775196

research-article2018
GOMXXX10.1177/1059601118775196Group & Organization ManagementLi et al.

Article
Group & Organization Management
2019, Vol. 44(6) 1036­–1066
The Role of Team © The Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
Regulatory Focus and sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1059601118775196
https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601118775196
Team Learning in Team journals.sagepub.com/home/gom

Radical and Incremental

Creativity

Ci-Rong Li1, Chen-Ju Lin2, and Jing Liu1

Abstract
This study explores team-level mechanisms linking team regulatory focus
and team creativity. Drawing on the team self-regulation perspective
and regulatory fit theory, the mediating roles of team exploratory and
exploitative learning and the moderating effect of team bureaucracy were
examined. Team-level analyses conducted on data captured from the leaders
and members of 135 teams. The results showed that team exploratory
learning mediates the relationship between team promotion focus and
team radical creativity, whereas team exploitative learning mediates the
relationship between team prevention focus and incremental creativity.
Furthermore, the team bureaucratic context, including centralization and
formalization, moderated the indirect relationship between team regulatory
focus and team creativity. The findings improve understanding of why team
regulatory focus differentially contributes to team radical and incremental
creativity. The findings also provide meaningful insight into the role of team
bureaucracy in the team regulatory focus–team creativity relationship.

Keywords
team regulatory focus, promotion focus, prevention focus, radical creativity,
incremental creativity, exploratory learning, exploitative learning

1Jilin University, Changchun, China

2Tzu Chi University of Science and Technology, Hualien City, Taiwan

Corresponding Author:
Ci-Rong Li, School of Management, Jilin University, No. 5988, Renmin Street, Changchun
130022, China.
Email: cirongli@gmail.com
Li et al. 1037

Recently, team regulatory focus has attracted the interest of researchers as a

predictor of team creativity and innovation (Rietzschel, 2011; Sacramento,
Fay, & West, 2013; Y. Shin, 2014). By definition (Faddegon, Ellemers, &
Scheepers, 2009), team regulatory focus refers to a collective motivational
state representing team members’ shared understanding of their team focus
on striving to achieve positive outcomes (team promotion focus) or seeking
to avoid negative outcomes (team prevention focus). Prior research has
examined how team regulatory focus differentially affects team decision-
making, team coordination, and team performance (Beersma, Homan, Van
Kleef, & De Dreu, 2013; Y. Shin, Kim, Choi, & Lee, 2016; Spanjol, Tam,
Qualls, & Bohlmann, 2011).
Despite all of the accumulated knowledge, some questions remain unan-
swered. The team promotion and team prevention foci represent two different
motivational systems, which begs the question of whether these two systems
differentially affect team radical creativity and incremental creativity and, if
so, how. Research is rapidly emerging on the different relationships that these
two systems have with team creative performance, where the promotion (pre-
vention) focus is (in)effective at promoting team creativity. Much of the prior
research on this topic has tended to treat team creativity as a single overarch-
ing construct (Y. Shin, 2014; Y. Shin et al., 2016), despite the recognition that
conceptually and empirically, there are two types of creativity: radical and
incremental (Gilson & Madjar, 2011; Madjar, Greenberg, & Chen, 2011). As
a result, the question of how the differing concerns of the two motivational
systems relate to the distinct types of team creativity remains unanswered.
To address this question, we consider the team self-regulation perspective
(Mehta, Feild, Armenakis, & Mehta, 2009) and the regulatory focus hierar-
chy view (Johnson, Smith, Wallace, Hill, & Baron, 2015). We propose that
one team regulatory focus uses a self-regulation strategy—team exploratory
learning or exploitative learning—more often than the other system and is
thereby more effective at promoting one type of team creativity. Based on
prior research (Kostopoulos & Bozionelos, 2011), we identify team explor-
atory and exploitative learning as different team regulatory strategies with
distinct goal-relevant means for regulating collective efforts to foster radical
and incremental creativity, respectively. More specifically, we suggest and
test the proposal that team promotion focus (team prevention focus) is more
likely to lead a team to engage in exploratory learning (exploitative learning)
than team prevention focus (team promotion focus) and, thus, is more condu-
cive to team radical creativity (team incremental creativity).
Practically, team bureaucracy has often been used to regulate team effec-
tiveness (Davila & Ditillo, 2017). However, it is surprising that no research
has explored the effect of team bureaucratic structures on the relationship
1038 Group & Organization Management 44(6)

between team regulatory focus and team creativity. Therefore, our second
research question explores whether team bureaucracy moderates the relation-
ship between team regulatory focus and team creativity. This question pertains
to regulatory fit theory, which has received some attention in team regulatory
focus research (Higgins, 2000). Prior research has demonstrated that the
effects of regulatory focus are accentuated when a team’s promotion and pre-
vention foci are congruent with its team structure (Dimotakis, Davison, &
Hollenbeck, 2012). Because the passive nature of bureaucracy sustains vigi-
lant motivational states (Hirst, van Knippenberg, Chen, & Sacramento, 2011),
we expect that team bureaucracy may fit better with the motivational system
of team prevention focus rather with that of team promotion focus.
Our study intends to make two theoretical contributions. First, we take a
closer look at the relationship between team regulatory focus and team cre-
ativity. We advance and test whether both motivational systems can benefit
team creativity but one system is more closely related to one type of creativ-
ity than the other and whether this effect is mediated by team learning.
Second, we respond to a recent call for research focusing on the regulatory fit
effect of team structures (Dimotakis et al., 2012). By examining the moderat-
ing role of team bureaucracy, this study enriches current scholarly under-
standing of how team structures influence the motivational systems behind
team regulatory focus.

Theory and Hypotheses

Figure 1 depicts the hypothesized model. The first objective of our study is to
examine whether different preferences toward using exploratory learning or
exploitative learning lead to differential relationships between team promo-
tion and prevention foci and team radical and incremental creativity. Thus,
we first delineate the relative role of team regulatory focus in bolstering team
exploratory and exploitative learning. We then examine team exploratory and
exploitative learning as the intermediary mechanisms underlying the differ-
ential relationships. Finally, we articulate how team bureaucracy moderates
the indirect relationship between team regulatory focus and team creativity.

Team Regulatory Focus and Team Learning

Team regulatory focus, as a team-level property, emerges from contextual inputs
such as leadership and team culture. In line with individual-level research, there
are two types of team regulatory systems: team promotion focus and team pre-
vention focus (Faddegon et al., 2009). In this study, we define team promotion
focus as a collective promotion orientation that motivates members to focus on
Li et al. 1039

Figure 1.  The conceptual model.

