organizational behavior

Antecedents of Team Creativity: AnExamination of Team EmotionalIntelligence, Team Trust andCollaborative Culturecaim_574 332..345

Gloria Barczak, Felicia Lassk and Jay Mulki

Teams represent a dominant approach to getting work done in a business environment.Creativity enables teams to solve problems and leverage opportunities through the integrationof divergent thoughts and perspectives. Prior research indicates that a collaborative culture,which affects how team members interact and work together, is a critical antecedent of teamcreativity. This study explores other antecedents of team creativity, namely, team emotionalintelligence and team trust, and investigates the relationships among these precursors tocreative effort. Using a survey of 82 student teams at a large university in the northeast UnitedStates, our findings suggest that team emotional intelligence promotes team trust. Trust, inturn, fosters a collaborative culture which enhances the creativity of the team. Cognitive trustalso moderates the relationship between collaborative culture and team creativity. Implica-tions of these results for managers and academics are discussed.

Introduction

In today’s business environment, much workis interdependent and so teams are a domi-

nant means to getting work done. Researchshows that firms value the ability of individu-als to work together (Kichuk & Wiesner, 1997).As well, in many organizations, creativecapital is considered its greatest asset (Florida& Goodnight, 2005). In fact, some argue thatthe future success of many businesses relies ontheir ability to tap into the creative potential oftheir teams (Florida & Goodnight, 2005; Regoet al., 2007). For this article, we use Chen’s(2007) definition of teams as a group of indi-viduals where ‘talent, energy and skills areintegrated into a team, and this collectivecapacity to innovate becomes greater than thesum of individual contributions’ (p. 239).

So, how does an organization enhance thecreativity of its teams? Prior research indicatesthat the quality of collaboration has a positiveimpact on creativity and team performance(Hoegl & Gemuenden, 2001; DeCusatis, 2008).Similarly, emotional intelligence has beentouted as essential to the performance of ateam (Druskat & Wolff, 2001a; Goleman,

Boyatzis & McKee, 2002; Rego et al., 2007).Both individual and team emotional intelli-gence enhances a team’s ability to communi-cate with one another, to be receptive todiverging opinions and to utilize emotion toimprove team decision making. Additionally,interpersonal (team) trust is one of the impor-tant elements for teamwork and is based bothon emotional bonds and perceived competen-cies of individual members. In fact, Rigby,Gruver and Allen (2009) studied teamwork inthe most innovative firms in the United Statesand identified trust as one of the seven impor-tant characteristics that fosters successful part-nership among diverse members of a team.When members trust each other it makes themfeel less vulnerable, thus facilitating channel-ling energy on creating and discovering ratherthan defending (Gibb, 1978). Researchers statethat in the current organizational environmentof declining power of reciprocal obligationsand hierarchical controls, trust is key toholding employees together as a cohesive unit(Kasper-Fuehrer & Ashkanasy, 2001; Bijlsma &Koopman, 2003).

The purpose of this study is to explorethe relationship between team emotional

332 CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION MANAGEMENT

Volume 19 Number 4 2010doi:10.1111/j.1467-8691.2010.00574.x

© 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

intelligence, team trust and their impact on theteam’s collaborative culture and creativity (seeFigure 1). From a practical perspective, wefocus on understanding the effect, if any, ofteam emotional intelligence on team trust andthe impact of team trust on the team’s collabo-rative culture and creativity. In addition, westudy the impact of trust in enhancing the rela-tionship between collaborative culture and thecreativity of teams. Collaborative culture isa team’s shared values and beliefs aboutthe organizations’ support for adaptability,open communication, and encouragement ofrespect, teamwork, risk taking and diversity(Lopez, Peon & Ordas, 2004). Team creativityrefers to teams producing novel ideas andsolutions to maintain the firm’s competitiveedge (Amabile, 1997).

The contributions of this research are three-fold. First, this study includes team emotionalintelligence as a critical team characteristic.Although recent literature suggests that emo-tional intelligence is essential to team effec-tiveness (Druskat & Wolff, 2001a; Goleman,Boyatzis & McKee, 2002), empirical researchon team emotional intelligence is scant (forexceptions, see Druskat & Wolff, 2001a;Goleman, Boyatzis & McKee, 2002; Jordan &Troth, 2004). Second, this research representsthe first empirical study of the relationshipbetween emotional intelligence and trust in ateam context. Finally, this study goes beyondexisting research by investigating the relation-

ships among team emotional intelligence,team trust and a collaborative culture as pre-cursors to creativity. Because team trust and acollaborative culture can be influenced bymanagers, the findings of this study shouldprovide useful recommendations for enhanc-ing trust among team members, creating acollaborative culture, and ultimately, teamcreativity.

Theoretical Frameworkand Hypotheses

Team Emotional Intelligence

Ashforth and Humphrey (1995) argue thatemotion is inseparable from an organization’sinternal work environment, thereby makingthe application of emotional intelligence tothe work setting particularly compelling(Goleman, 1995). Many emotions grow out ofsocial interactions (Kemper, 1978); thus,emotion is a pervasive influence in teams andis fundamental to how team members interactand work together (Druskat & Wolff, 2001b).Team emotional intelligence is the ‘ability of agroup to develop a set of norms that manageemotional processes’ (Druskat & Wolff, 2001b,p. 133). These norms facilitate team membercollaboration and cohesiveness, behavioursessential to team effectiveness (Druskat &Wolff, 2001b). Jordan and Lawrence (2009)

Figure 1. Proposed Model

ANTECEDENTS OF TEAM CREATIVITY 333

Volume 19 Number 4 2010© 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

describe team emotional intelligence as com-posed of four dimensions: ‘awareness of ownemotions, awareness of other’s emotions, man-agement of own emotions and management ofother’s emotions’ (p. 454). Team emotionalintelligence has been shown to lead to strongerrelationships with co-workers (Jordan & Troth,2004), better information exchange and deci-sion making (Pelled, Eisenhardt & Xin, 1999),and decreased team conflict (Jehn & Mannix,2001; Jordan & Troth, 2004).

Team Trust

Consistent with other researchers, Rousseauet al. (1998) propose that trust is a psychologi-cal state comprising the intention to acceptvulnerability based upon positive expectationsof the intentions or behaviour of another. Inother words, trust is an expectation that otherswill behave as expected and not be opportu-nistic (Jarvenpaa, Knoll & Leidner, 1998).

