The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Joint Impact of Interdependence and Group Diversity on Innovation
Abstract
This questionnaire study among 343 members of 41 work teams in a financial services organization examined the effects of individual team members’ perceived task interdependence and perceived goal interdependence on innovative behavior in teams characterized by different levels of group diversity. Multilevel analyses revealed that individual’s perceived task and goal interdependence were not related to innovative behavior in homogeneous teams. In heterogeneous teams, however, task interdependence was strongly and positively related to innovative behavior for individuals who perceived high levels of goal interdependence, and unrelated to innovative behavior for those who perceived low levels of goal interdependence.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
ASSESSING THE WORK ENVIRONMENT FOR CREATIVITY.
AMABILE, T. M., CONTI, R., COON, H., LAZENBY, J., & HERRON, M. (1996) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/256995 · Cited by 6,029
Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.69.1.85 · Cited by 4,774
The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization.
Amabile, T. M. (1983) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.45.2.357 · Cited by 4,034
Milliken, F. J., & Martins, L. L. (1996) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1996.9605060217 · Cited by 3,413
Demographic Diversity, Conflict, and Work Group Outcomes: An Intervening Process Theory
Pelled, L. H. (1996) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.7.6.615 · Cited by 1,489
Effects of the expert, devil's advocate, and dialectical inquiry methods on prediction performance
Schwenk, C. R., & Cosier, R. A. (1980) · Organizational Behavior and Human Performance · doi:10.1016/0030-5073(80)90076-8 · Cited by 132
Cited by
Anderson, N., Potočnik, K., & Zhou, J. (2014) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206314527128 · Cited by 3,103
van Knippenberg, D., & Schippers, M. C. (2007) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085546 · Cited by 2,200
The Sources of Four Commonly Reported Cutoff Criteria: What Did They Really Say?
Lance, C. E., Butts, M. M., & Michels, L. C. (2006) · Organizational Research Methods · doi:10.1177/1094428105284919 · Cited by 2,053
The Role Of Context In Work Team Diversity Research: A Meta-Analytic Review
Joshi, A., & Roh, H. (2009) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2009.41331491 · Cited by 1,362
Shin, S. J., & Zhou, J. (2007) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.6.1709 · Cited by 845
Metadata
- Authors
- VanderVegt, G.
- Venue
- Journal of Management
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2003-10
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 729-751
- ISSN
- 0149-2063 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2124610241
- Cited by
- 580
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 6.78
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Joint Impact of Interdependence and Group Diversity on Innovation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0149-2063(03)00033-3
- The paper
- VanderVegt, G. (2003). Joint Impact of Interdependence and Group Diversity on Innovation. Journal of Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0149-2063(03)00033-3
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