Note. Solid lines with the larger arrowheads represent direct relationships hypothesized to be
stronger in magnitude than those represented by dotted lines with the smaller arrowheads.

what they want to achieve; this focus is associated with high risk taking and
maximal goals (Ferris et al., 2013). In contrast, team prevention focus is defined
as a collective prevention orientation that leads members to focus on possible
negative outcomes; this focus is associated with low risk taking by solely focus-
ing on completing individual duties and responsibilities (Ferris et al., 2013).
Notably, a team may simultaneously have high levels of both team promotion
and team prevention foci because promotion and prevention foci at the team
level are independent of each other (Y. Shin et al., 2016).
The regulatory focus hierarchy view (Johnson et al., 2015) considers that
promotion and prevention foci, at the strategic level, lead to different preferred
strategies for goal pursuit. Thus, we propose that differences in the foci of pro-
motion and prevention relate to different preferences toward using exploratory
and exploitative learning strategies, respectively. However, we do not claim
that a prevention-focused (promotion focused) team does not engage in explor-
atory (exploitative) learning (Tuncdogan, Van Den Bosch, & Volberda, 2015).
At the strategic level, under normal conditions, one motivational system is used
more often with one type of team-learning activity than the other (Scholer &
Higgins, 2011). Thus, we also examine the relative strength of team promotion
focus and prevention focus in encouraging team-learning activities.
In this study, team exploratory learning comprises activities that enable a
team to search for, experiment with, and develop new ideas (Li, Chu, & Lin,
2010). We argue that when a team exhibits a high promotion focus, team
members have a common objective for new knowledge creation (Friedman &
Förster, 2001) and are thus motivated to engage in exploratory learning.
Because eagerly seizing all possible opportunities is an inherent component of
1040 Group & Organization Management 44(6)

promotion focus (Scholer & Higgins, 2010), team members with a promotion
focus will employ the exploratory learning process to derive information from
a variety of perspectives. In contrast, teams with a prevention focus are pri-
marily concerned with the avoidance of potential failure. They thereby engage
in less team exploratory learning because it inherently includes a risk of fail-
ure; this constrains the actions of prevention-focused teams as they pursue
their goals. Based on the discussion above, the following are hypothesized:

Hypothesis 1a: Team promotion focus is positively related to team explor-

atory learning.
Hypothesis 1b: Team promotion focus has a stronger relationship with
team exploratory learning than team prevention focus.

In this study, team exploitative learning comprises activities that help a

team refine, recombine, and implement existing knowledge (Li et al., 2010).
We propose that compared to team members with a team promotion focus,
those with a team prevention focus collectively prefer using vigilant avoid-
ance strategies (Y. Shin et al., 2016) and thus are more motivated to engage
in exploitative learning. A collective desire to avoid mistakes motivates team
members to concentrate on safely achieving team goals (Y. Shin et al., 2016)
and reliable and known outcomes (Hamstra, Bolderdijk, & Veldstra, 2011),
which are both inherent components of exploitative learning. Although
exploitative learning can serve to create new knowledge (March, 1991), the
level of exploitative learning in teams with a promotion focus is expected to
be lower than it is in prevention-focused teams because team members with
a team promotion focus fail to enjoy the process of exploitative learning, such
as adopting a backward-looking orientation. Therefore, extending the indi-
vidual-level findings to the team level, we also postulate that a stronger link
exists between team prevention focus and exploitative learning than between
team promotion focus and exploitative learning. To summarize, we propose
the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 2a: Team prevention focus is positively related to team

exploitative learning.
Hypothesis 2b: Team prevention focus has a stronger relationship with
team exploitative learning than team promotion focus.

Intervening Roles of Team Exploratory and Exploitative Learning

In this study, radical creativity refers to the generation of highly novel ideas
that differ substantially from an organization’s existing practices, whereas
incremental creativity refers to the generation of adaptive, relatively new
Li et al. 1041

ideas, which are associated with minor modifications to and upgrades of

existing practices and products (Gilson & Madjar, 2011). Teams involved in
exploratory learning are likely to explore different perspectives that result in
more novel ideas as they increasingly move beyond their current practices (Li
et al., 2010). Working in a manner that differs from existing work practices is
likely to trigger the generation of radical team creativity. Although exploit-
ative learning increases the overall amount of knowledge, we expect team
exploitative learning to have a positive relationship with only team incremen-
tal creativity. This relationship is expected because as teams obtain informa-
tion from a given knowledge channel, they engage in more internal scanning,
which is likely to result in modifications or adjustments (Li & Yeh, 2017).
Thus, we propose that team exploratory and exploitative learning are condu-
cive to team radical and incremental creativity, respectively.
By considering a combination of the proposed relationships, we predict
that these two team-learning activities will differentially mediate the relation-
ships between team regulatory focus and team radical/incremental creativity.
As explained in the previous sections, team exploratory learning and team
exploitative learning appear to be more dominantly related to team promo-
tion focus and team prevention focus, respectively. Thus, compared to pre-
vention-focused teams, promotion-focused teams are more conducive in
team radical creativity because the development of more novel ideas requires
exploratory learning (Li & Yeh, 2017). Prevention-focused teams are more
likely to achieve adaptive goals of team incremental creativity because they
engage in more exploitative learning than teams with a promotion focus.
Considering the above discussion, we propose the following:

Hypothesis 3: Team promotion focus is closely related to team radical

creativity than team prevention focus, and the relationship is mediated by
team exploratory learning.
Hypothesis 4: Team prevention focus is closely related to team incremen-
tal creativity than team promotion focus, and the relationship is mediated
by team exploitative learning.

Moderating Effects of Team Bureaucratic Context

Because the strength of regulatory focus inherently depends on the situations
within which individuals act (Scholer & Higgins, 2011), a complete under-
standing of the effect of “team” regulatory focus requires consideration of the
characteristics of the teams in which individuals work. As teams often rely on
a certain level of bureaucratic practices, including centralization and formal-
ization, it is important to explore how regulatory focus interacts with team
bureaucratic structures in team self-regulation processes. Building on the
1042 Group & Organization Management 44(6)

regulatory fit theory (Higgins, 2000), we expect that the strength of team
regulatory focus on the preferred team-learning type can be accentuated if the
team regulatory system fits with team bureaucratic practices.
In teams, centralization relates to the extent to which team decision author-
ity lies solely with the team’s leader (Chen, Kirkman, Kanfer, Allen, & Rosen,
2007). Because less participative decision making occurs in centralized teams,
team members have limited opportunities to share their unique novel views
(Arnold, Arad, Rhoades, & Drasgow, 2000) and may be unaware of important
issues facing the team. The reduced opportunity for the expression of novel
views caused by centralization fails to support the eager approach orientation
of promotion focus. Due to a lack of fit between team promotion focus and
centralization, team members may “feel wrong” about engaging in eager strat-
egies (i.e., exploration). In addition, centralization fails to promote explor-
atory learning because it provides a less supportive climate for engaging in
work that moves beyond current practices (Ahearne, Mathieu, & Rapp, 2005).
We, therefore, expect that team promotion focus is related to radical creativity
through team exploratory learning when centralization is low rather than high.
Formalization relates to the extent to which team rules and procedures are
clearly specified and standardized (Hirst et al., 2011). In other words, teams
with formalized structures limit the choices of team members regarding their
behaviors and decisions. A small set of choices offers little opportunity or
support for taking risks; this approach also fails to sustain the underlying
orientation of team promotion focus. Furthermore, formalization inhibits the
tendency to engage in discretionary behaviors (i.e., exploration) because it
regulates and restrains such behaviors by instituting clear behavioral proto-
cols involving administrative checks (Li et al., 2010). Due to a lack of fit
between formalization and team promotion focus and the lack of support for
exploratory learning, we expect team promotion focus to be related to radical
creativity via team exploratory learning when formalization is low rather
than high. Taken together, we hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 5: The indirect effect of a team’s level of promotion focus on

team radical creativity is mediated by team exploratory learning and mod-
erated by team (a) centralization and (b) formalization contexts, for the
path from team promotion focus to team exploratory learning, in that the
indirect relationship is weaker when the team is structured to be
bureaucratic.

