, A. (2000). Integrated primary care: The future of medical and mental health
collaboration. London: Norton and Co.
Brown,M.,&Trevino, L. (2006). Socialized charismatic leadership, values congruence, anddeviance
in work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 954–962.
Butt, G.,Marke-Reid,M.,&Browne,G. (2008). Interprofessional partnerships in chronic illness care:
A conceptual model for measuring partnership effectiveness. International Journal of
Integrated Care, 8, 1–14.
Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm B2 – The attraction paradigm. New York, NY:
Academic Press.
Cable, D. M., & DeRue, D. S. (2002). The convergent and discriminant validity of subjective fit
perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 875–884.
Cable, D. M., & Edwards, J. R. (2004). Complementary and supplementary fit: A theoretical and
empirical integration. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 822–834.
Cable, D. M., & Judge, T. A. (1996). Person-organization fit, job choice decisions, and organizational
entry. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67, 294–311.
Carless, S. A. (2005). Person–job fit versus person–organization fit as predictors of organizational
attraction and job acceptance intentions: A longitudinal study. Journal of Occupational
and Organizational Psychology, 78, 411–429.
Carpenter, M. A., Geletkanycz, M. A., & Sanders, W. G. (2004). Upper echelons research revisited:
Antecedents, elements, and consequences of top management team composition. Journal of
Management, 30, 749–778.
Centre for the Advancement of Interprofessional Education. (2008). Creating an interprofessional
workforce. London: Author.
Chang, A., & Bordia, P. (2001). A multidimensional approach to the group cohesion–group
performance relationship. Small Group Research, 32, 379–405.
Chatman, J. A. (1989). Improving interactional organizational research: A model of person-
organization fit. Academy of Management Review, 14, 333–349.
Chatman, J. A. (1991). Matching people and organizations: Selection and socialization in public
accounting firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 459–484.
Chin, W. W. (1998). Issues and opinion on structural equation modeling.MIS Quarterly, 22, 7–14.
Chin, W. W., Marcolin, B. L., & Newsted, P. (2003). A partial least squares latent variable modeling
approach for measuring interaction effects: Results from a Monte Carlo simulation study and an
electronic mail emotion/adoption study. Information Systems Research, 14, 189–217.
Chou, L. F., Wang, A. C., Wang, T. Y., Huang, M. P., & Cheng, B. S. (2008). Shared work values and
team member effectiveness: The mediation of trustfulness and trustworthiness. Human
Relations, 61, 1713–1742.
Cohen,H. A. (1981).Thenurse’s quest for a professional identity.Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Cohen, D., McDaniel, R. R., Crabtree, B. I., Ruhe, M. C., Wever, S. M., Tallia, A., Miller, W. L., et al.
(2004). A practice change for quality improvement in primary health care. Journal of Health
Care Management, 49, 155–170. 4
Value congruence and team innovation 17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Coye, M. J., Haselkorn, A., & DeMello, S. (2009). Remote patient management: Technology-enabled
innovation and evolving business models for chronic disease care.Health Affairs, 28, 126–135.
Dawson, J. F. (2003). Do we have enough? The accuracy of incomplete data from small groups.
Academy of Management Best Paper Proceedings, ???, ???–???. 5
DeDreu, C., & West, M. (2001). Minority dissent and team innovation: The importance of
participation in decision-making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1191–1201.
Deshpande, R., &Zaltman,G. (1982). Factor affecting the useofmarket research information: Apath
analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 19, 14–31.
Dingwall, R., & Lewis, P. (Eds.). (1983). The sociology of the professions. London: Macmillan.
Dose, J., & Klimoski, R. (1999). The diversity of diversity: Work values effects on formative team
processes. Human Resource Development Review, 9, 83–108.
Dovidio, J., Gaertner, S. L., & Saguy, T. (2008). Another view of “we”: Majority and minority group
perspectives on a common ingroup identity. European Review of Social Psychology, 18, 296–330.
Edwards, J., & Cable, D. (2009). The value of value congruence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94,
654–677.
Edwards, J. R., Cable, D. M., Williamson, I. O., Lambert, L. S., & Shipp, A. J. (2006). The
phenomenology of fit: Linking the person and environment to the subjective experience of
person–environment fit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 802–827.