McAllister (1995) states that ‘ “availableknowledge” and “good reasons” serve asfoundations for trust decisions, the platformfrom which people make leaps of faith’ (p. 26).Thus, the decision to trust reflects two dimen-sions, affect-based and cognitive, prevalent inthe literature and supported by ample empiri-cal evidence in organizational research (Jef-fries & Reed, 2000). Researchers generally haveadopted McAllister’s (1995) definition of inter-personal trust to define trust among teammembers. For example, in their study of trustin virtual teams, Kanawattanachai and Yoo(2002) define trust among team members as‘the extent to which a person is confident in,and willing to act on the basis of, the words,actions, and decisions of another’ (p. 43).

In line with this, our study explores twokinds of interpersonal trust important in teamdynamics: affective and cognitive trust. Affec-tive trust is the confidence one places in a teammember based on one’s feelings of caring andconcern illustrated by that co-worker (McAl-lister, 1995). Cognitive trust is based on one’swillingness to rely on a team member’s exper-tise and reliability (McAllister, 1995; Johnson& Grayson, 2005).

In social units, such as work teams, bothaffective and cognitive trust increase theability of team members to work together.Working together implies greater co-operationand information sharing which are expected inturn, to lead to higher team performance(Larson & LaFasto, 1989). According to Whit-ener et al. (1998) teams require more trust(than individuals) because of the high degreeof interdependence required to complete theirtasks.

In a team that is made up of members withdifferent goals and perspectives, the potentialfor misunderstanding, conflict and miscom-munication is great. Emotionally intelligentteams are more likely to overcome thesepotential problems due to their strong normsand ability to be aware of and manage emo-tions (Druskat & Wolff, 2001b; Jordan &Lawrence, 2009). For example, a team that sup-ports the norm of interpersonal understandingknows when a team member is having aproblem. While members continue to respectand appreciate that individual’s expertise, bytrusting one another, s/he can rely on col-leagues to help and understand when needed.In sum, trust is created in emotionally intelli-gent teams as stated in the following hypoth-esis (Druskat & Wolff, 2001b; Williams, 2007).

H1: Team emotional intelligence is positivelyrelated to (a) affective and (b) cognitive teamtrust.

Collaborative Culture

Schein (2004) defines an organizational cultureas employees’ shared assumptions and beliefsabout the organization and its environment.Lopez, Peon and Ordas (2004) define acollaborative culture as one that values team-work, communication, respect and empower-ment, and leverages the knowledge ofindividuals resulting in organizational learn-ing. In a collaborative culture, team membersare encouraged to embrace change, offer dif-fering viewpoints, and discuss problemsopenly leading to constructive collaborationand consensus. Team members are guided bya common objective and work together effec-tively by sharing knowledge and learningfrom one another. A collaborative cultureencourages total involvement of teammembers because of the mutual respect, careand support of each other (Bstieler &Hemmert, 2010).

It would seem that emotionally intelligentteams are better able to create a collaborativeculture. This is because teamwork dependson employees’ abilities to understand eachother’s emotions, as well as the ability to regu-late their own emotions to fit the task and situ-ation. Research shows that team members’emotions shape their attitudes and behaviourswhich in turn impact unit and organizationalperformance (Avey, Wernsing & Luthans,2008). Team members’ ability to identify andchoose the best course of action is strongerwhen they are aware of their own and others’emotions and have the ability to control andchannel the emotions appropriately (Rozell,Pettijohn & Parker, 2004).



Teams with higher levels of emotionalintelligence are better able to inspire supportand confidence in fellow team members. This,in turn, helps to create a collaborative workenvironment free of negative criticism, ridi-cule or fear, leading to better communicationand reduced conflict (Rego et al., 2007). Thoseteams with higher levels of emotional intelli-gence have the ability to monitor and regu-late their emotions, and their sensitivity toothers’ emotions helps not only in motivatingthemselves but also in building rapport withothers (Dulewicz & Higgs, 2000). In addition,managing emotions enables teams to handleconflicts without compromising commonteam objectives and focus. They are morelikely to be tolerant of divergent viewpointsthereby preventing discord from becoming apotential road block in their progress towardsa common goal leading to a more collabora-tive environment (Suliman & Al-Shaikh,2007). Thus, we propose the followinghypothesis.

H2: Team emotional intelligence is positivelyassociated with a team’s collaborative culture.

Team Trust and Collaborative Culture

High levels of trust allow teams to functionsmoothly and achieve objectives (Wicks,Berman & Jones, 1999); it holds interdepen-dent relationships together; and it helps tofacilitate collaboration (Calton & Lad, 1995;Hosmer, 1995). Mutual trust increases themotivation to devote resources to shared goals(Dirks & Ferrin, 2001).

It has been proposed that to generate andshare knowledge team members must trustthe other team members with whom they areworking (Adler, 2001). For example, membersneed to be able to trust that other teammembers will do their work effectively andefficiently. If this trust does not exist, it canimpede the work of individual members aswell as the work of the project itself. Withouttrust, political behaviour can emerge in theteam, pitting individuals with different per-spectives against each other which can lead toattempts to sabotage or undermine the effortsof other team members. In sum, trust is a criti-cal ingredient in collaborative relations (Adler,2001).

With a trusting environment, there is anacknowledgement of connectedness withco-workers, team spirit and work teamco-operation (Strutton, Pelton & Lumpkin,1993). Teams that illustrate team trust arelikely to be more tolerant and accepting ofdivergent ideas and viewpoints. A teammember who feels that his/her viewpoint is

being heard is more likely to trust teammembers (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; McAllister,1995). Thus, teams who trust one another aremore likely to have members who work closelywith each other and engage in meaningfulgive-and-take around problems and issues,elements that are critical to creating effectiveoutcomes. Trust acts as a facilitator and pro-motes interpersonal relationships promptingpeople to seek and give help leading to a morecollaborative culture (Russ et al., 1998; Abramset al., 2003; Middel, Boer & Fisscher, 2006).Thus, trust is a critical ingredient in develop-ing collaborative relationships betweenmembers of teams (Hattori & Lapidus, 2004).Supporting the third hypothesis, Evans andWolf (2005) state that when employees trusteach other, they create a collaborative cultureand thus are more likely to collaboratetogether in a productive manner.