In contrast, we expect team bureaucracy to play a motivation-activating

role that reinforces the link between team prevention focus and team exploit-
ative learning. Because team leaders have control in centralized teams
Li et al. 1043

(Ghemawat & Ricart Costa, 1993), increased rule observation leads team
members to focus more on their own responsibilities and follow existing
rules. That is, centralization sustains the prevention focus and its underlying
orientation, which leads team members to “feel right” about engaging in
more vigilant strategies. We, therefore, expect that team prevention focus is
more strongly related to incremental creativity via team exploitative learning
when centralization is high rather than low. Furthermore, high formalization
sets clear guidelines as to the type of behavior that is expected and deemed
appropriate by team members. This situation invites more variance-reducing
and structured behavior (Weick, 1979), which sustains the underlying orien-
tation of team prevention focus. Because formalization fits the prevention
focus and its underlying orientation, team members are more willing to
engage in the preferred vigilant strategies such as exploitative learning
(Higgins, 2006). Taken together, we hypothesized the following:

Hypothesis 6: The indirect effect of a team’s level of prevention focus on

team incremental creativity is mediated by team exploitative learning and
moderated by team (a) centralization and (b) formalization contexts, for
the path from team prevention focus to team exploitative learning, in that
the indirect relationship is stronger when the team is structured to be
bureaucratic.

Method
Sample and Data Collection
We randomly selected 50 firms from the “Info Tech 100 Taiwan” as our sam-
ple firms. We contacted each firm through an international consulting firm to
solicit their participation in our study, and a total of 27 high-technology firms
ultimately participated. The firms were involved in the computer systems (n =
6), electronic communications (n = 7), optoelectronics (n = 8), semiconduc-
tors (n = 9), and integrated circuit design (n = 5) industries. Through the con-
sulting firm, we contacted the human resource managers of these firms and
asked them to randomly provide us with contacts for six teams in their firms.
With the permission of these firms, all members of these teams were
invited to complete this study. The members of the participating teams
worked interdependently. The team leader was responsible for making impor-
tant decisions for the team, such as goal setting, work scheduling, work
assignments, performance monitoring and assessment, and reward allocation.
Participation was voluntary, and the respondents were assured of the ano-
nymity of their responses. After the research assistants introduced
1044 Group & Organization Management 44(6)

the purpose of the survey, the participants completed a questionnaire in a

conference room during their work shift. Data were collected from two
sources: team members and team leaders.
We conducted our survey at three time points, with 3 months between each
survey. At Time 1, we asked team members to complete a survey on their
team-level regulatory focus and leaders to complete a survey to collect con-
trol variables. At Time 2, we asked team members to complete the second
wave survey on team centralization context, team exploratory learning, team
formalization context, and team exploitative learning. After 3 months (Time
3), research assistants interviewed each team leader and asked them to assess
their team creativity: radical creativity and incremental creativity.
Of the 162 teams contacted by the human resource managers, 145 teams
(comprising 145 team leaders and 1,003 team members) agreed to participate
in this study. To reduce potential aggregation biases of small teams (Bliese &
Halverson, 1998), we eliminated teams with fewer than four respondents and
those exhibiting a low within-team response rate (less than 75%), which
resulted in a final sample comprising 135 leaders and 959 members of 135
teams (response rate = 77%). The average team size was 7.1 members (rang-
ing = 5-12), and the average team longevity was 1.98 years (23.7 months). Of
these team members, 32.3% were female and 59.4% were between ages of 25
and 45 years. They had an average of 11 years work experience, and the aver-
age current organizational tenure was 7.1 years. Of the team leaders, 23%
were female, their average age was 42 years, and average tenure at the current
organization was 11.3 years.

Measures
All measures were assessed with multi-items using a 7-point Likert-type
scale (See Appendix). Following relevant research (Y. Shin et al., 2016), we
employed team-referent items for all measures to capture group-level phe-
nomena. All research variables, except for team radical creativity and team
incremental creativity that were rated by leaders, were assessed by team
members and aggregated to the team level based on a set of psychometric
properties including Interrater Agreement Index, rwg(j) values, and Intraclass
Correlation Coefficients, ICC(1) and ICC(2).

Team regulatory focus. To measure team regulatory focus, we adopted the

Work Regulatory Focus (WRF) scale of Neubert, Kacmar, Carlson, Chonko
and Roberts (2008), and then revised the items of this scale to team-referent
items to capture the collective regulatory focus (promotion focus and preven-
tion focus) of the team. The Cronbach’s alpha values for the team promotion
Li et al. 1045

focus and the team prevention focus were .98 and .97, respectively. The test
of the within-team agreement for team regulatory focus showed that the mean
rwg for team promotion focus was .95 (range = .84-.97) and that for team
prevention focus was .94 (range = .87-.98). The ICC(1) estimates were .25
for team promotion focus and .38 for team prevention focus. The ICC(2)
estimates were .69 and .65, respectively. Thus, we aggregated the individual-
level response to the team level.

Team centralization context.  Using the four-item scale developed by Hirst and
his colleagues (2011), team members were asked to assess the extent to which
team decision making was centralized in the team leader. A sample item is
“gives all work team members a chance to voice their opinions.” We then
reverse-scored the scale so that higher ratings reflected greater centralization
of decision making. The Cronbach’s alpha for this measure was .90. The
mean rwg for team centralization context was .89 (range = .81-.94). The
ICC(1) value was .21 and the ICC(2) value was .63, supporting the appropri-
ateness of aggregating the individual-level responses to the team level.

Team formalization context.  To measure team formalization context, we used

the three-item scale of Rafferty and Griffin (2004). A sample item is “In my
team, there are a lot of rules and regulations.” The Cronbach’s alpha for this
measure is .92. The mean rwg for team formalization context was .81 (range
= .50-.97). The ICC(1) and ICC(2) values were .31 and .58, respectively.
These results suggest that aggregating the team formalization context ratings
to the team level was warranted.

Team exploratory learning.  Adopting items from previous studies (Kostopou-

los & Bozionelos, 2011; Li et al., 2010), we used a five-item measure (α =
.94) to assess the extent to which the team members searched for and used
information unrelated to the firm’s current experience and knowledge in the
project. A sample item is “Our team looks for opportunities to employ entirely
new skills and knowledge to solve work problems.” The mean rwg for team
exploratory learning was .89 (range = .55-.95). The ICC(1) and ICC(2) esti-
mates for team exploratory learning were .36 and .61, respectively. These
results indicated that aggregating team members’ responses to the team level
was justified.

Team exploitative learning.  Drawn from prior studies (Kostopoulos & Bozio-
nelos, 2011; Li et al., 2010), we used a five-item measure (α = .93) to assess
the extent to which the learning activities emphasized the acquisition of
information aligned with the firm’s current knowledge for the project. A
1046 Group & Organization Management 44(6)

sample item is “Our team tends to exploit mature knowledge and expertise
that increase efficiency of accomplishing work.” The mean rwg for team
exploratory learning was .91 (range = .64-.97). The ICC(1) estimate was .28
and ICC(2) estimate was .53, justifying aggregation of the individual-level
responses to the team level.

Team radical creativity.  To measure team radical creativity, four items were
adopted from Gilson and Madjar’s (2011) measure and revised into team-
referent items. Leaders were given the prompt “For the ideas your team
comes up with while working on team tasks, to what extent would you char-
acterize them as.” A sample item is “Discoveries of completely new pro-
cesses/products than what the company currently does.” The Cronbach’s
alpha for this measure is .86.

Team incremental creativity. To measure team incremental creativity, we

employed four items (α = .88) derived from the measure of Gilson and Mad-
jar (2011). Similar to the items for team radical creativity, the items for incre-
mental creativity were modified as team-referent items to reflect a team’s
incremental creativity. A sample item is “Adaptations to existing processes/
products used at the company.”