Elfenbein, H., & O’Reilly, C. (2007). Fitting in: The effects of relational demography and person-
culture fit on group processes and performance. Group and Organization Management, 32,
109–142.
Ellemers, N., Kortekaas, P., & Ouwerkerk, J. W. (1999). Self-categorisation, commitment to the
group and group self-esteem as related but distinct aspects of social identity. European Journal
of Social Psychology, 29, 371–389.
Fay, D., Borrill, C., Amir, Z., Haward, R., & West, M. A. (2006). Getting the most out of
multidisciplinary teams: A multi-sample study of team innovation in health care. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 79, 553–567.
Ferlie, E., Fitzgerald, L., McGivern, G., Dopson, S., & Exworthy, M. (2010).Networks in health care:
A comparative study of their management, impact and performance. London: National
Institute for Health Research Service Delivery and Organisation.
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117–140.
Fidell, L. S., & Tabachnick, B. G. (2003). Preparatory data analysis.Handbook of Psychology, 11, 5–
141.
Fitzgerald, L., Ferlie, E., &Hawkins, C. (2003). Innovation in healthcare:Howdoes credible evidence
influence professionals? Health & Social Care in the Community, 11, 219–228.
Fornell, C., & Bookstein, F. (1982). Two structural equations models: LISREL and PLS applied to
consumer exit-voice theory. Journal of Marketing Research, 19, 440–452.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39–50.
Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (2000). Reducing intergroup bias. The common ingroup identity
model. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
Gaertner, S. L., Mann, J., Murrell, A., & Dovidio, J. F. (1989). Reduction of intergroup bias: The
benefits of recategorization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 239–249.
Geibert, R. C. (2006). Using diffusion of innovation concepts to enhance implementation of an
electronic health record to support evidence-based practice. Nursing Administration
Quarterly, 30, 203–210.
George, J. (1990). Personality, affect, and behavior in groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75,
107–116.
Good, L. R., & Nelson, D. A. (1971). Effects of person-group and intragroup attitude similarity on
perceived group attractiveness and cohesiveness. Psychonomic Science, 25, 215–217.
Gruenfeld, D. H., Thomas-Hunt, M., & Kim, P. H. (1998). Divergent thinking, accountability, and
integrative complexity: Public versus private reactions to majority and minority status.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 34, ???–???. 6
18 Rebecca Mitchell et al.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Guzzo, R. A., &Dickson,M.W. (1996). Teams in organizations: Recent research onperformance and
effectiveness. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 307–338.
Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. The Journal of
Marketing Theory and Practice, 19, 139–152.
Hair, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Mena, J. A. (2011). An assessment of the use of partial least
squares structural equation modeling in marketing research. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, ???, 1–20. doi:10.1007/s11747-011-0261-6 7
Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., Gavin, J. H., & Florey, A. T. (2002). Time, teams, and task performance:
Changing effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on group functioning. Academy of
Management Journal, 45, 15–1029.
Health Canada. (2004). Interprofessional education for collaborative patient-centred practice: An
evolving framework. Retrieved from http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hcs-sss/hhr-rhs/strateg/interprof/
summ-somm-eng.php
Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M., & Sinkovics, R. R. (2009). The use of partial least squares pathmodeling in
international marketing. Advances in International Marketing, 20, 277–319.
Hobman, E. V., & Bordia, P. (2006). The role of team identification in the dissimilarity-conflict
relationship. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 9, 483–508.
Hoffman, B., & Woehr, D. (2006). A quantitative review of the relationship between person-
organization fit and behavioral outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, 389–399.
Homan, A. C., Hollenbeck, J. R., Humphrey, S. E., Van Knippenberg, D., Ilgen, D. R., & Van Kleef,
G. A. (2008). Facing differences with an open mind: Openness to experience, salience of
intragroup differences, and performance of diverse work groups. Academy of Management
Journal, 51, 1204–1222.
Hudson, B. (2002). Interprofessionality in health and social care: The Achilles’ heel of partnership?
Journal of Interprofessional Care, 16, 6–17.
James, L. R. (1982). Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreement. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 67, 219–229.
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater reliability with
and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 85–98.
Jehn,K.,Northcraft,G.B.,&Neale,M.(1999).Whydifferencesmakeadifference:Afieldstudyofdiversity,
conflict and performance inwork groups.Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 741–763.
