Multiple team membership and creativity: ambidexterity knowledge search
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Many organizations are adopting multiple team membership (MTM) as a job model to enhance competitiveness. However, numerous questions about MTM in management remain unresolved. In today’s increasingly dynamic and digitized organizational environment, there is a growing need for creativity. Despite this, few studies have explored the relationship between MTM and creativity. Therefore, understanding how and when MTM can foster creativity is crucial for organizations. Design/methodology/approach To capture a good understanding of the MTM effect, this study investigates the relationships among MTM, creativity, ambidexterity knowledge search and the need for cognition. The statistical software packages SPSS and AMOS 24.0 are employed to develop a mediated moderation model linking MTM to creativity. Findings The results of this empirical study provide valuable insights. Notably, our findings reveal no statistically significant direct relationship between MTM and creativity. However, the study supports a mediated moderation model, indicating that the need for cognition is a critical boundary condition for MTM in the Chinese organizational context. This finding confirms that the effectiveness of MTM depends on suitable individual characteristics. Additionally, ambidexterity knowledge search acts as the key mediator through which MTM enhances creativity. Originality/value The originality of this study is captured in focusing on the “ambidexterity” paths of how and when MTM effectively influences creativity through an empirical study, responding to scholars’ call for further exploration of the MTM’s effects. The result shows that the need for cognition and ambidexterity knowledge search is a critical moderator and mediator, respectively, in enhancing employee creativity within MTM. This research addresses scholars’ calls for a more in-depth exploration of knowledge search from an individual perspective and expands the understanding of the external effects of the need for cognition across various organizational contexts.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".