Control variables.  We included team size and average team tenure as control
variables to partial out their potential influences on team processes and team
creativity (Li, Lin, Tien, & Chen, 2017; S. J. Shin & Zhou, 2007). Moreover,
in keeping with S. J. Shin and Zhou (2007), we controlled for the type of task
performed by the teams to partial out any potential confounding effects of task
requirements. Based on Keller’s (1992) categorizations of research and devel-
opment teams, we created three dummy variables that included the existing
product or process improvement as the reference, coded as follows: Task 1: 0
= others, 1 = basic or nonmission tasks; Task 2: 0 = others, 1 = new product or
process development; Task 3: 0 = others, 1 = applied or mission oriented.
Hypotheses were tested with multilevel modeling (MLM) using Stata
because the research and development teams (n = 135) were from different
organizations (n = 27). To control for any possible confounding effects of
organization-level factors on the relationships we tested, we conducted an
intercept-only model of MLM at the organization level in all of the analyses.

Results
To assess the discriminant validity of our study measures, we conducted a
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using structural equation modeling
Li et al. 1047

(SEM) with Stata. We conducted CFA on the team leaders’ ratings of team
radical creativity and team incremental creativity. The proposed two-factor
model, χ2 (df = 19) = 30.62, p < .05, CFI (comparative fit index) = .98,
RMSEA (root mean square error approximation) = .07, yielded a signifi-
cantly better fit than the one-factor model, χ2 (df = 20) = 271.62, p < .001, CFI
= .51, RMSEA = .31; Δχ2 (df = 1) = 241, p < .01. In addition, we conducted a
separate CFA for team learning, regulatory foci and bureaucratic context.
Table 1 shows that the hypothesized six-factor model exhibited a good fit to
the data, χ2 (df = 545) = 1,882.03, p < .01, CFI = .97, RMSEA = .05 and also
fit the data significantly better than alternative models. These CFA results
indicate that the measure of the study variables possesses sufficient discrimi-
nant validity. Finally, all factor loading estimates for our study variables were
higher than the cut-off value of .50 and significant, thus providing evidence
of convergent validity (Hair, Tatham, Anderson, & Black, 1998). Descriptive
statistics and intercorrelations are presented in Table 2.

Relationships Between Team Regulatory Focus and Team

Learning
Hypothesis 1a predicted positive associations between team promotion focus
and team exploratory learning. Hypothesis 1b further proposed a stronger
relationship between team promotion focus and team exploratory learning
than between team prevention focus and team exploratory learning. As
reported in Model 5 of Table 3, team promotion focus has a positive relation-
ship with team exploratory learning (γ = .39, p < .001), supporting Hypothesis
1a. However, the effect of team prevention focus on team exploratory learn-
ing was nonsignificant (γ = .07, ns). To test Hypothesis 1b, we conducted a t
test to compare the coefficients of team promotion and prevention focus and
detected significant difference in the coefficients (t = 3.28, p < .01). Thus,
Hypothesis 1b was supported.
Hypothesis 2a proposed a positive link between team prevention focus
and team exploitative learning. Hypothesis 2b further suggested a stronger
association between team prevention focus and team exploitative learning
than between team promotion focus and team exploitative learning. As illus-
trated in Model 7 of Table 3, team prevention focus was positively associated
with team exploitative learning (γ = .34, p < .001), supporting Hypothesis 2a.
In addition, team promotion focus has a positive relationship with team
exploitative learning (γ = .21, p < .05). We conducted a t test for the coeffi-
cients of team promotion and prevention foci to compare their relative
strength in bolstering team exploitative learning. The results of the t test dem-
onstrated significant difference in the coefficients (t = 2.04, p < .05), which
supported Hypothesis 2b.
1048 Group & Organization Management 44(6)

Table 1.  Results of CFA and Chi-Square Difference Tests.

p value
CFA models χ2 df CFI RMSEA Δχ2 of Δχ2
Model 0: The hypothesized six- 1,882.03 545 .97 .05 — —
factor model
Model 1: Five-factor model 8,962.80 550 .79 .13 7,080.77 <.001
(combining TPF and TVF into
a single factor)
Model 2: Four-factor model 11,364.29 554 .73 .14 9,482.26 <.001
(combining TPF and TVF into
a single factor and combining
TRL and TIL into a single
factor)
Model 3: Two-factor model 9,793.91 559 .77 .13 7,911.88 <.001
(combining TRL, TIL, and
TPF into a single factor and
combining CEN, FORM, and
TVF into a single factor)
Model 4: Two-factor model 13,981.99 559 .66 .16 11,099.96 <.001
(combining CEN, FORM,
TRL, and TIL into a single
factor and combining TPF and
TVF into a single factor)

Note. CFA = confirmatory factor analysis; CFI = confirmatory fit index; RMSEA = root mean
square error of approximation; TPF = team promotion foci; TVF = team prevention foci; TRL
= team exploratory learning; TIL = team exploitative learning; CEN = team centralization
context; FORM = team formalization context.

Mediating Roles of Team Learning on the Relationship Between

Team Regulatory Focus and Team Creativity
To test Hypothesis 3, we first assessed the mediating role of team exploratory
learning on the relationship between team promotion focus and team radical
creativity. As shown earlier, team promotion focus was significantly related
to team exploratory learning, whereas team exploratory learning was signifi-
cantly related to team radical creativity (Model 2, Table 3: γ = .36, p < .001).
Based on Bauer, Preacher and Gil’s (2006) suggestion, we adopted the boot-
strapping test to examine these indirect relationships. In this study, com-
pletely standardized indirect effect (abcs) scores were calculated to assess the
effect size for each indirect relationship (Preacher & Kelley, 2011). The team
promotion focus exerted a significant indirect effect on team radical creativ-
ity through team exploratory learning (abcs = .165, 95% confidence interval
(CI) = [.085, .371], effect power = 89.3%). Then, we examined the indirect
 Table 2.  Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations.
Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1. Team size 7.10 2.26  

2. Average team tenure 1.98 0.56 −.10  
3. Task 1 0.16 0.37 .02 .07  
4. Task 2 0.35 0.48 −.08 .01 −.32***  
5. Task 3 0.27 0.45 −.06 .05 −.27** −.45***  
6. Team exploratory learning 4.68 0.59 .14 .01 .02 −.01 .02  
7. Team exploitative learning 4.62 0.56 .08 .00 .06 .14 .04 .33***  
8. Team promotion focus 4.60 0.57 .17 −.02 .08 .14 −.22** .18* .39***  
9. Team prevention focus 4.75 0.59 .01 .09 .08 .02 −.01 .32*** .05 −.09  
10. Centralization context 4.51 0.69 .27** .10 −.14 .03 .06 .40*** .06 .05 .18*  
11. Formalization context 4.71 0.63 −.69*** .12 −.05 .11 −.04 −.02 −.01 −.10 −.01 −.06  
12. Team radical creativity 4.67 0.64 .03 .03 .06 .08 −.06 .24** .38*** .23** −.06 .34*** .12  
13. Team incremental creativity 4.57 0.70 .20* .13 .06 −.02 .06 .36*** −.02 −.07 .46*** .32*** −.16 −.02

Note. For Task 1: basic or nonmission tasks; Task 2: new product or process development; Task 3: applied or mission-oriented tasks.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

1049
 Table 3.  Results of MLM Analyses of Team Regulatory Focus and Team Creativity.

1050
Team radical Team incremental Team exploratory Team exploitative
creativity creativity learning learning

  Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7 Model 8

Variable
  Control variables
  Team size .00 −.01 .07 .06 .01 .06 .03 .06
   Average team tenure .02 .03 .13 .13 −.03 .01 −.01 .02
  Task 1 .18 .06 .12 .19 .32** .16 −.02 −.10
  Task 2 .13 .00 .09 .17 .36** .30** −.02 −.09
  Task 3 .09 −.07 .16 .21 .41** .37** .08 −.00
  Independent variables
   Team promotion focus .23* .04 −.07 −.07 .39*** .46*** .21* .24**
   Team prevention focus −.08 −.16 .51*** .41*** .07 .24** .34*** .52***
   Team exploratory learning .36*** −.19  
   Team exploitative learning .18 .33**  
  Centralization context −.08 .29*
  Formalization context .31** .15*
Interaction
  Centralization context  
  X Team promotion focus −.31** −.35**
  X Team prevention focus .26* .43***
  Formalization context  
  X Team promotion focus −.34** −.11
  X Team prevention focus .37** .40**
Deviance 251.64 231.98 242.79 230.92 187.56 162.42 214.63 169.62

