1. 발표논문 1. Self-efficacy Changes in groups: effects of diversity, leadership, and group climate Choi, Price, & Vinokur, JOB, 2003 경영학과 인사조직전공 이지혜 Multilevel Analysis

2. Introduction Purpose of current research  How different group characteristics influences changes in self-efficacy of individual members.  Two separate routes of group influence on individuals are tested simultaneously. - Discretionary stimuli/individual level process - Ambient stimuli/cross level process 2

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 differentiation, 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 environment. 3

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 4

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 positively related to increases in job-search efficacy subsequent to the group workshop. 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. 5

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) 6

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 7

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 group Question: whether disparate group experiences actually produce different rates of change in job- search efficacy over time 8

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 9

10. Result HLM analysis  H1 supported: of the four, diversity in education was positively significant  H2a & H2b supported: LDS -individual level process  H3a & H3b supported: group climate -both individual level and cross-level process 10 H2a H3a H1 H2b H3b

11. 발표논문 2. The relationship between individual creativity and team creativity: aggregating across people and time Pirola- Merlo & Mann, JOB, 2004 경영학과 인사조직전공 이지혜 Multilevel Analysis

12. Introduction  Research question How the creativity of individual team member is related to team creativity? 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 differs 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 12

13. Background theories Team creativity as an Aggregate of creativity across individuals  Relationship between individual creativity and the creativity of group- produced outcomes can be as in below three types 1) Additive 2) Disjunctive 3) 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? 13

14. Background theories Hypotheses developments  Emergence of team climate H1: Measures of climate for creativity will show high within-group agreement and significant variance attributable to team membership.  The impact of climate on individual creativity H2: Team-level measures of climate for creativity will significantly predict ratings of team member creativity.  The relationship between team member creativity and team creativity H3: Team creativity will be positively correlated with average team member creativity. H4: Scores on climate for creativity will have a significant relation with a time-general measure of team creativity, even after accounting for the effect of recent team member creativity. 14

15. Background theories Hypotheses developments  The relationship between team member creativity and team creativity H5a: Climate for creativity will not significantly predict recent team creativity after accounting for the effect of recent team member creativity. H5b: Climate for creativity will not significantly predict recent team member creativity after accounting for the effect of recent team creativity.  The aggregation of monthly creativity towards the creativity of project outcomes H6: The creativity of final project outcomes will be positively correlated with monthly ratings of team creativity, and with the average of monthly creativity ratings. 15

16. Background theories Research model 16

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) 17

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 individual level (team-level) ↑The impact of climate on individual creativity The relationship between team member creativity and team creativity → 18

19. Result – Part1 19

20. Result – Part2 ① Team creativity could be explained by aggregation processes ② Team climate influences team creativity directly 20

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 21

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 22