Search results

Literature is unanimous about the effects of functional diversity in new product development teams. This paper uses simulation modeling to investigate the contradictory and dynamic effects of functional team diversity on innovation revealed by empirical literature. This paper aims to start a discussion on this dynamic perspective of team diversity.

This paper presents a systemic approach toward investigating the contradictory and dynamic effects of functional team diversity on innovation by creating a simplified System Dynamics model of functional diversity in new product development teams.

Although the simulation model is highly simplified, it can integrate the contradictory results of empirical data and the dynamic component of teamwork. Therefore, it offers a new approach to investigating the effects of functional diversity on team innovation.

The model is highly simplified and exemplary. No actual data are included, thus limiting the results as fully theoretical.

Empirical studies often analyze the effects of functional diversity on innovation in new product development teams. However, empirical data are unclear regarding the nature of the effects of functional diversity on innovation. Therefore, functional diversity is chosen for the simulation model as being the most controversially discussed diversity attribute. By applying a simulation model to the problem and adding a dynamic component to teamwork, we are contributing to the explanation for the contradictory findings in literature.

Describes how the National Health Service management has responded to pressure for change as a “critical case site” for investigation of the importance of innovativeness. What factors help or hinder innovation? What distinguishes highly innovative teams? How does the process of innovation develop over time? What practical recommendations can be made to facilitate innovation? Identifies four significant factors: vision, participative safety, a climate for excellence, and support for innovation. Describes a programme of recommended practical interventions.

The purpose of this study is to investigate the impact of team psychological capital (PsyCap) on team innovation. The study also examines the mediating role of team learning, including exploratory and exploitative learning, in team innovation.

A sample of 272 team leaders of firms in Vietnam was surveyed to validate the measures via confirmatory factor analysis and to test the model and hypotheses using structural equation modeling.

The results demonstrate that team PsyCap has a positive effect on team innovation. Further, team exploratory learning mediates the relationship between team PsyCap and team innovation; however, team exploitative learning does not. Although team exploitative learning is explained by team PsyCap, it does not enhance team innovation.

The study findings suggest that, to enjoy a high level of team exploratory and exploitative learning and innovation, firms should develop team PsyCap. This could be undertaken by implementing leader–subordinate mentoring programs, together with creating a social context that helps in interacting and communicating among team members.

This study is among the first to examine the role of team PsyCap in team exploratory and exploitative learning and innovation, adding further insight to the literature on innovation at the team level.

Within digital innovation, there are two significant consequences of the pervasiveness of digital technology: (1) the increasing connectivity is enabling a wider reach and scope of innovation structures, such as innovation networks and (2) the unprecedented availability of digital data is creating new opportunities for innovation. Accordingly, there is a growing domain for studying data-driven innovation (DDI), especially in contemporary contexts of innovation networks. The purpose of this study is to explore how DDI processes take form in a specific type of innovation networks, namely federated networks.

A multiple case study design is applied in this paper. We draw our analysis from data collected over six months from four cases of DDI. The within-analysis is aimed at constructing the DDI process instance in each case, while the crosscase analysis focuses on pattern matching and cross-case synthesis of common and unique characteristics in the constructed processes.

Evidence from the crosscase analysis suggests that the widely accepted four-phase digital innovation process (including discovery, development, diffusion and post-diffusion) does not account for the explorative nature of data analytics and DDI. We propose an extended process comprising an explicit exploration phase before development, where refinement of the innovation concept and exploring social relationships are essential. Our analysis also suggests two modes of DDI: (1) asynchronous, i.e. data acquired before development and (2) synchronous, i.e. data acquired after (or during) development. We discuss the implications of these modes on the DDI process and the participants in the innovation network.

The paper proposes an extended version of the digital innovation process that is more specifically suited for DDI. We also provide an early explanation to the variation in DDI process complexities by highlighting the different modes of DDI processes. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first empirical investigation of DDI following the process from early stages of discovery till postdiffusion.

Though there is broad agreement on the beneficial impact of diversity in management and leadership roles, much of the innovative capacity of an organization is realized at the unit level in working teams. Recent research points to cultural diversity having an especially significant impact on innovation team performance. The reports also highlight the need for the optimal team operating principles to derive maximum benefit. To prepare such innovation teams for success, it is valuable to understand the dynamics of team diversity at the project level and the underlying barriers and opportunities presented.

This paper reviews the literature and case studies on cultural inputs to ideation and innovation, assessing team diversity through readily available instruments and the deployment of the science of team science (SciTS) principles in innovation teams.

The key learnings include the importance of establishing communication standards, SciTS principles, team assessment of thinking styles and the utility of cultural awareness instruments.