H3: Team trust (affective and cognitive) is posi-tively associated with a team’s collaborativeculture.

Team Trust, Collaborative Culture andTeam Creativity

Creative teams are valued in organizationsas they produce novel ideas and solutionsto maintain the firm’s competitive edge.However, team ideas are not considered cre-ative just because they are new or novel; theyneed to have potential use for the firm (Regoet al., 2007). Researchers recognize that peopleare the primary source of creative ideas infirms. Amabile (1998) stated that creativity isdependent upon organizational conditionssuch as freedom of ideas, features of the team,supervisory support and encouragement.Research indicates that when team membershave high levels of interpersonal communica-tion, support, and clarity of purpose, teammembers tend to be very creative and innova-tive (Jaskyte, 2008).

Creative teams are known for their ability toidentify and exploit unique opportunities byusing imaginative strategies to procure andorchestrate resources across functional groups(Chen, 2007). Both team trust and a collabora-tive culture enable better communication,information sharing, focus and greaterco-operation (Larson & LaFasto, 1989; Strut-ton, Pelton & Lumpkin, 1993; Calton & Lad,1995; Littler, Leverick & Bruce, 1995; Whiteneret al., 1998), thereby leading to greater creativeefforts. In addition, collaboration itself hasbeen found to lead to creative outcomes(DeCusatis, 2008). However, recent researchhas found that repeated collaboration maynegatively affect a team’s creativity (Skilton &



Dooley, 2010). Despite this recent finding, weargue that team members with higher levels oftrust are better able to focus, communicate andsupport each other leading to increased teamcreativity. Likewise, a collaborative culturefosters employee and team motivation to bemore creative. The following hypothesesexplore these two antecedents of teamcreativity.

H4: Team trust (affective and cognitive) is posi-tively associated with team creativity.H5: A collaborative culture is positively associ-ated with team creativity.

The proposed model presents a direct rela-tionship between a collaborative culture andteam creativity (H5). Given that team trust is acritical antecedent of both of these constructs(Hattori & Lapidus, 2004; Evans & Wolf, 2005;DeCusatis, 2008), we expect that the directrelationship between collaborative cultureand creativity will be stronger when teammembers are more trusting of each other. Thatis, when team members trust each other theyare more likely to work closely together, shareknowledge and allocate resources to sharedgoals (Wicks, Berman & Jones, 1999; Dirks &Ferrin, 2001), thus increasing the extent towhich the team has a collaborative culture.Likewise, trusting team members have bettercommunication, are supportive of each otherand motivate each other to pursue sharedobjectives leading to more creative outcomes(Jaskyte, 2008). Therefore, team trust ishypothesized as a moderator of collaborativeculture and team creativity.

H6: Team trust (affective and cognitive) moder-ates the relationship between collaborativeculture and team creativity.

Methodology

Sample

A sample of undergraduate students of amajor university in the northeastern UnitedStates was used for this study. Studentsformed teams and worked closely to com-plete a class project that represented a majorportion of their course grade. The studentteams had members of both genders and con-sisted of a mix of sophomore, junior andsenior year students. Questionnaires weredistributed to the students during the classperiod in 12 different sections during autumn2009. All student teams were involved insemester-long projects that developed mar-keting plans, real-world marketing researchprojects or an in-depth analysis of some

aspect of marketing depending on whichcourse they were enrolled in. Members worktogether researching and discussing informa-tion such as customer profiles, marketingenvironment and competition that arerequired for the project. All team memberstake part in developing the final report andpresenting it to the class and the instructor.Students were informed about the studypurpose and were asked to provide theirresponses about his/her team as it related totheir class project. Participation was voluntary.A total of 467 responses were collected. Afterdeleting incomplete surveys, 422 responsesrepresenting 82 teams were analysed. Thenumber of team members ranged from fourto seven. Females accounted for 53 per centof the respondents and 47 per cent weremales. The age of the respondents rangedfrom 17 to 24 years with a mean of 20.33years (SD = 1.16). About half of the studentswere sophomores (47.2 per cent), seniorsaccounted for 23 per cent and juniors formed29.8 per cent.

Measures

All constructs included in this study wereoperationalized with published scales thathave demonstrated good psychometric prop-erties in earlier studies. The items wereLikert-type 7- point scales with 1 indicatingtotal disagreement and 7 indicating completeagreement with the statements. The measureswere aggregated by team. Interpersonal trustwas measured with McAllister’s (1995) scaleused in research of interpersonal trust inorganizations. This 11-item scale measuresaffective as well as cognitive dimensions oftrust. Creativity was measured with an 8-itemscale from Rego et al. (2007) that measuredthe creativity of teams. Collaborative culturewas measured with an 8-item scale used byLopez, Peon and Ordas (2004), who definetheir collaborative culture scale as a measureof a culture whose members foresee changes,support dialogue and encourage respect,teamwork, risk and diversity. Team emotionalintelligence was measured using the scaledeveloped by Jordan and Lawrence (2009).This is a four-dimensional scale (awareness ofown emotion, management of own emotion,awareness of others’ emotions, and manage-ment of others’ emotions) with four items foreach dimension. The survey respondentswere also asked to provide their team name/number (as an identifier to aggregate teammembers), number of members in the team,class and section in addition to age andgender.



Control Variables

Three control variables that have the potentialto influence team effectiveness were includedin the analysis. Research has shown that ageand functional diversity have a link to collabo-ration and creativity (Weingart, Todorova &Cronin, 2008; Verworn, 2009). Age of the teamwas measured by asking each respondentto provide their age. Means were calculatedfor each team and then aggregated. Func-tional diversity was measured by askingstudents to indicate the number of businessconcentrations (e.g., marketing, finance,accounting, etc.) represented on their team.Team size has been found to be positivelyrelated to innovation (West et al., 2003), whichincorporates creativity, but negatively relatedto communication and decision making(Smith et al., 1994). Team size was measuredby asking the respondents to report thenumber of members on their project team.