Judge, T. A., & Cable, D. M. (1997). Applicant personality, organizational culture, and organization
attraction. Personnel Psychology, 50, 359–394.
Jung,D., &Avolio, B. (2000).Opening the black box: An experimental investigation of themediating
effects of trust and value congruence on transformational and transactional leadership. Journal
of Organizational Behavior, 21, 949.
Kane, A., Argote, L., & Levine, J. (2005). Knowledge transfer between groups via personnel rotation:
Effects of social identity and knowledge quality. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 96, 56–71.
Kark, R., Shamir, B.,&Chen,G. (2003). The two faces of transformational leadership: Empowerment
and dependency. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 246–255.
Kilduff, M., Angelmar, R., & Mehra, A. (2000). Top management team diversity and firm
performance: Examining the role of cognitions. Organization Science, 11, 21–34.
Klein, K. J., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2000). Frommicro to meso: Critical steps in conceptualizing and
conducting multilevel research. Organizational Research Methods, 3, 211–236.
Kozlowski, S., & Bell, B. S. (2003). Work groups and teams in organizations. In W. C. Borman, D. R.
Ilgen & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational
psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 333–375). London: Wiley.
Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualizations,
measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49, 1–49.
Kristof-Brown, A., Barrick, M. R., & Kay Stevens, C. (2005). When opposites attract: A multi-sample
demonstration of complementary person-team fit on extraversion. Journal of Personality, 73,
935–958.
Value congruence and team innovation 19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005). Consequences of individuals’ fit at
work: A meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, person-group, and person-supervisor
fit. Personnel Psychology, 58, 281–342.
Lansisalmi, H., Kivimaki, M., Aalto, P., & Ruoranen, R. (2006). Innovation in healthcare: A systematic
review of recent research. Nursing Science Quarterly, 19, 66–72.
Lawler, E. E. I., Mohrman, S. A., & Ledford, G. E. J. (1995). Creating high performance
organizations: Employee involvement and total quality management. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Lewin, S. A., Skea, Z. C., Entwistle, V., Zwarenstein, M., &Dick, J. (2001). Interventions for providers
to promote a patient-centred approach to clinical consultations. Cochrane Database of
Systematic Reviews (online), 4, ???–???. 8
Liao, H., Chuang, A., & Joshi, A. (2008). Perceived deep-level dissimilarity: Personality antecedents
and impact on overall job attitude, helping, work withdrawal, and turnover. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 106, 106–124.
Lingard, L., Reznick, R., DeVito, I., & Espin, S. (2002). Forming professional identities on the health
care team:Discursive constructions of the ‘other’ in the operating room.Medical Education,36,
728–734.
Lott, A. J., & Lott, B. E. (1961). Group cohesiveness, communication level, and conformity. Journal
of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62, 408–412.
Loutzenhiser, L., & Hadjistavropoulos, H. (2008). Enhancing interprofessional patient-centered
practice for children with autism spectrum disorders: A pilot project with pre-licensure health
students. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 22, 429–431.
Mackie, D., & Goathals, G. (1987). Individual and group goals: Group processes. In C. Hendrick
(Ed.), Group processes: Review of personality and social psychology (Vol. 8, pp. 144–166).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., &Williams, J. (2004). Confidence limits for the indirect effect:
Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39,
99–128.
Maltz, E., & Kohli, A. (1996). Market intelligence dissemination across functional boundaries.
Journal of Marketing Research, 33, 47–61.
Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of
team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26, 356–376.
McNair, R. P. (2005). The case for educating health care students in professionalism as the core
content of interprofessional education. Medical Education, 39, 456–464.
Meads, G., Ashcroft, J., Barr, H., Scott, R., & Wild, A. (2005). The case for interprofessional
collaboration in health and social care. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Miller, C. C., Burke, L. M., & Glick, W. H. (1998). Cognitive diversity among upper-echelon
executives: Implications for strategic decision processes. Strategic Management Journal, 19,
39.
Mitchell, R. J., Parker, V., & Giles, M. (2011). When do interprofessional teams succeed?
Investigating the moderating roles of team and professional identity in interprofessional
effectiveness. Human Relations, 64, 1321–1343.