Note. For Task 1: 0 = others, 1 = basic or nonmission tasks; Task 2: 0 = others, 1 = new product or process development; Task 3: 0 = others, 1 =
applied or mission-oriented tasks. MLM = multilevel modeling.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
Li et al. 1051

Figure 2.  Team exploratory learning: Interaction between team promotion focus
and centralization.

relationship between team prevention focus and radical creativity (abcs =

.028, 95% CI = [−.020, .077]). Combined with the results of Hypothesis 1b,
the results fully supported Hypothesis 3.
To test Hypothesis 4, we first examined whether the team prevention focus
had an indirect positive relationship, through team exploitative learning, with
team incremental creativity. As shown earlier, team prevention focus was sig-
nificantly related to team exploitative learning. Team exploitative learning
was significantly related to team incremental creativity (Model 4, Table 3: γ
= .33, p < .01). The bootstrapping test indicated that the team prevention
focus had a significant indirect effect on team incremental creativity through
team exploitative learning (abcs = .094; 95% CI = [.014, .195]; effect power
= 90.7%). Next, we examined the indirect relationship between team promo-
tion focus and incremental creativity (abcs = .059; 95% CI = [.007, .128];
effect power = 85.3%). In conjunction with the support for Hypothesis 2b, the
results fully supported Hypothesis 4.

Moderating Role of Team Bureaucracy

The results of the tests of Hypotheses 5a and 5b are reported in Model 6 of
Table 3. The interaction between the team promotion focus and the team
centralization context was significantly related to team exploratory learning
1052 Group & Organization Management 44(6)

Figure 3.  Team exploratory learning: Interaction between team promotion focus
and formalization.

(γ = −.31, p < .01). As shown in Figure 2, the simple slope of the relationship
between team promotion focus and team exploratory learning was weaker
and nonsignificant (simple slope b = .15, ns) when the team centralization
context was high, but was stronger (simple slope b = .77, p < .01) when it was
low. The moderating effect of the team formalization context on the relation-
ship between team promotion focus and team exploratory learning was also
significant (γ = −.34, p < .01). The simple slope of the relationship between
the team promotion focus and team exploratory learning was weaker and
nonsignificant (simple slope b = .12, ns) when the team formalization context
was high but was stronger (simple slope b = .80, p < .01) when it was low
(Figure 3).
We used the first-stage moderation model to examine whether the moder-
ated indirect relationship was significant. The indirect relationship that the
interaction term of team promotion focus and team centralization had with
team radical creativity, via team exploratory learning, was significant (abcs =
−.063, 95% CI = [−.173, −.006], effect power = 65.9%). The indirect rela-
tionship that the interaction term of team promotion focus and team formal-
ization had with team radical creativity, via team exploratory learning, was
significant (abcs = −.118, 95% CI = [−.310, −.023], effect power = 85.8%).
Thus, Hypothesis 5 was fully supported.
Li et al. 1053

Figure 4.  Team exploitative learning: Interaction between team prevention focus
and centralization.

As presented in Model 8 of Table 3, the interaction between the team pre-

vention focus and the team centralization context was significantly related to
team exploitative learning (Model 8, Table 3: γ = .43, p < .001), which pro-
vided initial support for Hypothesis 6a. As shown in Figure 4, the simple
slope of the relationship between the team prevention focus and team exploit-
ative learning was weaker (simple slope b = .09, ns) when the team central-
ization context was low but was stronger (simple slope b = .95, p < .001)
when it was high. The indirect relationship that the interaction term of team
prevention focus and team centralization had with team incremental creativ-
ity, via team exploitative learning, was significant (abcs = .164; 95% CI =
[.054, .273]; effect power = 80.8%).
By contrast, the moderating effect of the team formalization context on the
link between team prevention focus and team exploitative learning is also
significant (Model 8, Table 3: γ = .40, p < .01), supporting Hypothesis 6b.
The simple slope of the relationship between the team prevention focus and
team exploitative learning was weaker and nonsignificant (simple slope b =
.12, ns) when the team formalization context was low, but was stronger (sim-
ple slope b = .92, p < .01) when it was high (Figure 5). The indirect relation-
ship that the interaction term of team prevention focus and team formalization
had with team incremental creativity, via team exploitative learning, was sig-
nificant (abcs = .108; 95% CI = [.002, 0.249]; effect power = 85.1%). Thus,
Hypothesis 6 was fully supported.
1054 Group & Organization Management 44(6)

Figure 5.  Team exploitative learning: Interaction between team prevention focus
and formalization.

Discussion
Our results demonstrate that the differing concerns of team regulatory foci
result in different preferences for the use of team exploratory learning and
team exploitative learning and that these, in turn, have different effects on
team radical creativity and incremental creativity. As predicted, we found
that the indirect relationship between team promotion focus and team radical
creativity (through team exploratory learning) was moderated by both team
centralization and team formalization, such that the positive relationship was
weakened, in centralized or formalized team context. In contrast, the indirect
relationship between team prevention focus (through team exploitative learn-
ing) and team incremental creativity was strengthened when team centraliza-
tion or team formalization was high. These findings provide important
implications for theory and practice.

Implications for Research

The current findings provide meaningful insights into the emerging research
on team regulatory focus. Similar to the research conducted by Rietzschel
(2011), which outlined the different relationships between the two types of
collective regulatory focus and aspects of team innovation, our study demon-
strates the differential roles of team promotion and prevention foci in pursuing
two distinct types of team creativity: radical creativity and incremental
Li et al. 1055

creativity. This study, together with that of Rietzschel (2011), suggests that the
team regulatory focus entails distinct motivational states that differentially
contribute to different types of team innovative outcomes. Thus, we suggest
that team regulatory focus theory and research would benefit from considering
the type of innovative outcomes as a boundary condition, which aligns with
evidence regarding individual-level regulatory focus (Lam & Chiu, 2002).
It is important for future research to take our findings into consideration
when drawing conclusions about the implications of team regulatory focus
for creativity. Previous research has shown that only the team promotion
focus benefits creativity (Y. Shin et al., 2016), but our results show that two
distinct team regulatory foci facilitate team creativity but they promote dif-
ferent types of team creativity. Thus, scholars should not simply focus on the
nonsignificant or even negative relationship that team prevention focus has
with radical creativity, as this may put its creativity implication to be in dan-
ger of fading into obscurity.
One significant theoretical contribution of this study is the examination of
team learning as the key team regulatory process through which team regula-
tory focus differently influences two types of team creativity. Despite some
evidence for the different relationships between team regulatory focus and
team creativity and innovation, no prior research has investigated potential
explanatory mechanisms for these differential relationships. In particular, this
study demonstrates that promotion-focused teams are more effective than
prevention-focused teams at developing more novel ideas because of their
preferential use of team exploratory learning. In contrast, prevention-focused
teams are more willing than promotion-focused teams to use team exploit-
ative learning, which is conducive to eliciting more adaptive ideas.
Our study responds to calls for inquiries into the relative strength of regu-
latory focus on exploitation and exploration (Tuncdogan et al., 2015). Our
results support the view of these scholars. Notably, our results show that there
is no direct association between team promotion focus and team incremental
creativity. Intuitively, promotion-focused individuals or teams may generate
more ideas because a promotion focus improves memory search for novel
responses (Friedman & Förster, 2001). One possible explanation is that incre-
mental and radical creativity differ in the type of ideas that are pursued (more
novel vs. more adaptive; Madjar et al., 2011), although both types of creativ-
ity are concerned with the generation of ideas. At the strategic level, under
normal conditions, the promotion focus will result in the adoption of more
eager approaches (e.g., exploration), which are more effective for generating
novel ideas than for generating adaptive ideas. Therefore, in-depth research
is required to determine the conditions under which promotion focus is asso-
ciated with the generation of adaptive ideas.
1056 Group & Organization Management 44(6)