Analysis

Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was per-formed on all scales to assess their dimension-ality (Anderson & Gerbing, 1987). Results ofthe EFA analysis on interpersonal trustshowed that scale-items loaded on two factors:affective and cognitive trust. Cross-loadingitems and items with factor loadings less than0.50 were removed. Retention of scale itemswith the highest factor loadings during thescale purification process is used by research-ers to increase the amount of common vari-ance among the items (Peterson, 2000; Bhuian,Menguc & Borsboom, 2005). This processresulted in three items each for affective andcognitive dimensions that explained 83.2 percent of the variance of the trust construct.Exploratory factor analysis of team emotionalintelligence clearly showed the four distinctdimensions (76 per cent of emotional intelli-gence explained). Both collaborative cultureand creativity scales were one-dimensional.Scale items used in the analysis and the factorloadings are shown in Appendix 1.

All independent variables were standard-ized to reduce the potential for multi-collinearity. This was particularly critical sincethe four dimensions of the emotional intelli-gence scale were highly correlated to oneanother. Table 1 shows the correlation matrixand descriptive statistics for all the measuresused in the model along with reliabilitystatistics for the constructs. Correlationsamong the constructs were significant and inthe right direction providing support for thehypotheses. T

able

1.C

orre

lati

ons

and

Des

crip

tive

Stat

isti

cs

AW

RM

GT

AW

RO

MG

TO

AFF

CO

GC

OL

LC

RE

AT

AG

EM

EM

DIV

AW

RE

I-A

war

enes

sof

own

emot

ions

0.93

MG

TE

I-M

anag

emen

tof

own

emot

ions

0.40

0.78

AW

RO

EI-

Aw

aren

ess

ofot

hers

’em

otio

ns0.

510.

360.

89M

GTO

EI-

Man

agem

ent

ofot

hers

’em

otio

ns0.

660.

370.

630.

89A

FFTr

ust-

Aff

ecti

ve0.

690.

360.

370.

640.

84C

OG

Trus

t-C

ogni

tive

0.47

0.47

0.29

0.61

0.52

0.94

CO

LL

Col

labo

rati

veC

ultu

re0.

320.

300.

140.

310.

430.

460.

89C

RE

AT

Team

Cre

ativ

ity

0.26

*0.

180.

190.

340.

400.

540.

850.

95A

GE

Age

0.15

0.18

0.13

0.09

0.08

0.01

0.06

0.01

1.00

ME

MN

umbe

rof

Mem

bers

inTe

am-0

.13

0.10

0.07

0.01

0.06

-0.1

4-0

.14

-0.0

50.

221.

00D

IVTe

amD

iver

sity

0.07

-0.0

5-0

.06

-0.0

2-0

.02

-0.1

10.

060.

020.

79-0

.01

1.00

Mea

n4.

555.

774.

834.

855.

305.

455.

405.

2920

.33

4.69

Stan

dard

Dev

iati

on0.

930.

470.

670.

640.

760.

930.

830.

891.

160.

84

Cro

nbac

h’s

aon

the

dia

gona

l.B

old

corr

elat

ions

are

sign

ifica

ntat

0.01

leve

l(tw

o-ta

iled

).



Results

The hypotheses were tested using hierarchalmoderated regression analysis using SPSS 17(Bell, Menguc & Stefani, 2004). As statedbefore, average age of the team, number ofmembers in the team and team diversity wereused as control variables. Following the proce-dure established by previous research, we sys-tematically tested three models (Bell, Auh &Smalley, 2005). First, the dependent variables(DV) were regressed on the control variables(CV). Second, DV was regressed on CV plusthe predictor (IV) variables to test for maineffects. Finally, a test for moderation was con-ducted by regressing the dependent variableon CV, IV and the interaction variables. All themodels were tested for multi-collinearity bycalculating the variance inflation factor (VIF)for each of the regression coefficients. Resultsshow that multi-collinearity is not impactingthe results as VIF values ranged from 1.19 to3.45 and were well below the threshold valueof 10 (Bell, Menguc & Stefani, 2004). The modelresulting from our analyses is shown inFigure 2.

Team Emotional Intelligence andTeam Trust

Affective trust and cognitive trust wereregressed on the control variables and the fourdimensions of emotional intelligenceas predictor variables. Model 1 (see Table 2)shows the results of the regression of affectivetrust on the control variables and predictor

variables – the four dimensions of team emo-tional intelligence, namely, awareness of ownemotions, management of own emotions,awareness of others’ emotions and manage-ment of others’ emotions. Hypotheses H1awas partially supported as the beta coefficientsfor awareness of own emotions and manage-ment of others’ emotions were positive andstatistically significant while the coefficientsfor management of own emotions and aware-ness of others’ emotions were not significant.

Similar regression analysis for cognitivetrust shows that management of own emo-tions and management of others’ emotionswere significant in explaining cognitive trustamong members thus providing partialsupport for H1b (see Table 2, Model 2).Regression coefficients for awareness of ownemotions and awareness of others’ emotionswere not significant.

Collaborative Culture

Collaborative culture as a dependent variablewas first regressed on the control variables. Inthe second step, collaborative culture wasregressed on the control variables, the fourdimensions of emotional intelligence and thetwo dimensions of trust (see Table 2, Model 3).Results show that only the two dimensions oftrust had positive and significant regressioncoefficients, thus providing support for H3.None of the team emotional intelligencedimensions were significantly related to col-laborative culture, thereby providing nosupport for H2.

Figure 2. Final Model



Tab

le2.

Reg

ress

ion

Res

ults

Dep

end

ent

Var

iab

les

Mod

el1

Aff

ecti

veT

rust

Mod

el2

Cog

nit

ive

Tru

stM

odel

3C

olla

bor

ativ

eC

ult

ure

Tea

mD

iver

sity

bt

pb

tp

bt

p

Con

trol

Var

iab

les

(Con

stan

t)1.

980.

052.

690.

012.

730.

08A

ge0.

130.

860.

390.

130.

020.

99-0

.12

-0.5

90.

56N

umbe

rof

Mem

bers

inTe

am0.

080.

830.

410.

08-1

.22

0.23

-0.1

1-0

.88

0.38

Team

Div

ersi

ty-0

.15

-1.0

30.

31-0

.15

-0.6

60.

520.

211.

080.

29In

dep

end

ent

Var

iab

les

EI-

Aw

aren

ess

ofO

wn

Em

otio

ns0.

464.

050.

000.

050.

420.

68-0

.07

-0.4

1-0

.68

EI-

Man

agem

ent

ofO

wn

Em

otio

ns0.

131.

360.

180.

333.

