EMPOWERMENT CLIMATE SUPERVISORY SUPPORT FOR … · EMPOWERMENT CLIMATE, SUPERVISORY SUPPORT FOR...
Transcript of EMPOWERMENT CLIMATE SUPERVISORY SUPPORT FOR … · EMPOWERMENT CLIMATE, SUPERVISORY SUPPORT FOR...
EMPOWERMENT CLIMATE, SUPERVISORY
SUPPORT FOR CREATIVITY AND WORK
ROLE PERFORMANCE IN NEW PRODUCT
DEVELOPMENT SETTINGS: A TEAM LEVEL
INVESTIGATION
Behnaz Mohammadi
B.S., M.A.
A Thesis Submitted in Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Master of Business
(Research)
School of Management
QUT Business School
Queensland University of Technology
Brisbane, Australia
2016
Empowerment climate, supervisory support for creativity and work role performance in new product development settings: A team level investigation i
Keywords
New product development (NPD) teams, supervisory support for creativity, team empowerment climate, work role performance
Empowerment climate, supervisory support for creativity and work role performance in new product development settings: A team level investigation ii
Abstract
Organisations currently perform in a highly dynamic, competitive, and
complex environment in a global market (Cummings & Worley, 2014). To be
successful in this situation, organisations need to be the first in the market to
introduce innovative products (Van der Panne, Van Beers, & Kleinknecht, 2003).
New product development (NPD) teams design, produce and introduce new outputs
in organisations. NPD teams help organisations to gain higher competitive
advantages over their competitors; thus, they are an important determinant when
evaluating an organisation’s efficient performance (Song, Montoya‐Weiss, &
Schmidt, 1997).
Researchers have often not considered environmental features when evaluating
NPD team’s performance in previous studies. However, these features can have an
impact on their performance (Kratzer, Leenders, & Van Engelen, 2004; Leenders,
Van Engelen, & Kratzer, 2007; Sarin & McDermott, 2003). For example, instead of
only evaluating creative or adaptable work-related behaviour within NPD teams,
recent research has also suggested studying the environment in which teams perform,
as this may have a significant impact on the team’s performance (Daspit, Justice
Tillman, Boyd, & Mckee, 2013; Griffin, Neal, & Parker, 2007; Xue, Bradley, &
Liang, 2011). As a result of market changes, technological advancements and
customers’ changeable demands, new product development teams perform in an
uncertain environment (Akgün, Byrne, Lynn, & Keskin, 2007).
This research employed Griffin et al.'s (2007) work role performance model,
which considers uncertainty and interdependence to be two significant environmental
structures that affect a team’s performance. Griffin et al. (2007) defined three
different types of work-related behaviours in their model to predict work role
performance: proficiency, adaptively, and proactivity. This study addresses the lack
of research regarding the exploration of work role performance dimensions in NPD
teams and the extent to which a team empowerment climate and supervisory support
for creativity impact NPDs performance.
Empowerment climate, supervisory support for creativity and work role performance in new product development settings: A team level investigation iii
To examine the relationships among the research variables this research
conducted data collection over three months in two stages. A total of 276 participants
from 73 teams completed the questionnaire. The response rate for this research was
34.5%. The analytical findings of this research supported each hypothesis and
showed that there are appositive relationships between team empowerment climate,
supervisory support for creativity, and each dimension of work role performance:
proficiency, adaptivity, and proactivity.
Overall, this research contributes to the ongoing development of work role
performance theory (Griffin et al., 2007; Ilgen & Hollenbeck, 1991; Murphy &
Jackson, 1999), and the research related to organisational contextual variables that
impact a teams’ performance (Madjar, Oldham, & Pratt, 2002; Seibert, Silver, &
Randolph, 2004). In addition, this study suggests NPD team supervisors should
provide an empowered and supportive climate for their team members, in order for
them to perform more efficiently, adaptively, and proactively based on reliance on
their supervisors to respond to market demands and increase their teams’ creative
outputs. Moreover, based on the limitations while undertaking this thesis, future
researchers are encouraged to consider some moderating and mediating factors and
different types of NPD teams to examine these relationships.
