Summary This meta‐analysis investigates the direction and strength of the relationship between diversity in culturally diverse teams and team creativity/innovation. We distinguish the effects of two diversity levels (i.e., surface level vs. deep level) in culturally diverse teams and examine the moderators suggested by the socio‐technical systems framework (i.e., team virtuality and task characteristics in terms of task interdependence, complexity, and intellectiveness). Surface‐level diversity in culturally diverse teams is not related to team creativity/innovation, whereas deep‐level diversity in culturally diverse teams is positively related to team creativity/innovation. Moreover, surface‐level diversity in culturally diverse teams and team creativity/innovation are negatively related for simple tasks but unrelated for complex tasks. Deep‐level diversity in culturally diverse teams and team creativity/innovation is positively related for collocated teams and interdependent tasks but unrelated for noncollocated teams and independent tasks. We discuss the theoretical and practical implications.

No abstract

Summary This paper identified the dimensions of proactive socialization behavior among Chinese employees. We examined the mediating effects of perceived insider status on the relationships between proactive socialization behavior and socialization outcomes, and the moderating effect of supervisors' traditionality on the relationship between proactive socialization behavior and perceived insider status. Results from 280 newcomer–supervisor pairs supported the hypotheses that proactive socialization behavior was positively associated with task performance and social integration through perceived insider status. In addition, supervisors' traditionality significantly influenced the indirect relationships that proactive socialization behavior had with task performance and social integration via perceived insider status, such that the relationships became weaker as supervisors' traditionality increased. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Workplace gossip is generally viewed as a deviant behavior that negatively affects the work outcomes of employees. However, we argue that this negative view is incomplete. Drawing on the cultural learning perspective of gossip and social learning theory, we examine how the job performance of employee receivers benefits from supervisor negative gossip through reflective learning. On the basis of multi-source, cross-sectional designs, Studies 1 and 2 consistently find that supervisor negative gossip facilitates employee receiver reflective learning and subsequent job performance when controlling for two sets of theory-relevant variables. Study 3, which has a multi-source, cross-lagged panel design, provides further evidence of the directional relationship from supervisor negative gossip to employee receiver job performance through reflective learning. The findings of the three separate field studies support the positive effect of supervisor negative gossip on employee receivers from a learning perspective. We discuss the theoretical and practical implications of these findings in terms of how employee receiver job performance can benefit from workplace negative gossip.

SummaryThis paper proposes and tests a model where emotional competence influences work performance through employees' proactive behaviors toward their supervisors. Results from 196 supervisor-employee pairs supported that emotional competence was positively associated with proactive behaviors, and proactive behaviors were positively associated with both task effectiveness and social integration. In addition, proactive behaviors significantly mediated the relationships between emotional competence and work performance, although this was mostly true of followers who had a higher degree of autonomy in their work.

Cultural diversity is widely believed to broaden the knowledge and perspectives in a team and hence benefit team creativity. However, cultural diversity can at the same time suppress team creativity through the negative social processes it engenders, and this negative mechanism has received little theoretical attention. We present a theoretical analysis to explicate how cultural diversity creates cultural identity and intercultural obstacles, which hinder knowledge sharing and integration among team members and hence team creativity. Drawing on the socio-technical systems perspective, we identify two types of contextual variables that moderate the negative, mediated impact of cultural diversity on team creativity: information and communication technology and task environment in terms of task characteristics. We provide an analysis of how each type of variables moderates the negative impact of cultural diversity on social processes and the impact of social processes on knowledge sharing and integration. Several future research directions based on the socio-technical systems perspective are discussed.

Stable and enduring cooperative relationships among people are primarily based on mutual trust. However, little evidence exists about the effects of mutual trust between supervisor and subordinate on work outcomes. To understand better the dynamics of trust in supervisorsubordinate relationships, we examined how mutual trust between supervisor and subordinate is associated with work outcomes. Based on a sample of 247 subordinate-supervisor pairs, multilevel analyses revealed a positive effect of perceived mutual trust on task performance and interpersonal facilitation after controlling for trust in leader and felt trust. In addition, task performance and interpersonal facilitation increased as trust in leader and felt trust or trust in subordinate both increased.

and motivating environment to help employees fully unfold their potential (e.g., Pfeffer, 1994;Shalley et al., 2000). However, employees do not respond to the work environment mechanically, and their perception and interpretation of the environment are crucial in shaping their attitudinal and behavioural responses (James et al., 1978). For instance, a work environment designed to be motivating may not show the intended effects because employees do not perceive the environment as motivating (e.g., Deci et al., 1999). To address this issue, there has been considerable research in the past several decades on the role and dynamics of psychological climate -defined as 'the meanings that people impute to their jobs, co-workers, leaders, pay, performance expectations, opportunities for promotion, equity of treatment, and the like ' (James et al., 2008: 6). Psychological climate also has important practical implications, as it is related to a variety of major work outcomes, such as organisational commitment, job satisfaction, and performance (Carr et al., 2003;Parker et al., 2003). It is important to note that we are concerned with processes at the individual level, and research on organisational climate (Schneider et al., 2011), which conceptualizes climate as a property of an organisation, is not our focus.Despite the well-documented importance of psychological climate, our knowledge of its antecedents is surprisingly limited. This gap is problematic because a theory of psychological climate is incomplete without a clear understanding of the factors that shape its formation. Indeed, Parker et al. (2003: 408) recommended that 'clarifying the origins of psychological climate perceptions would help to clarify the specific mechanisms by which perceptions of the work environment influence individual outcomes.' The limited research on the antecedents of psychological climate has primarily focused on situational factors, such as 3 supportive supervisor, rewarding co-worker relationships, and high-performance human resource practices (e.g., May et al., 2004;Wei et al., 2010), which are conceptualized as cues for drawing inferences about the nature of a workplace. This line of work, while important, does not consider the possibility that people exhibit some degree of across-situation consistency in the perception of psychological climate because they tend to confirm what they are prepared to see (Snyder and Ickes, 1985). For example, some employees complain vehemently about their work environment even if many other employees perceive the same environment as attractive (Grensing-Pophal, 2001). Situational factors are not the only antecedents of psychological climate, as Brown and Leigh (1996: 359) suggested that 'psychological climate is likely to result from individual differences among employees, from differences in situations (i.e. features of organizational environments), as well as from the interaction between the person and situation.' The lack of research on dispositional antecedents of psychological climate limits the...