Innov ation is often sparked by team work involvi ng the inte rse ction of multiple disc iplines (Hara gon 20 03; Denison and Kahn 1996).

Mohamme d andA n g e l l ( 2 0 0 3 ) f o u n d i n a s t u d y of b u s i n e s s s t u d e n tteams , that higher variab ility on agre eableness and emotional stability resulted in lower oral presenta tion scores ,where a s higher variab ility on extraversion resulte d inhigher oral presen tation scores.

Neum ann andWrigh t found that agree ableness and emotion al stabilitypredi cted peer e valua tions beyo nd skills and ability in astudy of huma n resources teams (Neuman an d Wrigh t1999).

Neuman GA, Wright J (1999) Team effectiveness: beyond skills and cognitive ability. J Appl Psychol 84(3):376– 389

In all fields , the degree of conscien tiousness canbe used to predict individua l performa nce. Agreeable ness wa s highly correla ted to work ing success fully onteams. Extraversion and emotion al stabili ty positiv elyinflue nced how a person felt about a work rol e (O zer and Bene t-Martin ez 2006)

Ozer DJ, Benet-Martinez V (2006) Personality and the prediction of consequential outcomes. Annu Rev Psychol 57:401 – 421

Stable emotion means that people can adapt to their environment and that the sub-components of

the emotion system can collaborate efficiently, which means that the high ES person is able to handle

stresses and difficulties. Self efficacy was defined by Bandura (1977) as “beliefs in one’s capabilities to

organize and execute the course of action required to produce given attainments” (p.3). So we

hypothesize that.

H3.3: ES is positively related to self-efficacy.

Behavior plasticity theory (cf. Brockner, 1988; Pierce, et al., 1993) considered that individuals

react differently to similar circumstances. Behavior plasticity refers to the extent to which individuals’

actions are susceptible to influence by external and, particularly, social cues (Brockner, 1988, p.27).

Statistically, behavior plasticity theory holds the view that dispositional variables or personality (e.g.,

self-esteem, self-efficacy, negative affection, etc) can be a moderator to moderate the relationship

between environment elements and an individual behavior or variable. ES as a personality trait also can

be a moderator to moderate the individual responses to a specific environment element. Empirical

evidence for behavior plasticity theory shows that some kinds of behaviors have individual differences

toward the same environment, for example, organizational commitment, organizational identification

(Saks, Ashforth, 2000), leadership (Weiss, 1977) etc. However, with respect to other variables or

behaviors, dispositional variables or personality do not moderate individual behaviors toward specific

stressors, e.g., job satisfaction (Saks & Ashforth, 2000). Behavior plasticity theory does not discuss what

kinds of behavior can or cannot be moderated by dispositional variables and situations.

Self efficacy was defined by Bandura (1977) as “beliefs in one’s capabilities to organize and

execute the course of action required to produce given attainments” (p.3). Empirical research has

demonstrated that self-efficacy is a dispositional variable, which means it can predict individual behavior

across varied situations and circumstances (Lennings, 1994; Sherer, Maddux, Mercandante, Prentice-

Dunn, Jacobs & Rogers, 1982; Tipton & Worthington, 1984). Self-efficacy has been used as a

dispositional variable in a number of research areas (e.g., Cozzarelli, 1993; Martocchio & Hertenstein,

2003; Wyatt, 1990).

3.2 Emotional stability

Both Patterson (2002) and King, McKee Walker and Broyles (1996) tried to associate the

characteristics of creative people with the five factor model. They discussed the difficulty of determining

the relation between innovation and emotional stability. One would expect that a high level of

emotional stability will correlate with high innovativeness. The characteristics of emotional stability are

secure, stable, not anxious and tolerant of stress. When looking at the factors determining innovative

behavior, similarities can be found. Changing environments, implying innovation could lead to stress and

anxiety. Also tolerance and persistence could be related to emotional stability (Patterson, 2002). In

contrast with the predictions done by Patterson (2002), King et al. (1996) did not find a relation between

emotional stability and creativity. The image of the creative person as the suffering artist suggested

emotional instability, but this view is shown to be untrue by Anthony (1987) who found that creativity is

related to superior coping and heightened well-being (King et al., 1996).

However, in a review of leadership in innovation, Mumford et al (2002) concludes that the

association between transformational leadership and innovation is not that clear. While some studies

show that transformational leadership is positively related to creativity and innovation (e.g. Sosik, 1997),

other research has failed to find a significant relationship (e.g. Jaussi & Dionne, 2003). One argument is

that rather than examining whether there is a direct association between transformational eadership

and innovation, researchers should identify the impact of this leadership style and the associated

behaviours on related factors that have been shown to promote innovation. Consistent with this claim,

Jung and his colleagues (2003) found that a transformational leadership style in top leaders promoted a

work environment supportive of innovation and job empowerment amongst employees.