000.

000.

070.

490.

63E

I-A

war

enes

sof

Oth

ers’

Em

otio

ns-0

.16

-1.4

10.

16-0

.23

-1.7

80.

080.

050.

320.

75E

I-M

anag

emen

tof

Oth

ers’

Em

otio

ns0.

403.

240.

000.

614.

370.

00-0

.21

-1.0

50.

30A

ffec

tive

Trus

t0.

432.

480.

02C

ogni

tive

Trus

t0.

332.

170.

03



Team Creativity

Moderated hierarchical regression was used totest the hypotheses linking creativity to thetwo dimensions of trust and collaborativeculture. As before, regression was first con-ducted with the control variables. The secondregression was done with affective trust, cog-nitive trust and collaborative culture to test formain effects (see Table 3). The results indicatethat cognitive trust and collaborative cultureare significant predictors of creativity whileaffective trust is not significant, providingpartial support for H4 and full support for H5.

In view of these results, in the final step,only the moderating effect of cognitive trust onthe relationship between collaborative cultureand creativity was tested. The results for mod-eration show that cognitive trust enhances theeffect of a collaborative culture on creativity,thereby supporting H6.

Discussion and Implications

The results of this study present a morenuanced and complex picture of the anteced-ents of a team’s creative output. Specifically,

our results indicate that emotionally intelligentteams create both cognitive and affective teamtrust. Team trust, in turn, helps build a collabo-rative culture which leads to higher levels ofteam creativity. As well, cognitive trustenhances creativity by moderating the rela-tionship between collaborative culture andteam creativity.

The positive influence of particular ele-ments of team emotional intelligence on bothcognitive and affective trust highlights theimportance of team emotional intelligence increating team trust. Cognitive trust is based ona member’s perception of the reliability andcompetence of his/her peers. When teammembers exhibit professional behaviour bymanaging their own emotions and those oftheir colleagues, such as being deliberate intheir decision making by examining all sidesof the argument, they are likely to be trustedand relied on for their competence and ability.On the other hand, affective trust is based onemotional bonds resulting from interpersonalcare and concern for each other. When teammembers are aware of his/her own emotionsand are able to manage others’ emotions, theycan empathize and provide support therebycreating affective team trust.

Table 3. Regression Results

Dependent Variable Team Creativity

b t p

Control Variables(Constant) 3.46 0.00Age –0.01 –0.12 0.90Number of Members in Team 0.09 1.44 0.15Team Diversity 0.00 0.04 0.97

Independent VariablesAffective Trust –0.13 –1.85 0.07Cognitive Trust 0.24 3.39 0.00Collaborative Culture 0.84 12.74 0.00

Control Variables(Constant) 3.67 0.00Age –0.04 –0.37 0.72Number of Members in Team 0.11 1.78 0.08Team Diversity 0.03 0.29 0.78

Independent VariablesAffective Trust –0.11 –1.59 0.12Cognitive Trust 0.31 4.16 0.00Collaborative Culture 0.76 10.46 0.00Collaborative Culture x Cognitive Trust 0.15 2.31 0.03



The lack of evidence to support a direct rela-tionship between team emotional intelligenceand a collaborative culture suggests thatawareness and management of emotions is notnecessary for team members to collaborate.However, that does not mean that emotionalintelligence is not important in teams. Asnoted above, team emotional intelligencecreates trust, both affective and cognitive,among team members, which in turn, leads toa collaborative culture. Thus, both emotionalintelligence and trust are critical for effectiveteamwork.

Our findings support prior research thatshows that team collaboration requires trust(Bierly, Stark & Kessler, 2009). Team members’trust is based on individuals’ confidence thatthe actions of the members will be beneficialand not detrimental. Thus, the level of trustaffects individual and team behaviours. In atrusting environment, individuals are morewilling to take a risk by sharing informationand co-operating with their team members(Mayer, Davis & Schoorman, 1995) therebycreating a sense of collaboration (Russ et al.,1998; Abrams et al., 2003; Hattori & Lapidus,2004).

Our finding that cognitive trust positivelyimpacts team creativity suggests thatmembers’ perceptions that their peers are reli-able and competent is vital to enhancing thecreativity of the team. This concurs withresearch that shows that knowledge and skillabout one’s function is critical to creativity(Amabile, 1997; Taggar, 2002). High cognitivetrust teams are perceived to have memberswith strong functional as well as interpersonalcapabilities which can create a feeling that theteam can jointly make decisions, take risks andshare ideas without fear of criticism (West,1990) resulting in a creative solution to theirtask. The result that affective trust does notinfluence team creativity implies that thebonds of caring and concern for each other,though useful to collaboration, are not instru-mental to enhancing team creativity. Thissupports research which indicates that com-passion is not an element of creativity(Amabile, 1997; Taggar, 2002).

Finally, results of this study support priorresearch indicating that collaborative culture isa strong predictor of creativity (DeCusatis,2008). Results also show that the existence ofcognitive trust among members enhances thisrelationship. Collaborative teams are known tobe open to others’ suggestions, allow teammembers to take risks and are willing to con-sider diverse viewpoints; all of the qualitiesnecessary for creative efforts. When teammembers trust each other to be competent andreliable, they are even more willing to exhibit

those behaviours leading to an even more cre-ative solution.

Implications for Managers

This study, though based on student teams,offers several potential implications for man-agers. First, the finding that emotional intelli-gence is a predictor of team trust suggests thatmanagers need to assess the emotional intelli-gence of each subordinate in order to deter-mine his/her level of emotional intelligence.Once this is accomplished, activities such astraining in emotional intelligence, could beundertaken to improve individual and teamcapabilities. Also, assessments of emotionalintelligence could be used with job candidates,particularly those applying for positions whichrequire substantial teamwork.

Second, the impact of trust on a collabora-tive culture and cognitive trust on creativityreinforces that trust is a critical element ofteams that managers need to pay attention to.To build and sustain trust, managers need tocreate situations for both formal and informalcommunication among team members (Jarv-enpaa, Knoll & Leidner, 1998). For example, akick-off meeting at the beginning of a projectcan help team members to get to know eachother and start to build relationships that canultimately lead to a creative approach to thetask.

