Search results

The purpose of this paper is to develop a conceptual framework exploring innovation process in research and development units of organizations. Research and development (R&D) teams of pharmaceutical firms operating in India were the unit of analysis.

Data were collected from 352 leaders and equal number of team members working in R&D teams. Responses were collected through questionnaire survey method. Questions to measure variables of members’ proactive personality, emotional intelligence, trust, task reflexivity, team creativity and innovation adoption were answered by team leaders. Similarly, questions on variables, resonant leadership style of team leaders, team information sharing process and climate for innovation were answered by team members. Out of 450 distributed questionnaires, 352 completely filled responses were finally obtained, with a response rate of 78 percent. Data were analyzed through structural equation modeling using AMOS 21.0 software package.

Findings of the study reveal that members’ proactive personality, emotional intelligence and trust enhance members’ learning ability called task reflexivity. This learning is further promulgated with the intervention of team information sharing process and support for innovation. Team creativity enhances innovation implementation in organizations. However, resonant leadership style of team leaders does not support task reflexivity.

Overall, the study highlights that creativity is promulgated when information is disseminated among members in a supportive climate for innovation. Organizations can create and innovate by developing capability of members who are proactive, emotionally intelligent and who trust their colleagues, so that team members can rationally judge organizational priorities, learn from their colleagues, plan and execute novice ideas to serve market needs.

R&D team enhances creativity and innovation in organizations by leveraging their talent and skills. This work is an attempt to develop an innovation process model in Indian pharmaceutical organizations to promulgate creativity and innovation through R&D teams.

The ability to reflect upon and manage their internal functioning may very much help teams contribute to their organizations. This study suggests that managing conflict cooperatively and productively provides a foundation for effective team task reflexivity. 200 employees in 100 work teams in China completed measures of their team's cooperative, competitive, and avoiding approach conflict management and task reflexivity and 100 managers indicated the team's in‐role and extra‐role (organizational citizenship behavior) performance. Results support the theorizing that conflict management can contribute to team task reflexivity. Structural equation analyses were interpreted as suggesting that cooperative conflict management promotes task reflexivity that in turn results in team performance. These results, coupled with previous research, were interpreted as suggesting that cooperative approaches to conflict and task reflexivity are complementary foundations for effective teamwork.

Previous research has yielded inconsistent findings of the effects that task conflict has on creative outcomes, with some research finding a negative relationship but others holding a positive or even no significant relationship. Drawing on the too-much-of-a-good-thing effect approach, this paper aims to investigate the curvilinear relations between task conflict and creative idea generation as well as the mediating role of task reflexivity and the moderating role of task complexity.

Two studies were carried out to test the proposed relationship. In Study 1, multisource and lagged data collected from 533 employees and 140 corresponding supervisors were used to test the curvilinear relationship between task conflict and creative idea generation as well as the moderating effect of task complexity. In Study 2, the authors extended the findings by exploring the mediating effect of task reflexivity using a matched sample of 350 employees and 99 corresponding supervisors.

Task conflict had an inverted U-shaped relationship with creative idea generation, and task reflexivity partially mediated this relationship. Besides, this association was moderated by task complexity such that the curvilinear relationship was more pronounced for tasks with lower complexity.

This study was more or less contaminated by common method variance because some variables were derived from the same sources. Also, task conflict might be necessitated to differentiate and more situational variables should be considered to draw a complete picture.

Managers should undertake conflict management according to the levels of task conflict and task complexity. At a lower degree of task conflict, managers might motivate employees to think more about task-related issues; at higher levels of task conflict, managers should act as conflict mediators to reduce the underlying negative effects, especially for simple tasks.

These findings could help us understand the boundary conditions under, and the underlying mechanisms by, which task conflict has an impact on creative idea generation.

Many papers have been written about group reflexivity. Testimonials by practitioners often contain strong claims about its performance benefits. Research papers, by scientists, seem to support such claims at first glance, but a closer look reveals methodological problems and weak results, even in the studies that show performance benefits, and there are several studies that show no performance benefits. We have begun our own program of research on group reflexivity, and so far, we have found no performance benefits either. All of this suggests that enthusiasm for group reflexivity should be tempered, until more and better research has been done.

Teamwork is important for firms’ innovation and effectiveness, but often within-team conflicts arise. Prior literature reported inconsistent associations between conflict and team outcomes. This study aims to clarify these relationships and examine if team reflexivity improves outcomes and weakens intragroup conflict tendencies.

Data were collected through a survey questionnaire of 288 team members working on projects at 41 different high-tech firms in Jordan. The authors then built a model of intragroup conflict effects and used structural equation modeling to test for both direct and indirect effects.