Empowerment climate, supervisory support for creativity and work role performance in new product development settings: A team level investigation iv
Table of Contents
Keywords .................................................................................................................................................... i
Abstract ...................................................................................................................................................... ii
Table of Contents ...................................................................................................................................... iv
List of Figures .......................................................................................................................................... vii
List of Tables .......................................................................................................................................... viii
List of Abbreviations ................................................................................................................................ ix
Statement of Original Authorship ............................................................................................................. x
Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................................. xi
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Research Background .................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Research Gap ................................................................................................................................. 2
1.3 Research Question .......................................................................................................................... 4
1.4 Methodology Overview ................................................................................................................. 5
1.5 Research Contributions .................................................................................................................. 5 1.5.1 Theoretical implications ..................................................................................................... 6 1.5.2 Practical implications ......................................................................................................... 6
1.6 Thesis Structure .............................................................................................................................. 7
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................. 8
2.1 Chapter Overview .......................................................................................................................... 8
2.2 New Product Development teams ................................................................................................. 8
2.3 Work Role Performance .............................................................................................................. 10 2.3.1 NPD team members’ proficiency ..................................................................................... 11 2.3.2 NPD team members’ adaptivity ....................................................................................... 12 2.3.3 NPD team members’ proactivity ...................................................................................... 13
2.4 Empowerment Climate ................................................................................................................ 14 2.4.1 Empowerment ................................................................................................................... 15 2.4.2 Team empowerment climate ............................................................................................ 16
2.5 Team empowerment climate and work role performance .......................................................... 18 2.5.1 Team empowerment climate and NPD team members’ proficiency .............................. 19 2.5.2 Team empowerment climate and NPD team members’ adaptivity ................................. 20 2.5.3 Team empowerment climate and NPD team members’ proactivity ............................... 20
2.6 Supervisory support for creativity ............................................................................................... 21
2.7 Support for creativity and work role performance ...................................................................... 22 2.7.1 Supervisory support for creativity and proficiency ......................................................... 23 2.7.2 Supervisory support for creativity and adaptivity ............................................................ 24 2.7.3 Supervisory support for creativity and proactivity .......................................................... 24
2.8 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 25
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH DESIGN ................................................................................................. 26
3.1 Chapter Overview ........................................................................................................................ 26
3.2 Research Method .......................................................................................................................... 26
Empowerment climate, supervisory support for creativity and work role performance in new product development settings: A team level investigation v
3.2.1 Questionnaire ..................................................................................................................... 26
3.3 Sampling ....................................................................................................................................... 27 3.3.1 Target population .............................................................................................................. 27 3.3.2 Sampling technique and methods ..................................................................................... 28 3.3.3 Sample size ........................................................................................................................ 28
3.4 Data Collection ............................................................................................................................. 29 3.4.1 Pre-testing questionnaire ................................................................................................... 29 3.4.2 Data collection procedure ................................................................................................. 29
3.5 Measurements ............................................................................................................................... 30 3.5.1 Demographic measures ..................................................................................................... 31 3.5.2 Construct measures ........................................................................................................... 31
3.6 Establishing Reliability and Validity ........................................................................................... 32 3.6.1 Reliability .......................................................................................................................... 32 3.6.2 Validity .............................................................................................................................. 33
3.7 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 33
CHAPTER 4: ANALYSIS AND RESULTS ....................................................................................... 34
4.1 Chapter Overview ......................................................................................................................... 34
4.2 Sample Characteristics .................................................................................................................. 34
4.3 Confirmatory Factor Analysis ...................................................................................................... 35 4.3.1 Team members’ proficiency ............................................................................................. 36 4.3.2 Team members’ adaptivity ................................................................................................ 37 4.3.3 Team members’ proactivity .............................................................................................. 38 4.3.4 Work role performance ..................................................................................................... 39 4.3.5 Information sharing ........................................................................................................... 40 4.3.6 Autonomy through boundaries ......................................................................................... 41 4.3.7 Team accountability .......................................................................................................... 42 4.3.8 Team empowerment climate ............................................................................................. 43 4.3.9 Supervisory support for creativity .................................................................................... 45
4.4 Reliability Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 46 4.4.1 Reliability of team members proficiency items ................................................................ 47 4.4.2 Reliability of team members adaptivity tems ................................................................... 47 4.4.3 Reliability of team members Proactivity Items ................................................................ 48 4.4.4 Reliability of empowerment climate items ....................................................................... 49 4.4.5 Reliability of support for creativity items ......................................................................... 50