Mitchell, R., Parker, V., & Giles, M. (2012). Open-mindedness in diverse team performance:
Investigating a three-way interaction. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, ???, 1–21. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2012.654807.
doi:10.1080/09585192.2012.654807 9
Muchinsky, P. M., & Monahan, C. J. (1987). What is person–environment congruence?
Supplementary versus complementary models of fit. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 31,
268–277.
Nemeth, C. J. (1986). The differential contributions of majority and minority influence.
Psychological Review, 93, ???–???. 10
Nemeth, C. J., Connell, J., Rogers, J., & Brown, K. (2001). Improving decision making by means of
dissent. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 48–58.
20 Rebecca Mitchell et al.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Nemeth, C. J., &Nemeth-Brown, B. (2003). Better than individuals? The potential benefits of dissent
and diversity for group creativity. In P. B. Paulus (Ed.), Group creativity: Innovation through
collaboration (pp. 63–84). London: Oxford University Press.
O’Reilly, C. A., Caldwell, D. F., & Barnett,W. P. (1989).Work group demography, social integration,
and turnover. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34, 21–37.
Pelled, L. H., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Xin, K. R. (1999a). Exploring the black box: An analysis of work
group diversity, conflict and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 1–27. 11
Pelled, L. H., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Xin, K. R. (1999b). Exploring the black box: An analysis of work
group diversity, conflict, and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 1–28.
Phillips, K. (2003). The effects of categorically based expectations on minority influence: The
importance of congruence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 3–13.
Piasentin, K. A., &Chapman, D. S. (2007). Perceived similarity and complementarity as predictors of
subjective person organization fit. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,
80, 341–354.
Pickett, C. L., Bonner, B. L., & Coleman, J. M. (2002). Motivated self-stereotyping: Heightened
assimilation and differentiation needs result in increased levels of positive and negative self-
stereotyping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 543–562.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in
behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.
Posner, B. Z., & Schmidt, W. H. (1993). Values congruence and differences between the interplay of
personal and organizational value systems. Journal of Business Ethics, 12, 341–347.
Postrel, S. (2002). Islands of shared knowledge: Specialization and mutual understanding in
problem-solving teams. Organization Science, 13, 303–320.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and
comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879–
891.
Preacher, K., Rucker, D., & Hayes, A. (2007). Addressing moderatedmediation hypotheses: Theory,
methods and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42, 185–227.
Randel, A. E. (2002). Identity salience: A moderator of the relationship between group gender
composition and work group conflict. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 749–766.
Reeves, S., Goldman, P., & Oandasan, I. (2007). Key factors in planning and implementing
interprofessional education in health care settings. Journal of Allied Health, 36, 231–235.
Reeves, S., Zwarenestein, R., Goldman, J., Barr, H., Freeth, D., Hammick, M., et al. (2008).
Interprofessional education: Effects on professional practice and health care outcomes.
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 23, ???–???. 12
Reinartz, W., Haenlein, M., & Henseler, J. (2009). An empirical comparison of the efficacy of
covariance-based and variance-based SEM. International Journal of Research inMarketing,26,
332–344.
Resick, C. J., Baltes, B. B., & Shantz, C. W. (2007). Person-organization fit and work-related attitudes
and decisions: Examining interactive effects with job fit and conscientiousness. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 92, 1446–1455.
Richter, A. W., West, M., Van Dick, R., & Dawson, J. F. (2006). Boundary spanners’ identification,
intergroup contact, and effective intergroup relations. Academy of Management Journal, 49,
1252–1269.
Ringle, C., Sarstedt, M., & Straub, D. (2012). A critical look at the use of PLS-SEM inMIS quarterly.MIS
Quarterly, 36, ???–???. 13
Ringle, C.,Wende, S., &Will, A. (2005). SmartPLS version 2.0M2. Hamburg, Germany: Institute for
Operations Management and Organization at the University of Hamburg.
Riordan, C. M. (2000). Relational demography within groups: Past developments, contradictions,
and newdirections.Research in Personnel andHumanResourcesManagement, 19, 131–174.
Rovio, E., Eskola, J., Kozub, S. A., Duda, J. L., & Lintunen, T. (2009). Can high group cohesion be
harmful? Small Group Research, 40, 421–435.
Value congruence and team innovation 21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Saks, A. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (1997). A longitudinal investigation of the relationships between job
information sources, applicant perceptions of fit, and work outcomes. Personnel Psychology,
50, 395–426.
