발표논문 1. Self-efficacy Changes in groups: ef-fects of diversity, leadership, and group climate

Choi, Price, & Vinokur, JOB, 2003

경영학과 인사조직전공이지혜

Multilevel Analysis

2

Introduction

Purpose of current research

How different group characteristics influences changes in self-effi-cacy of individual members.

Two separate routes of group influence on individuals are tested simultaneously.

- Discretionary stimuli/individual level process- Ambient stimuli/cross level process

3

Background theories

Different types of group stimuli (Hackman, 1992)

Discretionary stimuli- transmitted or made available to individuals differentially and selectively at

the discretion of the other group members - Examples: messages of approval or disapproval, role negotiation or differ-

entiation, LMX- bears significance only for the target recipient

Ambient stimuli- available to all group members and pervade the group setting. - Examples :group composition, shared group norms, climate, task environ-

ment.

4

Background theories

Hypotheses developments

Diversity in group composition - diversity in group members’ social characteristics interaction patterns & ind/group performance - ambient group stimuli

Supportive LDS & positive leader perception- Supportive leader behavior trusting group environment, perception of

psychological safety, more frequent positive feedback - Discretionary stimuli

Open group climate & positive group perception- open group climate allows experimentation w/new ways of doing things,

new skills w/o fear of appraisal, frequent&open exchanges of feedback - Positive group perception : perceive the group as psy. Safe environment- Ambient stimuli

5

Background theories

Hypotheses

•Hypothesis 1: Group diversity in age, gender, race, and education is positively related to increases in job-search efficacy subsequent to the group workshop.

•Hypothesis 2a: Supportive leadership and positive leader perceptions are posi-tively related to increases in job-search efficacy subsequent to the group work-shop.

•Hypothesis 2b: Group-level aggregated supportive leadership and positive leader perception are unrelated to increases in job-search efficacy subsequent to the group workshop.

•Hypothesis 3a: Open group climate and positive group perceptions are positively related to increases in job-search efficacy subsequent to the group workshop.

•Hypothesis 3b: Group-level aggregated open group climate and positive group perception are positively related to individual members’ increases in job-search efficacy subsequent to the group workshop.

6

Method

Sample- Collected from participants who attended a standardized group workshop

offered by three organizations- Final sample: 1202 individuals in 169 groups - Average group size: 11.8 participants (range: 3 ~ 23) - Data collected at T1(pre-test) and T2(post-test).

Measurement- Demographic variables (T1) diversity in group composition- Supportive leadership and positive leader perception (T2) - Open group climate and positive group perception (T2) Aggregation of leader and group characteristic variables (by using

means)- Increases in job-search efficacy: dependent variable (T1 and T2)

7

Method

Analytic strategy: HLM- Attend to variables at three levels of analysis

1) Within-individual level Trajectory of individual changes from pre-(T1) to post-(T2) measures

8

Method

Analytic strategy: HLM- Attend to variables at three levels of analysis

2) Individual level Involves individual factors: age, race, etc. + individual experiences with the groupQuestion: whether disparate group experiences actually produce different rates of

change in job-search efficacy over time

9

Method

Analytic strategy: HLM- Attend to variables at three levels of analysis

3) Group level Entails features of the group workshop, such as membership diversity Current analysis, entered group-level variables, to predict individual

changes in job search self-efficacy

10

Result

HLM analysis

H1 supported: of the four, diversity in education was positively signifi-cant H2a & H2b supported: LDS -individual level process H3a & H3b supported: group climate -both individual level and cross-level process

H2a

H3a H1

H2b H3b

발표논문 2. The relationship between individual creativity and team creativity: aggregating across people and time

Pirola- Merlo & Mann, JOB, 2004

경영학과 인사조직전공이지혜

Multilevel Analysis

12

Introduction

Research question How the creativity of individual team member is related to team creativ-

ity? Influence of organization and team climate for creativity in the workplace

on individual and team creativity.

Previous literature Many organizations have turned to team-based work systems to increase

their ability to foster innovation Such org, need to not only foster ind.creativity, but also develop team

creativity However, it is unclear how organizational support for creative teams dif-

fers from support for creative individuals Previous studies tend to use as outcomes either only individual creativity

or only group creativity

The present study uses both level of creativity measures to investigate the relationship between creativity at these two levels

+ the impact of org, and team climate for creativity

13

Background theories

Team creativity as an Aggregate of creativity across in-dividuals

Relationship between individual creativity and the creativity of group-produced outcomes can be as in below three types1) Additive2) Disjunctive3) Between

The proposal that team creativity is influenced and to some extent determined by individual/creativity seems uncontroversial

However…- Is team crt is completely determined by individual’s?- Is team crt same as the total of the members’ crt?

14

Background theories

Hypotheses developments

Emergence of team climate• H1: Measures of climate for creativity will show high within-groupagreement and significant variance attributable to team membership.

The impact of climate on individual creativity• H2: Team-level measures of climate for creativity will significantly pre-

dict ratings of team member creativity.

The relationship between team member creativity and team creativity• H3: Team creativity will be positively correlated with average teammember creativity.• H4: Scores on climate for creativity will have a significant relation with atime-general measure of team creativity, even after accounting for theeffect of recent team member creativity.

15

Background theories

Hypotheses developments

The relationship between team member creativity and team creativity• H5a: Climate for creativity will not significantly predict recent teamcreativity after accounting for the effect of recent team member creativ-

ity.• H5b: Climate for creativity will not significantly predict recent teammember creativity after accounting for the effect of recent team creativ-

ity.

The aggregation of monthly creativity towards the creativ-ity of project outcomes• H6: The creativity of final project outcomes will be positively correlatedwith monthly ratings of team creativity, and with the average of monthlycreativity ratings.

16

Background theories

Research model

17

Method

Sample- Collected from 15 divisions of 4 large R&D organizations in AU- Final sample: 319 employees in 54 teams- Average team size: 6.9 people (range: 2 ~ 18) - Sent a set of questionnaires each month for 1 year Only the first 9 months

are reported. (Low response in final 3) - Time 1: Creativity climate + Individual & Team creative performance- Time 2 ~ 12: Only creativity measures

Measurement- Team climate for innovation (T1)

Participative safety Support for innovation Task orientation vision

- Organizational encouragement of innovation (T1) - Individual and team creativity

Recent team member creativity (Each month) Recent team creativity (Each month) Time-general creativity (T1:climate measurement time) Creativity of project outcome (six months after the study)

18

Method

Analytic strategy: HLM- Relationship between climate and individual creativity was tested (individual

level)- Uses team-level predictors to account for between-groups variance at the indi-

vidual level (team-level)

↑The impact of climate on individual creativity The relationship between team member creativity and team creativity →

19

Result – Part1

20

Result – Part2

① Team creativity could be explained by aggregation processes② Team climate influences team creativity directly

21

Critic

Choi et al. (2003)- Superiority of current model above alternative model: another possible

group process variables- Data measurement issue : 5-day workshop groups- Centering issue

Pirola-merlo & Mann (2004)- Data driven approach of selecting the highest correlated variable

- Level 2a: Organizational encouragement of innovation- Level 2b: Organizational support for innovation

- time as an additional?- Centering issues

22

Critic

Pirola-merlo & Mann (2004)- Data driven approach of selecting the highest correlated variable

- Level 2a: Organizational encouragement of innovation- Level 2b: Organizational support for innovation