4.5 Preliminary Considerations .......................................................................................................... 51 4.5.1 Aggregation ....................................................................................................................... 52 4.5.2 Bivariate correlations ........................................................................................................ 54
4.6 Path Analysis ................................................................................................................................ 55
4.7 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 56
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ......................................................................... 58
5.1 Chapter Overview ......................................................................................................................... 58
5.2 Overall Findings ........................................................................................................................... 58
5.3 Supported hypotheses ................................................................................................................... 60 5.3.1 Hypothesis 1: The more that NPD team members an experience empowerment
climate, the more proficient their team will be. ................................................................ 60 5.3.2 Hypothesis 2: The more NPD team members experience an empowerment
climate, the more adaptable their team will be. ................................................................ 61 5.3.3 The more NPD team members experience an empowerment climate, the more
proactive their team will be. .............................................................................................. 62 5.3.4 Hypothesis 4: The more that team members experience supervisory support for
creativity, the more proficient their team will be. ............................................................ 62
Empowerment climate, supervisory support for creativity and work role performance in new product development settings: A team level investigation vi
5.3.5 Hypothesis 5: The more that team members experience supervisory support for creativity, the more adaptable their team will be. ............................................................ 63
5.3.6 Hypothesis 6: The more that team members experience supervisory support for creativity, the more proactive their team will be. ............................................................ 64
5.4 Related Findings .......................................................................................................................... 65
5.5 Theoretical Contributions ............................................................................................................ 66
5.6 Practical Implication .................................................................................................................... 67
5.7 Limitation and Future Research ................................................................................................... 68
5.8 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 70
REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................................... 71
APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................................ 86 Appendix A .................................................................................................................................. 86
Empowerment climate, supervisory support for creativity and work role performance in new product development settings: A team level investigation vii
List of Figures
Figure 2.1: Hypothesis 1 .......................................................................................................................... 20
Figure 2.2: Hypothesis 2 .......................................................................................................................... 20
Figure 2.3: Hypothesis 3 .......................................................................................................................... 21
Figure 2.4: Hypothesis 4 .......................................................................................................................... 23
Figure 2.5: Hypothesis 5 .......................................................................................................................... 24
Figure 2.6: Hypothesis 6 .......................................................................................................................... 25
Figure 2.7: Conceptual Model ................................................................................................................. 25
Figure 4.1: Team members’ proficiency CFA diagram .......................................................................... 37
Figure 4.2: Team members’ adaptivity CFA diagram............................................................................. 38
Figure 4.3: Team members’ proactivity CFA diagram ........................................................................... 38
Figure 4.4: Work role performance CFA diagram .................................................................................. 40
Figure 4.5: Information sharing CFA diagram ........................................................................................ 41
Figure 4.6: Autonomy through boundaries CFA diagram ...................................................................... 42
Figure 4.7: Team accountability CFA diagram ....................................................................................... 43
Figure 4.8: Team empowerment climate CFA ........................................................................................ 45
Figure 4.9: Supervisory support for creativity CFA diagram ................................................................. 46
Figure 4.10: Path analysis ........................................................................................................................ 56
Figure 5.1: Conceptual model .................................................................................................................. 60
Empowerment climate, supervisory support for creativity and work role performance in new product development settings: A team level investigation viii
List of Tables
Table 4.1: Sample characteristics ............................................................................................................ 35
Table 4.2: Summary of the fit indices for team members’ proficiency ................................................. 36
Table 4.3: Summary of the fit indices for team members’ adaptivity .................................................... 37
Table 4.4: Summary of the fit indices for team members’ proactivity .................................................. 38
Table 4.5: Summary of the fit indices for work role performance ......................................................... 39
Table 4.6: Summary of the fit indices for information sharing .............................................................. 40
Table 4.7: Summary of the fit indices for autonomy through boundaries ............................................. 42
Table 4.8: Summary of the fit indices for team accountability .............................................................. 43
Table 4.9: Summary of the fit indices for team empowerment .............................................................. 44
Table 4.10: Summary of the fit indices for supervisory support for creativity ...................................... 46
Table 4.11: Reliability of team members’ proficiency items ................................................................. 47
Table 4.12: Reliability of team members’ adaptivity items ................................................................... 48
Table 4.13: Reliability of team members’ proactivity items .................................................................. 48
Table 4.14: Reliability of team empowerment climate items ................................................................. 49
Table 4.15: Reliability of supervisory support for creativity items ....................................................... 51
Table 4.16: r(wg(j)) of different teams ................................................................................................... 52
Table 4.17: Teams with insignificant r(wg(j)) ........................................................................................ 53
Table 4.18: The one-way ANOVA for team empowerment climate ..................................................... 54
Table 4.19: The one-way ANOVA for team empowerment climate ..................................................... 54
Table 4.20: Variables’ descriptive statistics ........................................................................................... 55
Table4. 21: Summary of the fit indices for path analysis ....................................................................... 56
Empowerment climate, supervisory support for creativity and work role performance in new product development settings: A team level investigation ix
List of Abbreviations
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)
Comparative Fit Index (CFI)
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)
Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC)
Incremental Fit Indices (IFI)
New Product Development (NPD)
Research and development (R&D)
Standardised RMR (SRMR)
Empowerment climate, supervisory support for creativity and work role performance in new product development settings: A team level investigation x
Statement of Original Authorship
The work contained in this thesis has not been previously submitted to meet
requirements for an award at this or any other higher education institution. To the
best of my knowledge and belief, the thesis contains no material previously
published or written by another person except where due reference is made.
