While there is increasing pressure to work collaboratively in interprofessional teams, health professionals often continue to operate in uni‐professional silos. Leader inclusiveness is directed toward encouraging and valuing the different viewpoints of diverse members within team interactions, and has significant potential to overcome barriers to interprofessional team performance. In order to better understand the influence of leader inclusiveness, we develop and investigate a model of its effect incorporating two mediated pathways. We predict that leader inclusiveness enhances interprofessional team performance through an increase in shared team identity and a reduction in perceived status differences, and we argue that the latter pathway is contingent on professional diversity. Data from 346 members of 75 teams support our model, with team identity and perceived status differences mediating a significant effect of leader inclusiveness on performance. In addition, we found support for the moderating role of professional diversity. The results reinforce the critical role of leader inclusiveness in diverse teams, particularly interprofessional teams, and suggest that social identity and perceived status differences are critical factors mediating its impact on performance. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

SummaryThe impact of diverse composition in teams is neither straightforward nor direct, and evidence suggests that diversity can be either conducive or detrimental to team innovation. Professionally diverse healthcare teams are increasingly used to develop innovative clinical approaches and solve complex healthcare problems; however, there is evidence that collaboration across professional boundaries creates conflict and is frequently unsuccessful. Healthcare organizations consequently face a dilemma. If they embrace professional diversity in teams, they risk interprofessional hostility, but if they choose homogeneous teams, they diminish their teams' capacity to innovate. We respond to this quandary by utilizing social identity theory to better understand the mechanisms through which professional diversity can enhance team innovation. In particular, we argue that professional identity salience operates as a mediator capable of explaining both positive and negative outcomes of professional diversity, contingent on the moderating effect of openmindedness norms. Analysis of survey data from 70 healthcare teams supports our model and indicates that professional salience can both enhance and undermine team innovation, depending on the extent of team openmindedness.

This study examines how group member beliefs regarding cognitive differences influence ability to create knowledge. Specifically, this study explores whether the impact of openness to cognitive diversity on knowledge creation is a result of associated collaborative behaviors. To investigate this theory, it is assessed whether the behaviors of debate and decision comprehensiveness mediate the relationship between openness to cognitive diversity and knowledge creation. The results of a survey of 98 workplace teams support the hypotheses that the impact of openness is consequent to the emergence of behavioral patterns that facilitate open and rigorous discussion and contribute to the understanding of the psychosocial and behavioral variables underpinning knowledge creation.

Background Shortages of skills needed to deliver optimal health care in rural and remote locations raises questions about using extended scopes of practice or advanced practice models in a range of health professions. The nurse practitioner (NP) model was introduced to address health service gaps; however, its sustainability has been questioned, while other extended scope of practice roles have not progressed in Australia. This study aimed to explore the experiences and perceptions of NPs and their colleagues about barriers to and enablers of extended scope of practice and consider the relevance of the findings to other health professions. Methods Semi-structured, in-depth interviews were conducted with primary, nurse practitioner informants, who were also invited to nominate up to two colleagues, as secondary informants. Data analysis was guided by a multi-level, socio-institutional lens of macro-, meso- and micro-perspectives. Results Fifteen primary informants and five colleagues were interviewed from various rural and remote locations. There was a fairly even distribution of informants across primary, aged, chronic and emergency or critical care roles. Key barriers and enablers at each level of analysis were identified. At the macro-level were legal, regulatory, and economic barriers and enablers, as well as job availability. The meso-level concerned local health service and community factors, such as attitudes and support from managers and patients. The micro-level relates to day-to-day practice. Role clarity was of considerable importance, along with embedded professional hierarchies and traditional role expectations influencing interactions with individual colleagues. Given a lack of understanding of NP scope of practice, NPs often had to expend effort promoting and advocating for their roles. Conclusions For communities to benefit from extended scope of practice models of health service delivery, energy needs to be directed towards addressing legislative and regulatory barriers. To be successful, extended scope of practice roles must be promoted with managers and decision-makers, who may have limited understanding of the clinical importance. Support is also important from other members of the interprofessional health care team. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12912-019-0337-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

PurposeThis paper sets out to examine the operationalisation of knowledge creation. Given the importance of knowledge creation for national and corporate wealth, assessing its measurement is a valuable exercise; however, current research utilises a range of measures, and this lack of agreed construct operationalisation is a barrier to robust empirical investigation. This paper aims to review current measurement methods and to construct a taxonomy of knowledge creation measures.Design/methodology/approachA four‐step classification method is followed. In order to generate information on the essential properties of measurement methods, relevant empirical research is reviewed and a content analysis performed on the resultant measures. The literature review includes key‐term searches on bibliographic databases, yielding a sample of 63 empirical papers that incorporated knowledge creation measures. Both of the authors independently created a cognitive map of these measures based on three different attributes.FindingsThe main contribution of the paper is the development of a hierarchical taxonomy of knowledge creation measures. This taxonomy, in which movement up the hierarchy provides broader conceptual classification and movement down provides conceptual refinement, advances knowledge creation research by categorising measures in a way that facilitates assessment against existing comparable definitions.Research limitations/implicationsThe limitations of the research stem from issues of bias. In addition to sampling bias, some bias may have entered the coding with respect to placement of measures into process or output categories.Originality/valueThe research has significant implications for future research in knowledge creation: the taxonomy facilitates consistency between knowledge construct definition and measurement, and differentiation between knowledge creation and other, related constructs, such as innovation. Such a taxonomy makes it easier to clarify similarities and differences among knowledge creation measures, develop new propositions for future investigation, and identify neglected areas of study.