In an important departure from Y. Shin et al. (2016), who found a nonsig-

nificant relationship between team prevention focus and team creative per-
formance, this study shows that team prevention focus has a relationship with
the incremental type of team creativity through team exploitative learning.
Although one possible reason for Y. Shin et al.’s (2016) result is that team
creative performance is closely related to the radical type of team creativity,
another reason is the lack of attention given to the cognitive processing effect
of the prevention focus state, which motivates in-depth deliberation of
domain knowledge (De Dreu, Baas, & Nijstad, 2008). Our results demon-
strate that these two distinct team regulatory foci will both trigger collective
cognitive processing efforts but have different preferences, such as explora-
tion versus exploitation. Therefore, the present study advances a team-level
nomological network of regulatory foci in work teams and highlights the
value of team-learning activities as the key team regulatory tactic linking
team regulatory focus and team outcomes.
Our study first examines when team regulatory focus may be more
closely related to team creativity, and it identifies team bureaucracy as a
novel boundary condition. In an important counterpoint to earlier evidence,
which seems to favor less team bureaucracy when aiming to engender team
creativity (Jansen, van Den Bosch, & Volberda, 2006), the findings of this
study reveal that team bureaucracy may inhibit as well as stimulate the
relationship between team regulatory focus and team creativity and that it
may not always inhibit creativity. An important issue to consider in this
respect is that team centralization and team formalization contexts have
both motivation-inhibiting and motivation-activating influences, depend-
ing on the shared motivational states of team regulatory focus such as pro-
motion or prevention. Our findings reveal that both centralized decision
making and formalization weaken the indirect relationships between team
promotion focus and team radical creativity, but they actually enhance the
indirect relationships between team prevention focus and team incremental
creativity. We rationalize that this result arises from the empowering nature
of decentralization and the uncertain nature of low formalization, which fit
the eager motivational state of promotion focus but not the vigilant motiva-
tional state of prevention focus. However, because the passive nature of
team bureaucracy fits well with the vigilant motivational state of preven-
tion focus, both centralization and formalization are likely to activate the
members of prevention-focused teams to engage in team learning. Our
findings also advance the regulatory fit perspective as well as the associ-
ated research that generally holds a view of team bureaucracy as inhibiting.
Departing from the dominant inhibiting view, we suggest that team bureau-
cracy may actually play a negative moderating role but only when teams
Li et al. 1057

adopt a promotion-focused state. This study, therefore, provides new insight

into the neutral view of team bureaucracy in the regulatory focus and team
creativity literature.

Implications for Practice

The current findings provide practitioners with fruitful insights into ways to
promote radical or incremental creativity in their teams. Throughout our
analyses, we found that the two systems of team regulatory focus are dif-
ferentially advantageous for different kinds of team creativity because one
is more conducive to exploratory learning and the other is more conducive
to exploitative learning. This finding has implications for practice. Under
conditions of complexity and unpredictability, managers should consider
that promotion-focused teams may perform better than prevention-focused
teams. Under such conditions (e.g., radical creativity tasks), leaders should
require the teams to develop a high collective promotion focus and help
them develop exploration-related tactics. For example, team leaders should
actively seek to establish autonomy for experimentation or encourage spe-
cialized team training for exploration (Li et al., 2010). A prevention-focused
team might be more effective than a promotion-focused team at engaging in
adaptive, competitive tasks. When teams engage in adaptive tasks, manag-
ers should ensure teams have a higher collective prevention focus and cre-
ate contexts that encourage the use of exploitation-related tactics. For
instance, they can employ disciplined project management procedures to
facilitate exploitative learning activities (Li & Yeh, 2017). To summarize,
team leaders should ensure that the collective regulatory orientation fits the
work teams’ goals (e.g., more novel vs. more adaptive or eagerness vs.
vigilance).
Our results regarding team bureaucracy also have important implications
for practice. To bolster creativity in their teams, leaders need to tailor their
team regulatory focus to the work context in which their team members per-
form. Increasing the collective motivational state of promotion focus is
unlikely to produce team radical creativity under centralized decision making
and formalized work contexts. It would be advantageous to match the collec-
tive motivational state of promotion focus with an autonomous work context
or self-managed teams, which would also facilitate exploratory learning
(Power & Waddell, 2004). However, when prevention focus is evoked in a
team, building a work context with highly formalized procedures that facili-
tate exploitative learning (Li et al., 2010) may actually help elevate the team’s
level of incremental creativity.
1058 Group & Organization Management 44(6)

Limitations and Future Research Directions

The findings and implications of this study should be interpreted within the
context of the study’s limitations. First, our findings were based on self-
reported data. Common method variance may have potentially affected the
results. To avoid this problem, we conducted a temporally lagged design: the
independent variables and the moderator were all collected at Time 1, the
mediator was collected at Time 2, and the dependent variable was collected
at Time 3. Following Podsakoff and his colleagues’ (2013) recommendations,
we also conducted a CFA by adding a common method factor, which did not
significantly improve the model fit. Thus, the common method variance may
not be a serious problem in our study.
Second, the cross-sectional design of our study does not establish causal-
ity in relationship. For example, a team with previous success in creativity
might reinforce their tendency toward team-learning activities (either explor-
atory learning or exploitative learning) for team creativity, which in turn will
regulate their focus on how to gain novelty (either radical or incremental) in
a research and development task. We assume that the previously mentioned
concerns may not significantly influence our interpretation because the
hypotheses proposed in this study are based on theory. However, we encour-
age future researchers to use a longitudinal or experimental design to demon-
strate the direction of causality.
Third, to examine if a significant mediating effect, but with relatively
small effect size, was adequate, we conducted a post hoc power analysis
using the MedPower (Kenny, 2017). The findings showed that at an alpha
level of .05 (two tailed), the values of effect power for most indirect relation-
ships were higher than 80% except for the indirect relationship between the
interaction of team promotion focus and centralization on team radical cre-
ativity. Thus, the indirect relationship with a relatively lower effect power
should be interpreted carefully, and a larger sample is suggested for future
research to examine these indirect effects. However, it should be noted that a
power value only suggests the possibility of detecting a true population effect
if it exists but does not indicate the existence of the population effect (Sun,
Pan, & Wang, 2011).
Fourth, the present data was collected from diverse research and develop-
ment teams operating within technology and knowledge-intensive environ-
ments, yet our sample was selected by human resource managers of each
organization, which may weaken the generalizability of the current findings
due to factors such as organization-level contexts or potential selection bias
(Heckman, 1986). Thus, future research should test the propositions of the
present study by collecting broader samples and investigating teams that
Li et al. 1059

operate within less knowledge-intensive environments. Moreover, multilevel

investigations of organizational culture and structure could constitute a
meaningful research agenda (Kostopoulos & Bozionelos, 2011).
Finally, this study only examined team-learning activities as a mechanism
that links team regulatory focus and team radical and incremental creativity
based on team-learning perspective. However, other potential mechanisms
using various theoretical approaches might exist and should not be ruled out.
For example, when regulatory focus activates either approach or avoidance
motivation (Lanaj, Chang, & Johnson, 2012), it can also influence a team’s
creative expression through team approach focus and avoidance focus, as
both motivational foci influence team engagement during the creative pro-
cess. Thus, future research might develop a model to capture this phenome-
non and examine this model by integrating an approach/avoidance motivation
view to further elaborate on our findings.