Finally, the positive impact of cognitive truston the relationship between a team’s collabo-rative culture and creativity suggests thatmanagers need to recognize the importance ofteam members’ perceptions of the reliabilityand competence of their colleagues. To aidthese perceptions, it is obviously most usefulto hire functionally competent individuals.However, functional competence is not suffi-cient for cognitive trust. Individuals need toalso possess skills such as working withothers, being reliable and dependable, doingwhatever is needed to accomplish the task,and being flexible (Barczak & Wilemon, 2003).

Implications for Researchers

This research expands our knowledge of theantecedents of team creativity. Specifically, thisstudy represents the first empirical study ofthe relationship between team emotional intel-ligence and affective and cognitive trust in ateam context. Moreover, it explores a morecomplex relationship among precursors ofteam creativity, namely team emotional intelli-gence, team trust and a collaborative culturethan prior research. Finally, this researchinvestigates emotional intelligence as animportant team characteristic.



Limitations and Future Research

The study uses cross-sectional data and hencecausality of the relationships between predic-tor and criterion variables should not beimplied from results of this study. Theory andprevious research of the constructs used inthe study have been used in interpreting thefindings. Use of a convenience sample of stu-dents could be another limitation in terms ofpractical implications, even though studentteams are known to provide useful insightsinto the dynamics of team work and creativ-ity (Chiocchio & Essiembre, 2009; Qiu et al.,2009). Future research could examine ourmodel with teams and team leaders workingon real business issues to ascertain if therelationships we found with our studentsample hold true. In relation, the study usedteam creativity as the dependent variablerather than a more practical measure of per-formance. Our future research will usestudent teams who are working on a projectfor a corporate client and, thus, will incorpo-rate actual performance metrics, therebyenhancing the value of our research to man-agers. Finally, to minimize social desirabilitybias, respondents were guaranteed anonym-ity and responses were collected by a studentvolunteer instead of their own instructor. Wealso tested for common method bias usingthe method advocated by Lindell andWhitney (2001) and found that commonmethod bias was not a threat to the studyfindings.

References

Abrams, L.C., Cross R., Lesser E. and Levin, D.Z.(2003) Nurturing Interpersonal Trust inKnowledge-Sharing Networks. The Academy ofManagement Executive, 17, 64–77.

Adler, P.S. (2001) Market, Hierarchy, and Trust: TheKnowledge Economy and the Future of Capital-ism. Organization Science, 12, 215–34.

Amabile, T. M. (1997) Motivating Creativity inOrganizations: On Doing What You Love andLoving What You Do. California ManagementReview, 40, 39–58.

Amabile, T.M. (1998) How to Kill Creativity: KeepDoing What You’re Doing. Or If You Want toSpark Innovation, Rethink How You Motivate,Reward and Assign Work to People. Harvard Busi-ness Review, September–October, 76–87.

Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1987) On theAssessment of Unidimensional Measurement:Internal and External Consistency, and OverallConsistency Criteria. Journal of MarketingResearch, 24, 432–7.

Ashforth, B.E. and Humphrey, R.H. (1995) Emotionin the Workplace: A Reappraisal. Human Rela-tions, 48, 97–125.

Ashforth, B.E. and Mael, F. (1989) Social IdentityTheory and Organization. Academy of ManagementReview, 14, 20–39.

Avey, J.B., Wernsing, T.S. and Luthans, F. (2008) CanPositive Employees Help Positive OrganizationalChange? Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 44,48–70.

Barczak, G. and Wilemon, D. (2003) Team MemberExperiences in New Product Development:Views from the Trenches. R&D Management, 33,463–79.

Bell, S.J., Menguc, B. and Stefani, S.L. (2004) WhenCustomers Disappoint: A Model of RelationalInternal Marketing and Customer Complaints.Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 32,112–26.

Bell, S.J., Auh, S. and Smalley, K. (2005) CustomerRelationship Dynamics: Service Quality and Cus-tomer Loyalty in the Context of Varying Levels ofCustomer Expertise and Switching Costs. Journalof the Academy of Marketing Science, 33, 169–83.

Bhuian, S.N., Menguc, B. and Borsboom, R. (2005)Stressors and Job Outcomes in Sales: A TriphasicModel Versus a Linear-Quadratic-InteractiveModel. Journal of Business Research, 58, 114–50.

Bierly, P., Stark, E. and Kessler, E. (2009) The Mod-erating Effects of Virtuality on the Antecedentsand Outcome of NPD Team Trust. Journal ofProduct Innovation Management, 26, 551–65.

Bijlsma, K. and Koopman, P. (2003) Introduction:Trust Within Organizations. Personnel Review, 32,543–55.

Bstieler, L. and Hemmert, M. (2010) IncreasingLearning and Time Efficiency in Interorganiza-tional New Product Development Teams. Journalof Product Innovation Management, 27, 485–99.

Calton, J. and Lad, L. (1995) Social Contracting as aTrust-Building Process of Network Governance.Business Ethics Quarterly, 5, 271–95.

Chen, M.H. (2007) Entrepreneurial Leadership andNew Ventures: Creativity in EntrepreneurialTeams. Creativity and Innovation Management, 16,239–49.

Chiocchio, F. and Essiembre, H. (2009) Cohesionand Performance: A Meta-Analytic Review ofDisparities between Project Teams, ProductionTeams, and Service Teams. Small Group Research,40, 382–420.

DeCusatis, C. (2008) Creating, Growing and Sus-taining Efficient Innovation Teams. Creativity andInnovation Management, 2, 155–64.

Dirks, K.T. and Ferrin, D.L. (2001) The Role of Trustin Organizational Settings. Organization Science,12, 450–67.

Druskat, V.U. and Wolff, S.B. (2001a) Building theEmotional Intelligence of Groups. Harvard Busi-ness Review, 79, 80–90.

Druskat, V.U. and Wolff, S.B. (2001b) Group Emo-tional Intelligence and Its Influence on GroupEffectiveness. In Cherniss, C. and Goleman, D.(eds.) The Emotionally Intelligent Workplace.Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 132–55.

Dulewicz, V. and Higgs, M. (2000) Emotional Intel-ligence: A Review and Evaluation Study. Journalof Managerial Psychology, 15, 341–72.

Evans, P. and Wolf, B. (2005) Collaboration Rules.Harvard Business Review, July–August, 96–104.



Florida, R. and Goodnight, J. (2005) Managing forCreativity. Harvard Business Review, July–August,124–31.