Indirect effects of intragroup conflict were significantly associated with teamwork quality. Teamwork quality was also significantly related to improved team outcomes, and team reflexivity moderated this relationship. Furthermore, it was found that the direct effect of intragroup conflict was not significantly related to either teamwork quality or effectiveness. Finally, results supported the idea that some conflict is required for teams to remain viable, self-critical and innovative.

This is a cross-sectional study conducted in a single country and business industry, which limits the generalizability of results.

Team leaders should use reflexivity to create a sense of openness for collaborative interaction to improve group performance and member satisfaction.

This study provides a verified model to determine the circumstances in which conflict benefits team innovation and effectiveness. A central study contribution is that reflexivity reduces the negative impact of intragroup conflict.

Debriefs are a type of workplace meeting that often use after events and critical incidents. Debriefs are used to review performance, promote shared learning and understanding, and improve future team performance. Similarly, reflexivity refers to the extent to which team members reflect upon and openly discuss group processes, procedures, and actions to improve future team performance. In this chapter, the authors review the separate literatures and explore the relationship between debriefs and reflexivity. While the debrief literature does focus on aspects of reflection, what occurs between the aspects of reflection, planning, and action is left unexplored. The concept of reflexivity fits well with the successful use of debriefs, as reflexivity ensures that reflection results in outcomes and moves beyond just an overview or discussion during debriefing. Additionally, important constructs such as psychological safety and sensemaking are relevant to both debriefs and reflexivity such that open and honest discussion as well as developing shared understanding are necessary for effective debriefing and reflection. Using the constructs of psychological safety and sensemaking, the authors propose a model that situates both reflexivity and effective debriefs in the context of team learning. This model integrates team reflexivity with team debriefs, provides a better understanding of how teams can carry out more effective debriefs, and explains how more effective debriefing and greater team reflexivity lead to enhanced learning and improvement in team performance.

To react quickly and to be flexible to respond to environmental uncertainty, working in teams is preferable. However, leadership must be decentralised for effective team performance. This paper aims to examine the impact of shared leadership on team performance through team reflexivity with task complexity.

To test the hypothesised relationships, a quantitative research design with purposive sampling technique was used. Data were gathered from employees working in teams. A total of 351 valid responses were analysed via SPSS PROCESS macro.

The findings signify that shared leadership positively impacts team reflexivity, which, in turn, has a significant impact on team performance. Results also revealed that team reflexivity strongly affects team performance in the presence of shared leadership and complex tasks.

Research related to effective team performance is scarce. Similarly, a review of a recently published article revealed that team reflexivity could work as a mediating mechanism in the relationship between shared leadership and effective team performance. Moreover, the concept of task complexity in the existing literature is scattered and needs to be integrated.

This paper aims to test if team reflexivity is a countermeasure to the detrimental effect of team virtuality on team performance improvement, in decision-making teams.

Study 1 regarded 210 individuals (N = 44 teams) executing five decision-making tasks. Study 2 regarded 60 individuals (N = 20 teams) executing four decision-making tasks. Study 1 was longitudinal, with no experimental manipulation. Study 2 had an experimental longitudinal design comprising two between-team manipulations: medium of communication and team reflexivity; the outcome was team performance improvement.

Study 1’s results show that team reflexivity positively moderates the effect of virtuality on team performance improvement over time. Study 2’s results shows that a reflexivity manipulation benefits face-to-face teams more so than virtual teams, probably because team reflexivity is more effective when media richness is high.

The implications of reflexivity’s lack of effect in low virtuality (Study 1) and high virtuality (Study 2) teams are discussed. This study contributes to the team learning and virtual teams’ literatures by expanding current knowledge on how team reflexivity can facilitate team learning under face-to-face versus virtual communication conditions.

To determine the effects of project management skills, entrepreneurial proclivity, and existing knowledge on team reflexivity and performance of cross‐functional new product development (NPD) team. The moderating roles of team cohesiveness and knowledge practice are also explored.

This study used online questionnaire surveys by inviting 500 R&D team members of NPD from three Science Parks in Taiwan. The survey questionnaires were sent to the representative of R&D team members.

The results indicate that members' project management skills, entrepreneurial proclivity, and existing knowledge have significant impact on team reflexivity and product innovativeness of the NPD project, which then influence NPD performance. Furthermore, NPD team exercising higher levels of team cohesiveness and higher knowledge practice tend to moderate the influence of team reflexivity and product innovativeness on NPD performance.

The use of longitudinal research is suggested to confirm the results of this study. Moreover, other research settings, either different industry or other countries, could increase the generalizability of the findings.

The study has high implications for managers of NPD to recruit qualified team members who have adequate knowledge and strong entrepreneurial proclivity. Moreover, managers should be aware of the moderating role of team cohesiveness and knowledge practices.

The paper determines the antecedents and consequences of team reflexivity and innovativeness among NPD team members. The moderating role of team cohesiveness and knowledge practices are discussed.