Conclusion
In this study, we provide initial evidence that the differences between team
promotion focus and prevention focus lead to differences in the preference of
teams to engage in exploratory and exploitative learning, which, in turn, are
differentially related to team radical creativity and team incremental creativ-
ity. Furthermore, team bureaucracy plays a moderating role: when team
bureaucracy is higher, the indirect positive relationship between team promo-
tion focus and team radical creativity is weaker, but the indirect positive rela-
tionship between team incremental creativity and team prevention focus is
stronger. We hope that this study will stimulate further empirical research on
the area of team regulatory focus and further research on radical and incre-
mental creativity.
1060 Group & Organization Management 44(6)

Appendix
Measures and Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results.
Constructs Operational Measure SFL
Team radical For the ideas your team comes up with while working on team
creativity tasks, to what extent would you characterize them as:
1. Departures from what is currently done/offered at the .78
company
2. Discoveries of completely new processes/products than .78
what the company currently does
3. Fundamental changes to how things are currently done/ .80
what is currently offered at the organization.
4. Radical inventions beyond existing processes/products. .78
Team For the ideas your team comes up with while working on team
incremental tasks, to what extent would you characterize them as:
creativity 1. Extensions built on what was currently done/what is .79
currently done by the organization
2. Adaptations to existing processes/products used at the .79
company
3. Refinements of how things are currently done/what is .81
currently done at the company
4. Incremental improvements upon existing processes/ .82
products
Team 1. Our team looks for opportunities to employ entirely new .81
exploratory skills and knowledge to solve work problems.
learning 2. Our team members are willing to take risks on new ideas .89
or thoughts for performing their tasks.
3. In the team, our aim was to collect new information that .89
forced us to learn new things in the current tasks.
4. In the team, our aim was to acquire knowledge to
accomplish work that led us into new areas of learning .90
such as new technological practices.
5. In information search, we focused on acquiring task knowledge .89
and skills that involved experimentation and high risks
Team 1. Our team prefers to apply information and know-how .89
exploitative gained in prior projects to current project.
learning 2. Our team tends to exploit mature knowledge and .86
expertise that increase efficiency of accomplishing work
3. Our aim was to search for information to refine common .87
methods and ideas in terms of solving work problems
during the project.
4. In the team, we search for the usual and generally proven .79
methods and solutions to perform tasks.
5. In the team, we used information acquisition methods (i.e., .87
survey of prior project reports) that helped us understand
and update current task and work problems.

(continued)
Li et al. 1061

Appendix (continued)
Constructs Operational Measure SFL
Centralization Our leader …
1. Uses my team’s suggestions to make decisions that affect us. .78
2. Listens to my team’s ideas and suggestions. .87
3. Encourages team members to express ideas/suggestions. .90
4. Gives all team members a chance to voice their opinions. .81
Formalization In my team,
1. there are a lot of rules and regulations. .90
2. our work involves a great deal of paper-work and .89
administration.
3. our work is highly regulated by bureaucratic procedures. .87
Team 1. People in my team take chances at work to maximize .90
promotion their goals for advancement.
focus 2. People in my team tend to take risks at work in order to .91
achieve success.
3. If people in my team had an opportunity to participate on .90
a high-risk, high-reward project they would definitely take
it.
4. If the job of people in my team did not allow for .91
advancement, they would likely find a new one.
5. A chance to grow is an important factor for people in my .90
team when looking for a job.
6. People in my team focus on accomplishing job tasks that .89
will further their advancement.
7. At work, people in my team are motivated by their hopes .90
and aspirations.
8. The work priorities of people in my team are impacted by .90
a clear picture of what they aspire to be.
9. People in my team spend a great deal of time envisioning .90
how to fulfill their aspirations.
Team 1. People in my team concentrate on their work correctly to .91
prevention increase their job security.
focus 2. At work, people in my team focus their attention on .89
completing their assigned responsibilities.
3. Fulfilling their work duties is very important to people in .90
my team.
4. At work, people in my team strive to live up to the .90
responsibilities and duties given to them by others.
(continued)
1062 Group & Organization Management 44(6)

Appendix (continued)
Constructs Operational Measure SFL
5. At work, people in my team are often focused on .90
accomplishing tasks that will support their need for
security. .91
6. People in my team do everything they can to avoid loss at
work. .89
7. Job security is an important factor for people in my team
in any job search. .91
8. People in my team focus their attention on avoiding failure
at work. .90
9. People in my team are very careful to avoid exposing
themselves to potential losses at work.
SFL: standardized factor loading

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article: The authors are grateful to the National
Natural Science Foundation of China (71602067; 71702029), the Humanity and
Social Science on Youth Fund of the Ministry of Education (15YJCZH084), and the
China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (2016M601387) for their research support.

References
Ahearne, M., Mathieu, J., & Rapp, A. (2005). To empower or not to empower your
sales force? An empirical examination of the influence of leadership empow-
erment behavior on customer satisfaction and performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 90, 945-955.
Arnold, J. A., Arad, S., Rhoades, J. A., & Drasgow, F. (2000). The empowering lead-
ership questionnaire: The construction and validation of a new scale for measur-
ing leader behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 249-269.
Bauer, D. J., Preacher, K. J., & Gil, K. M. (2006). Conceptualizing and testing random
indirect effects and moderated mediation in multilevel models: New procedures
and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 11, 142-163.
Beersma, B., Homan, A. C., Van Kleef, G. A., & De Dreu, C. K. (2013). Outcome
interdependence shapes the effects of prevention focus on team processes and
performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 121,
194-203.
Li et al. 1063

Bliese, P. D., & Halverson, R. R. (1998). Group size and measures of group-level prop-
erties: An examination of eta-squared and ICC values. Journal of Management,
24, 157-172.
Chen, G., Kirkman, B. L., Kanfer, R., Allen, D., & Rosen, B. (2007). A multilevel
study of leadership, empowerment, and performance in teams. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 92, 331-346.
Davila, A., & Ditillo, A. (2017). Management control systems and creativity. In M.
A. Hitt, S. E. Jackson, S. Carmona, L. Bierman, C. E. Shalley, & D. M. Wright
(Eds.), The oxford handbook of strategy implementation (pp. 393-417). Oxford,
UK: Oxford University Press.
De Dreu, C. K., Baas, M., & Nijstad, B. A. (2008). Hedonic tone and activation level
in the mood-creativity link: Toward a dual pathway to creativity model. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 739-758.
Dimotakis, N., Davison, R. B., & Hollenbeck, J. R. (2012). Team structure and regu-
latory focus: The impact of regulatory fit on team dynamic. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 97, 421-434.
Faddegon, K., Ellemers, N., & Scheepers, D. (2009). Eager to be the best, or vigi-
lant not to be the worst: The emergence of regulatory focus in disjunctive and
conjunctive group tasks. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 12, 653-671.
Ferris, D. L., Johnson, R. E., Rosen, C. C., Djurdjevic, E., Chang, C.-H. D., & Tan,
J. A. (2013). When is success not satisfying? Integrating regulatory focus and
approach/avoidance motivation theories to explain the relation between core self-
evaluation and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 342-353.
Friedman, R. S., & Förster, J. (2001). The effects of promotion and prevention cues on
creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 1001-1013.
Ghemawat, P., & Ricart Costa, J. E. I. (1993). The organizational tension between
static and dynamic efficiency. Strategic Management Journal, 14(S2), 59-73.
Gilson, L. L., & Madjar, N. (2011). Radical and incremental creativity: Antecedents
and processes. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5, 21-28.
Hair, J. F., Tatham, R. L., Anderson, R. E., & Black, W. (1998). Multivariate data
analysis (5th ed.). London, England: Prentice-Hall.
Hamstra, M. R. W., Bolderdijk, J. W., & Veldstra, J. L. (2011). Everyday risk taking
as a function of regulatory focus. Journal of Research in Personality, 45, 134-137.
Heckman, J. J. (1986). Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica,
47, 153-161.
Higgins, E. T. (2000). Making a good decision: Value from fit. American Psychologist,
55, 1217-1230.
Higgins, E. T. (2006). Value from hedonic experience and engagement. Psychological
Review, 113, 439-460.
Hirst, G., van Knippenberg, D., Chen, C., & Sacramento, C. A. (2011). How does
bureaucracy impact individual creativity? A cross-level investigation of team
contextual influences on goal orientation-creativity relationships. Academy of
Management Journal, 54, 624-641.
1064 Group & Organization Management 44(6)