Schaefer, H. G., Helmreich, R. L., & Scheideggar, D. (1994). Human factors and safety in emergency
medicine. Resuscitation, 28, 221–225.
Schaubroeck, J., Lam, S., & Cha, S. (2007). Embracing transformational leadership: Team values and
the impact of leader behavior on team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1020–
1030.
Schein, E. H. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership: A dynamic view (2nd ed.). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Shin, Y. (2004). A person–environment fitmodel for virtual organizations. Journal ofManagement,
30, 725–743.
Sleebos, E., Ellemers, N., & de Gilder, D. (2006). The paradox of the disrespected: Disrespected
group members’ engagement in group-serving efforts. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 42, 413–427.
Sosik, J., Kahai, S., & Piovoso, M. (2009). Silver bullet or voodoo statistics? A primer for using the
partial least squares data analytic technique in group and organization research. Group and
Organization Management, 34, 5–36.
Squillacciotti, S. (2010). Prediction oriented classification in PLS path modeling. Handbook of
Partial Least Squares, 21, 9–233.
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, 1239–1251.
Stasser, G., & Titus, W. (2003). Hidden profiles: A brief history. In ??? ???? (Eds.), Psychological
inquiry (Vol. 14, pp. 304–313). ?????: Lawrence Erlbaum. 14
Stevens, J. (1992). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (2001). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In M. A. Hogg & D.
Abrams (Eds.), Intergroup relations: Essential readings (pp. 94–109). ?????: Psychology Press. 15
Talaulicar, T., Grundei, J., &Werder, A. V. (2005). Strategic decision making in start-ups: The effect
of topmanagement teamorganization and processes on speed and comprehensiveness. Journal
of Business Venturing, 20, 519–541.
Thompson, B. (1997). The importance of structure coefficients in structural equation modeling
confirmatory factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 57, 5–19.
Timmermans, S. (2002). The cause of death vs. the gift of life: Boundarymaintenance and the politics
of expertise in death investigation. Sociology of Health and Illness, 24, 550–574.
Tjosvold, D., & Sun, H. (2003). Openness among Chinese in conflict: Effects of direct discussion and
warmth on integrative decision making. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 1878–1897.
Tsui, A. S., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1989). Beyond simple demographic effects: The importance of
relational demography in superior-subordinate dyads. Academy of Management Journal, 32,
402–423.
Turban, D. B., & Jones, A. P. (1988). Supervisor-subordinate similarities: Types, effects, and
mechanisms. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 228–234.
Turner, J. C. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: Self-categorization theory. Oxford, UK: Basil
Blackwell.
Turner, M., Pratkanis, A., Probasco, P., & Leve, C. (1992). Threat, cohesion, and group effectiveness:
Testing a social identity maintenance perspective on groupthink. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 63, 781–796.
Tushman, M. L., & Nadler, D. A. (1978). Information processing as an integrating concept in
organizational design. Academy of Management Review, 3, 613–624.
Tyler, T. R.,&Blader, S. L. (2001). Identity and cooperative behavior in groups.GroupProcesses and
Intergroup Relations, 4, 207–226.
22 Rebecca Mitchell et al.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Van Der Vegt, G. S., & Bunderson, J. (2005). Learning and performance in multidisciplinary teams:
The importance of collective team identification. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 532–
547.
van Dick, R., van Knippenberg, D., Hagele, S., Guillaume, Y. R. F., & Brodbeck, F. C. (2008). Group
diversity and group identification: The moderating role of diversity beliefs. Human Relations,
61, 1463–1492.
Van Dyne, L., & Saavedra, R. (1996). A naturalistic minority influence experiment: Effects on
divergent thinking, conflict, and originality in work groups. British Journal of Social
Psychology, 35, 151–167.
van Knippenberg, D. (1999). Social identity and persuasion: Reconsidering the role of group
membership. In D. Abrams&M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Social identity and social cognition B2 – Social
identity and social cognition (pp. 315–331). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Sci.
van Knippenberg, D., van Knippenberg, B., Monden, L., & de Lima, F. (2002). Organizational
identification after amerger: A social identity perspective.British Journal of Social Psychology,
41, 233.
