Examining collective creative self-efficacy as a competency indicator of group talent management: a study of SMEs in an emerging economy

Figures & data

Figure 1. The conceptual model.

Table 1. Overall reliability of the constructs and factor loadings of indicators.

Construct and items			Loadings
Creative self-efficacy
	CSE1	I have confidence in my ability to solve problems creatively	.87**
	CSE2	I feel that I am good at generating novel ideas	.88**
	CSE3	I have capability to further develop the ideas of others	.90**
	CR .91
	AVE .78
Team climate (CR: .85; AVE: 0.72)
	Vision
	TCIV1	To what extent do you think your team’s objectives are clearly understood by other members of the team?	.78**
	TCIV2	How far are you in agreement with team objectives?	.86**
	TCIV3	To what extent do you think your team’s objectives actually can be achieved?	.88**
	TCIV4	How worthwhile do you think these objectives are to the organization?	.82**
	CR .90
	AVE .71
	Team Unity and Support for Innovation
	TCISI1	In my team, we take the time needed to develop new ideas	.75**
	TCISI2	Members in the team cooperate in order to help develop and apply new ideas and plans	.84**
	TCISI3	Members in the team are always searching for fresh, new ways of looking a problem	.77**
	TCIPS1	The team members have a ‘we are together’ attitude	.84**
	TCIPS2	People keep each other informed about work-related issues in the team	.86**
	TCIPS3	People feel understood and accepted by each other	.89**
	TCIPS4	There are real attempts to share information throughout the team	.86**
	CR .94
	AVE .69
	Task Orientation
	TCITO1	Team members are prepared to question the basis of what the team is doing	.88**
	TCITO2	My team critically appraise potential weaknesses in what it is doing in order to achieve the best possible outcome	.88**
	TCITO3	Members of my team build on each other’s ideas in order to achieve the best possible outcome	.85**
	CR .90
	AVE .76
Team creativity output (CR: .90; AVE: 0.71)
	Usefulness
	COU1	The team’s work is worth doing	.82**
	COU2	The team’s output is capable of being put into effect	.88**
	COU3	The team’s output is likely to cause the desired result	.88**
	COU4	The team’s output will have a monetary value	.65**
	CR .88
	AVE .50
	Novelty
	CON2	The team’s output is often different from usual output of other teams	.81**
	CON3	The team’s output is excitingly different from what has been done previously	.87**
	CON4	The team’s output represents a radical departure from traditional practices	.83**
	CON5	The team’s output is one of a kind	.83**
	CR .90
	AVE .70

* p < .05; ^**p < .01.

Table 2. Measurement model evaluation (discriminant validity using Heterotrait-Monotrait ratio).

Group level	1	2	3	4	5
1. Company Size	–
2. Team Size	.36	–
3. Collective creative self-efficacy	.32	.22	–
4. Team Climate	.26	.10	.58	–
5. Team Creativity Output	.21	.15	.63	.73	–
6. Faultline Strength	.09	.05	.21	.39	.38
Individual-level	1	2	3
1. Creative self-efficacy	–
2. Team Climate	.48	–
3. Team Creativity Output	.42	.78	–

Measurement model (at individual level) is given as supplementary material.

Figure 2. Structural path diagram.

Table 3. Structural path coefficients.

	Mediator (M)			Dependent variable (Y)
Variables	Team climate (TCL)			Team creativity output (TCO)
	Coeff.			Coeff.
Company size		–			–.06
Team size		–			–.38
Faultline strength (FS)		–.05
Collective creative self-efficacy (CCSE)	a	.50**		c	.31**
Team Climate		–		b	.56**
CCSE X FS(interaction)		.28**

** p < .01.

Figure 3. Interactional effects between CCSE and faultline strength.

Table 4. Moderated-mediation effects.

	Indirect path : CCSE (X)→TCC (M)→TCO (Y)
	Value	PMX × PYM	Boot SE	Boot CI
Moderator variable Z (Faultline Strength)
Low Z (mean – 1 s.d.)	.37	.17	.11	[–.05, .41]
High Z (mean + 1 s.d.)	.71	.52**	.14	[.26, .80]

Number of bootstrap samples for bias corrected bootstrap confidence intervals: 5000. Level of confidence for all confidence intervals in output: 95.00.

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, [GN], upon reasonable request.