Signature: QUT Verified Signature
Behnaz Mohammadi
Date: 24/02/2016
Empowerment climate, supervisory support for creativity and work role performance in new product development settings: A team level investigation xi
Acknowledgements
It is with pleasure that I thank those who made this thesis possible, my
supervisory team, my family, and the Queensland University of Technology. First of
all, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my principal supervisor,
Associate Professor Artemis Chang, whose encouragement, supervision, guidance,
and support from the preliminary to the concluding level enabled me to develop an
understanding of the subject. I would also like to acknowledge the support of my
associate supervisor, Dr Anna Wiewiora during my research program. Without her
brilliant support throughout the completion of my Master’s program, this thesis
would not have been possible.
My thanks to Dr Stephen Cox and Dr Jonathan Bader for their valuable
comments during various stages of my research journey.
Thanks also to professional editor, Kylie Morris, who provided copyediting
and proofreading services, according to the guidelines laid out in the university-
endorsed guidelines and the Australian Standards for editing research theses.
Finally, I would like to thank my husband, my family, and beloved ones for
their wonderful support, endless love, and heart-warming advice throughout my life.
Chapter 1: Introduction 1
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 RESEARCH BACKGROUND
In today’s business world, organisations face changing demands, dynamic
conditions, increasing competition, and technological advancement (Benn, Dunphy,
& Griffiths, 2014; Cummings & Worley, 2014). To be successful in these highly
turbulent circumstances, organisations often chose to use new product development
(NPD) teams to manage these environmental uncertainties (Chen, Neubaum, Reilly,
& Lynn, 2015; Sumukadas & Sawhney, 2004). Krishnan and Ulrich (2001) defined
new product development as “the transformation of a market opportunity and a set of
assumptions about product technology into a product available for sale”. This
definition highlights the significant role of the new product development team within
an organisation to identify customers’ problems and solve them to the customers’
satisfaction. Accordingly, if a company can be the first to introduce a product, it can
achieve profitability and competitive advantage over its competitors (Porter &
Kramer, 2011; Wright & McMahan, 2011). Team leaders within a new product
development section need to provide a climate in which NPD team members will be
able to perform efficiently (Barczak & Kahn, 2012; Gupta & Wilemon, 1990; Lewin,
Badrinarayanan, & Arnett, 2008).
Previous studies have discussed team climate as an important organisational
dimension that can enhance team members’ performance (Gil et al.,
2005;González‐Romá, Fortes‐Ferreira, & Peiró, 2009; Xue, Bradley, & Liang, 2011).
Team members’ perceptions regarding their team’s policies, practices, and
procedures are elements that make up team climates (James, Joyce, & Slocum, 1988;
Schneider & Reichers, 1983). When there are supportive structures and procedures
within a team, team members are likely to increase their efforts at work
(González‐Romá et al., 2009). The team climate has different aspects and dimensions
that influence team members’ attitudes and behaviours towards their work (James &
Jones, 1974). In this research, two dimensions of team climate were chosen: team
empowerment climate and supervisory support for creativity, which were found to be
influential on new product development team performance (Badir, Büchel, & Tucci,
2012; McDonough, 2000; Patterson, Warr, & West, 2004).
Chapter 1: Introduction 2
A team empowerment climate increases team members’ performance by giving
them appropriate information about their work, strong decision-making ability, and
considerable responsibility for their actions (Seibert, Silver, & Randolph, 2004).