Walker, A. G., Smither, J. W., &Waldman, D. A. (2008). A longitudinal examination of concomitant
changes in team leadership and customer satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 61, 547–577.
Wang, Z., Chen, Y.-F., Tjosvold, D., & Shi, K. (2010). Cooperative goals and team agreeableness
composition for constructive controversy in China. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 27,
139–153.
Wang, H., Law, K., Hackett, R., Wang, D., & Chen, Z. X. (2005). Leader-member exchange as a
mediator of the relationship between transformational leadership and followers’ performance
and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 420–432.
West, M. A., & Anderson, N. R. (1996). Innovation in to management teams. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 81, 680–693.
West,M. A., Borrill, C. S., Dawson, J. F., Brodbeck, F., Shapiro, D. A.,&Haward, B. (2003). Leadership
clarity and team innovation in health care. Leadership Quarterly, 14, 393.
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). London: JAI Press Inc.
Williams, H., Parker, S., & Turner, N. (2007). Perceived dissimilarity and perspective taking within
work teams. Group and Organization Management, 32, 569–597.
Younghusband, E. (1959). Report of the working party on social workers in the local authority,
health and welfare services. London: HMSO.
Zwarenstein, M., & Reeves, S. (2000). What’s so great about collaboration? We needmore evidence
and less rhetoric. British Medical Journal, 320, 1022–1023.
Received 17 October 2011
Value congruence and team innovation 23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Author Query Form
Journal: JOOPArticle: 2059
Dear Author,
During the copy-editing of your paper, the following queries arose. Please respond to
these bymarking up your proofs with the necessary changes/additions. Please write your
answers on the query sheet if there is insufficient space on the page proofs. Please write
clearly and follow the conventions shown on the attached corrections sheet. If returning
the proof by fax do not write too close to the paper’s edge. Please remember that illegiblemark-ups may delay publication.
Many thanks for your assistance.
Query reference Query Remarks
1 AUTHOR: Please provide the city and countrydetails for all the author affiliations.
2 AUTHOR: Please provide complete addressdetails for the corresponding author.
3 AUTHOR: Please provide the ‘doi’ for all thejournal type references.
4 AUTHOR: It is the Journal style to list allauthor names if there are seven authors. Ifthere are more than seven authors, thejournal style is to list the names of the firstsix authors followed by three dots (…) andthen to include the last author name. Pleaseamend the author names in theReference listaccordingly.
5 AUTHOR: Please provide the volume num-ber, page range for referenceDawson (2003).
6 AUTHOR: Please provide the page range forreference Gruenfeld et al. (1998).
7 AUTHOR: Please provide the volume numberfor reference Hair et al. (2011).
8 AUTHOR: Please provide the page range forreference Lewin et al. (2001).
9 AUTHOR: Please provide the volume numberfor reference Mitchell et al. (2012).
10 AUTHOR: Please provide the page range forreference Nemeth (1986).
11 AUTHOR: References Pelled et al. (1999a)and (1999b) seems to be duplicate exceptfor the page range. Please check and correct.
12 AUTHOR: Please provide the page range forreference Reeves et al. (2008).
13 AUTHOR: Please provide the page range forreference Ringle et al. (2012).
14 AUTHOR: Please provide the editor names,publisher location for reference Stasser andTitus (2003).
15 AUTHOR: Please provide the publisher loca-tion for reference Tajfel and Turner (2001).
O n c e y o u h a v e A c r o b a t R e a d e r o p e n o n y o u r c o m p u t e r , c l i c k o n t h e C o m m e n t t a b a t t h e r i g h t o f t h e t o o l b a r :
S t r i k e s a l i n e t h r o u g h t e x t a n d o p e n s u p a t e x tb o x w h e r e r e p l a c e m e n t t e x t c a n b e e n t e r e d .‚ H i g h l i g h t a w o r d o r s e n t e n c e .‚ C l i c k o n t h e R e p l a c e ( I n s ) i c o n i n t h e A n n o t a t i o n ss e c t i o n .‚ T y p e t h e r e p l a c e m e n t t e x t i n t o t h e b l u e b o x t h a ta p p e a r s .