Diversity provides a creative advantage for innovation teams. However, team dynamics play an important role in maximizing these advantages, and cross-cultural competence of team members is required. Deployment of appropriate assessment tools and team methodologies enhances the likelihood of successful outcomes including in remote team settings.

Literature from diverse functional areas is summarized including the science of team science, organizational management, diversity and inclusion methodologies and ethnocultural dynamics. It provides pointers for the optimal formation and operating principles with highly culturally diverse teams.

In this chapter, we posit that identity integration, an individual difference variable measuring the degree to which multiple and disparate social identities are perceived as compatible, moderates the relationship between team diversity and innovation. Prior research shows that individuals with higher levels of identity integration exhibit higher levels of innovation on tasks that draw from identity-related knowledge systems. In this chapter, we extend this research to examine how innovation can be increased in cross-functional teams. We propose that reinforcing the compatibility between functional identities within a team facilitates access to functionally unique knowledge systems, which in turn increases team innovation.

As other researchers have done previously, we conceptualize innovation not as a linear process but as a cyclical one (e.g., Van de Ven, Polley, Garud, & Venkataraman, 1999), which consist periods of innovation initiation, implementation, adaptation, and stabilization (West, 1990). Within this cycle it is possible to distinguish two major components: the beginning of the cycle, which is dominated by the generation of ideas that is generally also designated as creativity; whereas the dominant activity at the end of the cycle which is the implementation of ideas (hereafter referred to as the implementation of innovation). Creativity is then likely to be most evident in the early stages of the innovation process, when those in teams are required to develop or offer ideas in response to a perceived need for innovation. Creative thinking is also likely when teams proactively initiate proposals for change and consider their initial implementation. As the innovation is adapted to organizational circumstances, there is less need for creativity. At the outset of the process, creativity dominates, to be superseded later by innovation implementation processes. Of course, it can be argued that creativity is important throughout the innovation process, but in general, the requirements for creative ideas will be greater at the earlier stages of the innovation process than the later stages.

A current highly competitive and rapidly changing business environment requires companies to continually innovate to survive. An increasing number of companies are using teams to leverage the knowledge and experience of their employees in order to improve quality, reduce costs and ‘delight’ the customer. The growing prevalence of teams signals the need to examine the adequacy of management accounting information and its use in performance measurement and control systems.

Some research has examined the impact of team empowerment on creativity and innovation, while other research discusses the sometimes-hampering role of performance measures in team environments. This paper contributes to this research, with two major goals. First, it discusses innovation and empowerment and examines how performance measurement can both encourage and hinder team performance. The second purpose is to propose a team performance measurement system using ratios based on activity-based management that seeks to encourage innovation and empowerment while maintaining a system of control.

Teams are an important component to the success of corporate innovation and entrepreneurship. However, innovation teams often suffer because management fails to develop a change strategy and prepare managers and participants to work in teams. This chapter provides a discussion of the critical elements needed to prepare team member, including reviewing the team development process and offering insights on how to manage communication, conflict resolution, creative problem solving, and decision-making to enhance team performance. Additionally, research on the use of innovation teams is presented along with some recommendations for management to implement innovation teams in organizations.

This study explores the impact of gender on team leadership style and how it impacts team innovation outcomes using the ambidexterity theory (opening and closing behaviors) of leadership for innovation.

A total of 215 self-report surveys of team members were collected for hypothesis testing. This study tests whether team leader gender moderates the relationship between ambidextrous team leadership and team innovation.

Female team leaders are engaged in less opening behaviors of ideation, risk-taking and exploration than their male counterparts. Additionally, when female leaders engaged in closing behaviors, which include assigning roles and timelines, they had less impact than the closing behaviors of their male colleagues. Female team leaders were perceived as less effective in leading innovation than males.

This study examines the influence of gender on team leadership and innovation outcomes. There are drawbacks of cross-sectional data, sample selection issues and potential problems of percept–percept relationships.

These findings suggest that female team leads may need greater organizational support and organizational senior leadership support to take risks (opening behavior) to produce greater team innovation and increase leader visibility.

Society can achieve even greater innovation outcomes by understanding and addressing the unique obstacles woman team leaders face with innovation. Organizations can benefit from innovation and resilience by supporting women team leaders in their diverse delivery of innovation.

This is the first study to look at the influence of gender and leadership on team innovation outcomes. Ambidextrous leadership theory provides insights into the specific challenges woman team leaders experience; however, so far no research has addressed the innovation outcome challenges female team leaders encounter. Since innovation and leadership can be a key component of visibility, compensation and promotion, it is necessary to investigate the challenges female team leads face in the innovation process.