Jansen, J. J., van Den Bosch, F. A., & Volberda, H. W. (2006). Exploratory innova-
tion, exploitative innovation, and performance: Effects of organizational anteced-
ents and environmental moderators. Management Science, 52, 1661-1674.
Johnson, P. D., Smith, M. B., Wallace, J. C., Hill, A. D., & Baron, R. A. (2015). A
review of multilevel regulatory focus in organizations. Journal of Management,
41, 1501-1529.
Keller, R. T. (1992). Transformational leadership and the performance of research
and development project groups. Journal of Management, 18, 489-501.
Kenny, D. A. (2017). MedPower: An interactive tool for the estimation of power
in tests of mediation [Computer software]. Retrieved from https://davidakenny.
shinyapps.io/MedPower/
Kostopoulos, K. C., & Bozionelos, N. (2011). Team exploratory and exploitative
learning: Psychological safety, task conflict, and team performance. Group &
Organization Management, 36, 385-415.
Lam, T. W. H., & Chiu, C. Y. (2002). The motivational function of regulatory focus
in creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 36, 138-150.
Lanaj, K., Chang, C.-H., & Johnson, R. E. (2012). Regulatory focus and work-related
outcomes: A review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 138, 998-1034.
Li, C.-R., Chu, C.-P., & Lin, C.-J. (2010). The contingent value of exploratory and
exploitative learning for new product development performance. Industrial
Marketing Management, 39, 1186-1197.
Li, C.-R., Lin, C.-J., Tien, Y.-H., & Chen, C.-M. (2017). A multilevel model of team
cultural diversity and creativity: The role of climate for inclusion. The Journal of
Creative Behavior, 15, 163-179.
Li, C.-R., & Yeh, C.-H. (2017). Leveraging the benefits of exploratory and exploitative
learning in NPD: The role of innovation field orientation. R&D Management, 47,
484-497.
Madjar, N., Greenberg, E., & Chen, Z. (2011). Factors for radical creativity, incre-
mental creativity, and routine, noncreative performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 96, 730-743.
March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning.
Organization Science, 2, 71-87.
Mehta, A., Feild, H., Armenakis, A., & Mehta, N. (2009). Team goal orientation and
team performance: The mediating role of team planning. Journal of Management,
35, 1026-1046.
Neubert, M. J., Kacmar, K. M., Carlson, D. S., Chonko, L. B., & Roberts, J. A.
(2008). Regulatory focus as a mediator of the influence of initiating structure
and servant leadership on employee behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology,
93, 1220-1233.
Podsakoff, N. P., Whiting, S. W., Welsh, D. T., & Mai, K. M. (2013). Surveying
for “artifacts”: The susceptibility of the OCB-performance evaluation relation-
ship to common rater, item, and measurement context effects. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 98, 863-874.
Power, J., & Waddell, D. (2004). The link between self-managed work teams and
learning organisations using performance indicators. The Learning Organization,
11, 244-259.
Li et al. 1065

Preacher, K. J., & Kelley, K. (2011). Effect size measures for mediation models:
Quantitative strategies for communicating indirect effects. Psychological
Methods, 16, 93-115.
Rafferty, A. E., & Griffin, M. A. (2004). Dimensions of transformational lead-
ership: Conceptual and empirical extensions. The Leadership Quarterly, 15,
329-354.
Rietzschel, E. F. (2011). Collective regulatory focus predicts specific aspects of team
innovation. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 14, 337-345.
Sacramento, C. A., Fay, D., & West, M. A. (2013). Workplace duties or opportu-
nities? Challenge stressors, regulatory focus, and creativity. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 121, 141-157.
Scholer, A. A., & Higgins, E. T. (2010). Regulatory focus in a demanding world. In
R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Handbook of personality and self-regulation (pp. 291-314).
Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Scholer, A. A., & Higgins, E. T. (2011). Promotion and prevention systems:
Regulatory focus dynamics within self-regulatory hierarchies. In K. D. Vohs
& R. F. Baumeister (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and
applications (pp. 143-161). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Shin, S. J., & Zhou, J. (2007). When is educational specialization heterogeneity
related to creativity in research and development teams? Transformational lead-
ership as a moderator. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1709-1721.
Shin, Y. (2014). Positive group affect and team creativity: Mediation of team reflexiv-
ity and promotion focus. Small Group Research, 45, 337-364.
Shin, Y., Kim, M., Choi, J. N., & Lee, S.-H. (2016). Does team culture matter? Roles
of team culture and collective regulatory focus in team task and creative perfor-
mance. Group & Organization Management, 41, 232-265.
Spanjol, J., Tam, L., Qualls, W. J., & Bohlmann, J. D. (2011). New product team
decision making: Regulatory focus effects on number, type, and timing decisions.
Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28, 623-640.
Sun, S., Pan, W., & Wang, L. L. (2011). Rethinking observed power: Concept, prac-
tice, and implications. Methodology: European Journal of Research Methods for
the Behavioral and Social Sciences, 7, 81-87.
Tuncdogan, A., Van Den Bosch, F., & Volberda, H. (2015). Regulatory focus as a
psychological micro-foundation of leaders’ exploration and exploitation activi-
ties. The Leadership Quarterly, 26, 838-850.
Weick, K. E. (1979). Cognitive processes in organization. In B. M. Staw (Ed.),
Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 1, pp. 41-74). Greenwich, CT: JAI
Press.

Associate Editor: Jin Nam Choi

Submitted Date: March 30, 2018
Revised Submission: April 25, 2018
Acceptance Date: April 7, 2018
1066 Group & Organization Management 44(6)

Author Biographies
Ci-Rong Li is an associate professor at the School of Management, Jilin University,
China. He earned his PhD from the Department of Business Administration in
National Dong Hwa University. His research interests include organizational
­ambidexterity, product innovativeness, group dynamics, and creativity.
Chen-Ju Lin is an associate professor of Tzu Chi University of Science and
Technology in Taiwan and she received her PhD from the Department of Business
Administration in National Dong Hwa University. Her research interests include new
product development, organizational creativity, mindsets of management, the
­intelligence of modern products, and industrial market survey.
Jing Liu is a PhD student at the School of Management, Jilin University, China. Her
research interests include creativity, leadership, and social innovation.
Copyright of Group & Organization Management is the property of Sage Publications Inc.
and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without
the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or
email articles for individual use.