T h i s w i l l o p e n u p a p a n e l d o w n t h e r i g h t s i d e o f t h e d o c u m e n t . T h e m a j o r i t y o ft o o l s y o u w i l l u s e f o r a n n o t a t i n g y o u r p r o o f w i l l b e i n t h e A n n o t a t i o n s s e c t i o n ,p i c t u r e d o p p o s i t e . W e ’ v e p i c k e d o u t s o m e o f t h e s e t o o l s b e l o w :S t r i k e s a r e d l i n e t h r o u g h t e x t t h a t i s t o b ed e l e t e d .
‚ H i g h l i g h t a w o r d o r s e n t e n c e .‚ C l i c k o n t h e S t r i k e t h r o u g h ( D e l ) i c o n i n t h eA n n o t a t i o n s s e c t i o n .
H i g h l i g h t s t e x t i n y e l l o w a n d o p e n s u p a t e x tb o x w h e r e c o m m e n t s c a n b e e n t e r e d .‚ H i g h l i g h t t h e r e l e v a n t s e c t i o n o f t e x t .‚ C l i c k o n t h e A d d n o t e t o t e x t i c o n i n t h eA n n o t a t i o n s s e c t i o n .‚ T y p e i n s t r u c t i o n o n w h a t s h o u l d b e c h a n g e dr e g a r d i n g t h e t e x t i n t o t h e y e l l o w b o x t h a ta p p e a r s .
M a r k s a p o i n t i n t h e p r o o f w h e r e a c o m m e n tn e e d s t o b e h i g h l i g h t e d .‚ C l i c k o n t h e A d d s t i c k y n o t e i c o n i n t h eA n n o t a t i o n s s e c t i o n .‚ C l i c k a t t h e p o i n t i n t h e p r o o f w h e r e t h e c o m m e n ts h o u l d b e i n s e r t e d .‚ T y p e t h e c o m m e n t i n t o t h e y e l l o w b o x t h a ta p p e a r s .
I n s e r t s a n i c o n l i n k i n g t o t h e a t t a c h e d f i l e i n t h ea p p r o p r i a t e p a c e i n t h e t e x t .‚ C l i c k o n t h e A t t a c h F i l e i c o n i n t h e A n n o t a t i o n ss e c t i o n .‚ C l i c k o n t h e p r o o f t o w h e r e y o u ’ d l i k e t h e a t t a c h e df i l e t o b e l i n k e d .‚ S e l e c t t h e f i l e t o b e a t t a c h e d f r o m y o u r c o m p u t e ro r n e t w o r k .‚ S e l e c t t h e c o l o u r a n d t y p e o f i c o n t h a t w i l l a p p e a ri n t h e p r o o f . C l i c k O K .
I n s e r t s a s e l e c t e d s t a m p o n t o a n a p p r o p r i a t ep l a c e i n t h e p r o o f .‚ C l i c k o n t h e A d d s t a m p i c o n i n t h e A n n o t a t i o n ss e c t i o n .‚ S e l e c t t h e s t a m p y o u w a n t t o u s e . ( T h e A p p r o v e ds t a m p i s u s u a l l y a v a i l a b l e d i r e c t l y i n t h e m e n u t h a ta p p e a r s ) .‚ C l i c k o n t h e p r o o f w h e r e y o u ’ d l i k e t h e s t a m p t oa p p e a r . ( W h e r e a p r o o f i s t o b e a p p r o v e d a s i t i s ,t h i s w o u l d n o r m a l l y b e o n t h e f i r s t p a g e ) .
A l l o w s s h a p e s , l i n e s a n d f r e e f o r m a n n o t a t i o n s t o b e d r a w n o n p r o o f s a n d f o rc o m m e n t t o b e m a d e o n t h e s e m a r k s . .‚ C l i c k o n o n e o f t h e s h a p e s i n t h e D r a w i n gM a r k u p s s e c t i o n .‚ C l i c k o n t h e p r o o f a t t h e r e l e v a n t p o i n t a n dd r a w t h e s e l e c t e d s h a p e w i t h t h e c u r s o r .‚
T o a d d a c o m m e n t t o t h e d r a w n s h a p e ,m o v e t h e c u r s o r o v e r t h e s h a p e u n t i l a na r r o w h e a d a p p e a r s .‚
D o u b l e c l i c k o n t h e s h a p e a n d t y p e a n yt e x t i n t h e r e d b o x t h a t a p p e a r s .