Gibb, J.R. (1978) Trust: A New View of Personal andOrganizational Development. Guild of Tutors Press,Los Angeles, CA.

Goleman, D. (1995) Working with Emotional Intelli-gence. Bantam Books, New York.

Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R. and McKee, A. (2002) TheEmotional Reality of Teams. Journal of Organiza-tional Excellence, 21, 55–65.

Hattori, R.A. and Lapidus, T. (2004) Collaboration,Trust and Innovative Change. Journal of ChangeManagement, 4, 97–104.

Hoegl, M. and Gemuenden, H.G. (2001) TeamworkQuality and the Success of Innovative Projects: ATheoretical Concept and Empirical Evidence.Organization Science, 12, 435–49.

Hosmer, L. (1995) Trust: The Connecting Linkbetween Organizational Theory and Philosophi-cal Ethics. Academy of Management Review, 20,379–403.

Jarvenpaa, S., Knoll, K. and Leidner, D. (1998) IsAnybody Out There? Antecedents of Trust inGlobal Virtual Teams. Journal of Management Infor-mation Systems, 14, 29–64.

Jaskyte, K. (2008) Employee Creativity in US andLithuanian Nonprofit Organizations. NonprofitManagement and Leadership, 18, 465–83.

Jeffries, F.L. and Reed, R. (2000) Trust and Adapta-tion in Relational Contracting. Academy of Man-agement Review, 25, 873–82.

Jehn, K.A. and Mannix, E.A. (2001) The DynamicNature of Conflict: A Longitudinal Study of Intra-group Conflict and Group Performance. Academyof Management Journal, 44, 238–51.

Johnson, D. and Grayson, K. (2005) Cognitive andAffective Trust in Service Relationships. Journal ofBusiness Research, 58, 500–7.

Jordan, P.J. and Lawrence, S.A. (2009) EmotionalIntelligence in Teams: Development and InitialValidation of the Short Version of the Work-group Emotional Intelligence Profile (WEIP-S).Journal of Management and Organization, 15, 452–69.

Jordan, P.J. and Troth, A.C. (2004) Managing Emo-tions during Team Problem Solving: EmotionalIntelligence and Conflict Resolution. Human Per-formance, 17, 195–218.

Kanawattanachai, P. and Yoo, Y. (2002) DynamicNature of Trust in Virtual Teams. Journal of Stra-tegic Information Systems, 11, 187–213.

Kasper-Fuehrer, E.C. and Ashkanasy, N.M. (2001)Communicating Trustworthiness and BuildingTrust in Interorganizational Virtual Organiza-tions. Journal of Management, 27, 235–54.

Kemper, T.D. (1978) A Social Interaction Theory ofEmotions. Wiley, New York.

Kichuk, S.L. and Wiesner, W.H. (1997) The Big FivePersonality Factors and Team Performance:Implications for Selecting Successful ProductDesign Teams. Journal of Engineering and Technol-ogy Management, 14, 195–221.

Larson, C. and LaFasto, F. (1989) Teamwork. Sage,Newbury Park, CA.

Lindell, M.K. and Whitney, D.J. (2001) Accountingfor Common Method Variance in Cross-Sectional

Research Designs. Journal of Applied Psychology,86, 114–21.

Littler, D., Leverick, F. and Bruce, M. (1995) FactorsAffecting the Process of Collaborative ProductDevelopment: A Study of UK Manufacturers ofInformation and Communications TechnologyProducts. Journal of Product Innovation Manage-ment, 12, 16–32.

Lopez, S.P., Peon, J.M.M. and Ordas, C.J.V. (2004)Managing Knowledge: The Link between Cultureand Organizational Learning. Journal of Knowl-edge Management, 8, 93–104.

Mayer, R., Davis, J. and Schoorman, F. (1995) AnIntegrative Model of Organizational Trust.Academy of Management Review, 20, 709–34.

McAllister, D.J. (1995) Affect and Cognition BasedTrust as Foundations for Interpersonal Coopera-tion in Organizations. Academy of ManagementJournal, 38, 24–59.

Middel, R., Boer, H. and Fisscher, O. (2006) Con-tinuous Improvement and CollaborativeImprovement: Similarities and Differences. Cre-ativity and Innovation Management, 15, 338–47.

Pelled, L.H., Eisenhardt, K.M. and Xin, K.R. (1999)Exploring the Black Box: An Analysis of WorkGroup Diversity Conflict and Performance.Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 1–28.

Peterson, R.A. (2000) A Meta-Analysis of VarianceAccounted for and Factor Loadings in ExploratoryFactor Analysis. Marketing Letters, 11, 261–75.

Qiu, T., Qualls, J., Bohlmann, J. and Rupp, D.E.(2009) The Effect of Interactional Fairness on thePerformance of Cross-Functional Product Devel-opment Teams: A Multilevel Mediated Model.Journal of Product Innovation Management, 26, 173–87.

Rego, A., Sousa, F., Pina e Cunha, M., Correia, A.and Saur-Amaral, I. (2007) Leader Self-ReportedEmotional Intelligence and Perceived EmployeeCreativity: An Exploratory Study. Creativity andInnovation Management, 16, 250–64.

Rigby, D.K., Gruver, K. and Allen, J. (2009) Innova-tion in Turbulent Times. Harvard Business Review,87, 79–86.

Rousseau, D., Sitkin, S., Burt, R. and Camerer C.(1998) Not So Different After All: Cross DisciplineView of Trust. Academy of Management Review, 23,387–92.

Rozell, E.J., Pettijohn, C.E. and Parker, R.S. (2004)Customer-Oriented Selling: Exploring the Rolesof Emotional Intelligence and OrganizationalCommitment. Psychology and Marketing, 21, 405–24.

Russ, F.A., McNeilly, K.M., Comer, J.M. and Light,T.B. (1998) Exploring the Impact of Critical SalesEvents. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Man-agement, 18, 19–34.

Schein, E.H. (2004) Organizational Culture and Lead-ership. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

Skilton, P.F. and Dooley, K.J. (2010) The Effects ofRepeat Collaboration on Creative Abrasion.Academy of Management Review, 35, 118–34.

Smith, K.G., Smith, K.A., Olian, J.D., Smis, H.P.,O’Bannon, D.P. and Scully, J.A. (1994) Top Man-agement Team Demography and Process: TheRole of Social Integration and Communication.Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 412–38.



Strutton, D., Pelton, L.E. and Lumpkin, J.R. (1993)The Relationship between Psychological Climateand Salesperson-Sales Manager Trust in SalesOrganizations. Journal of Personal Selling and SalesManagement, 13, 1–14.

Suliman, A.M. and Al-Shaikh, F.N. (2007) Emo-tional Intelligence at Work: Links to Conflict andInnovation. Employee Relations, 29, 208–20.

Taggar, S. (2002) Individual Creativity and GroupAbility to Utilize Individual Creative Resources:A Multilevel Model. Academy of ManagementJournal, 45, 315–30.

Verworn, B. (2009) Does Age Have an Impact onHaving Ideas? An Analysis of the Quantity andQuality of Ideas Submitted to a SuggestionSystem. Creativity and Innovation Management, 18,326–34.

Weingart, L.R., Todorova, G. and Cronin, M.A.(2008) Representational Gaps, Team Integrationand Team Creativity. In Academy of ManagementBest Paper Proceedings. Academy of Management,Briarcliff Manor, NY.

West, M.A. (1990) The Social Psychology of Innova-tion in Groups. In West, M.A. and Farr, J.L. (eds.)Innovation and Creativity at Work: Psychological andOrganizational Strategies. John Wiley & Sons,Chichester, pp. 101–22.

West, M.A., Borrill, C.S., Dawson, J.F., Brodbeck, F.,Shapiro, D.A. and Haward, B. (2003) LeadershipClarity and Team Innovation in Health Care. TheLeadership Quarterly, 14, 393–410.

Whitener, E., Bordt, S., Korsgaard, M. and Werner, J.(1998) Managers as Initiators of Trust: AnExchange Relationship Framework for Under-standing Managerial Trustworthy Behavior.Academy of Management Review, 23, 513–30.

Wicks, A., Berman, S. and Jones, T. (1999) The Struc-ture of Optimal Trust: Moral and Strategic

Implications. Academy of Management Review, 24,99–116.

Williams, M. (2007) Building Genuine Trustthrough Interpersonal Emotion Management: AThreat Regulation Model of Trust and Collabora-tion across Boundaries. Academy of ManagementReview, 32, 595–621.

Gloria Barczak ([email protected]) is Pro-fessor and Chair of the Marketing Group inthe College of Business Administration atNortheastern University. Her researchfocus is on the new product developmentprocess and the use of teams for newproduct development.

Felicia Lassk ([email protected]) is Associ-ate Professor of Marketing and FacultyDirector of the Evening MBA Program inthe College of Business Administration atNortheastern University. Her researchfocus is in the area of personal selling andemotional intelligence.

Jay Mulki ([email protected]) is an Assis-tant Professor of Marketing in the Collegeof Business Administration at NortheasternUniversity. He brings both academicresearch and business practice to his class-room having spent more than 20 years inbusiness before leaving to pursue his aca-demic interests. Professor Mulki’s primaryresearch interests are in the areas of per-sonal selling and sales management andservices marketing.

Appendix 1

Scale Items used in the Study

Team Emotional Intelligence (Jordan and Lawrence, 2009) StandardizedLoading

Awareness of Own Emotions (AWR)1. I can explain the emotions I feel to team members. 0.8402. I can discuss the emotions I feel with team members. 0.8503. If I feel down, I can tell team members what will make me feel better. 0.8294. I can talk to other members of the team about the emotions I experience. 0.827

Management of Own Emotions (MGT)5. I respect the opinion of team members, even if I think they are wrong. 0.6586. When I am frustrated with fellow team members, I can overcome my

frustration.0.742

7. When deciding on a dispute, I try to see all sides of a disagreement beforeI come to a conclusion.

0.825

8. I give a fair hearing to fellow team members’ idea. 0.777



Appendix 1 Continued

Team Emotional Intelligence (Jordan and Lawrence, 2009) StandardizedLoading

Awareness of Others’ Emotions (AWRO)9. I can read fellow team members ‘true’ feelings, even if they try to hide

them.0.817

10. I am able to describe accurately the way others in the team are feeling. 0.76111. When I talk to a team member I can gauge their true feelings from their

body language.0.821

12. I can tell when team members don’t mean what they say. 0.807Management of Others’ Emotions (MGTO)

13. My enthusiasm can be contagious for members of a team. 0.64414. I am able to cheer team members up when they are feeling down. 0.76015. I can get fellow team members to share my keenness for a project. 0.78016. I can provide the ‘spark’ to get fellow team members enthusiastic. 0.791

Affective Trust (McAllister, 1995)1. We have a sharing relationship. We can all freely share our ideas, feelings,

and hopes.0.638

2. I can talk freely to my team members about difficulties I am having atschool and know that they will want to listen.

0.948

3. If I shared my problems with my team members, I know they wouldrespond constructively and caringly.

0.884

Cognitive Trust (McAllister, 1995)1. Team members approach this project with professionalism and dedication. 0.9052. Given my team members’ track records, I see no reason to doubt their

competence and preparation for the project.0.910

3. I can rely on team members not to make our project more difficult by care-less work.

0.909

Team Creativity (Rego et al., 2007)1. My team members suggest new ways to achieve goals or objectives. 0.8212. My team members come up with new and practical ideas to improve per-

formance.0.882

3. My team members suggest new ways to increase quality. 0.8654. My team members promote and champion ideas to others. 0.7745. My team members exhibit creativity when given the opportunity to. 0.8316. My team members develop adequate plans and schedules for the imple-

mentation of new ideas.0.864

7. My team members have new and innovative ideas. 0.8828. My team members come up with creative solutions to problems. 0.919

Collaborative Culture (Lopez, Peon & Ordas, 2004)1. My team considers change to be natural and necessary. 0.7062. My team considers individuals as an asset and tries to appreciate them

continuously.0.828

3. Individuals who experiment and take reasonable risks are well-consideredby the team even if they are mistaken.

0.774

4. The preservation of different points of view is encouraged. 0.8195. Everybody’s opinions and contributions are respected. 0.7786. Problems are discussed openly, to avoid finding culprits. 0.6947. Collaboration and co-operation among team members is encouraged. 0.8058. All team members are aware of instructor expectations. 0.618



Documents

organizational behavior