Giving freedom and responsibility to NPD team members can significantly enhance
their performance (Carbonell & Rodríguez-Escudero, 2011; McDonough & Barczak,
1991). Sharing accurate information about team visions, goals, and interrelated work
roles among team members, assigning autonomy to the team to determine the best
and most innovative solution for unpredictable problems, and acting accountably to
manage a complex condition will help NPD team members to increase their
performance (Charbonnier-Voirin, El Akremi, & Vandenberghe, 2010). As a result, a
team empowerment climate gives team members the opportunity to organise their
duties according to the teams’ empowering practices to achieve a high level of team
performance (Mathieu, Gilson, & Ruddy, 2006).
In addition to an empowerment climate, creative input enables a flexible
response to customers’ changing demands and market opportunities (Cummings &
Oldham, 1997). Thus, managers and team supervisors need to support their
subordinates’ creativity to increase their performances (McKay, Avery, & Morris,
2009; Siguaw, Simpson, & Enz, 2006). If a company’s team members experience
policies and practices that support creativity, the company can achieve a desired level
of innovative performance (Jung, Chow, & Wu, 2003). According to Shanock and
Eisenberger's (2006) findings, there is a positive relation between supervisory
support and organisational performance. Supervisors can create a supportive climate
by communicating appropriately with team members to share essential information
with them, helping them to efficiently develop their career, and valuing members’
feedback and suggestions (Zhang, Tsui, Song, Li, & Jia, 2008).
1.2 RESEARCH GAP
Numerous studies have evaluated the effects of different organisational
variables on performance to determine how managers can improve their employees’
outcomes. Not only are there various organisational aspects for evaluating employees
performance, but also different definitions that measure their work performance,
such as task performance, contextual performance, adaptive performance, and
proactive performance (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993; Frese & Fay, 2001; Johnson,
2003; Pulakos, Arad, Donovan, & Plamondon, 2000). For many decades researchers
Chapter 1: Introduction 3
have evaluated individuals’ performance based on how well they can complete fixed
tasks defined in their job description (Ilgen & Pulakos, 1999). Over time, the nature
of work has gradually shifted from a stable setting to a dynamic one. Thus,
researchers’ attention to the environmental characteristics surrounding organisations,
such as economic, political/legal, socio cultural, demographic, technological and
global conditions and how these features impact organisational performance has
increased. As a result, a new definition able to evaluate employees’ effectiveness
through a changeable environment is required (Ilgen & Pulakos, 1999).
Although a range of environmental factors currently impact organisational
performance, recent research has considered uncertainty and interdependence to be
the most influential (García‐Chas, Neira‐Fontela, & Varela‐Neira, 2014). Different
sources can create uncertainty in organisations, such as lack of information regarding
a competitors’ decisions, consumers’ wants, and technological advancement
(Duncan, 1972). Interdependence determines the extent to which individuals assume
the importance of collaboration and cooperation with others to attain a shared goal as
a team (Cummings & Blumberg, 1987). Griffin, Neal, and Parker (2007) recently
developed a new model of work role performance containing three different
dimensions: proficiency, adaptivity, and proactivity, which are valuable behaviours
related to a job in an organisation that will be affected by the organisational context’s
characteristics, such as uncertainty and interdependence. To perform effectively
managers need to control these environmental features.
Uncertainty and interdependence are common characteristics of NPD teams. In
the NPD context, employees have to work in a turbulent environment and experience
unanticipated circumstances (Akgün, Lynn, & Yılmaz, 2006). The main factors
generating uncertainty in new product development teams are intense competition,
technological advances, and changeable customer demands (Burns & Stalker, 1961).
Moreover, to invent new parts or new materials, various specialists have to work
together to create different components of a product (Langfred, 2005). To date, the
new product development teams’ performance has been assessed based on the
traditional definitions of performance, regardless of their environmental aspects.
Thus, it appears that performance measures of NPD teams need to be revisited and
include these new work characteristics.
Chapter 1: Introduction 4
This research found that there has been no recent study that takes into account
the turbulent environment of NPD teams when measuring their performance.
Therefore, this research addressed this gap is by examining Griffin et al.'s (2007)
model for evaluating NPD team performance. Moreover, this research has gone
beyond just evaluating NPD team performance, as it also focused on examining the
effects of a team empowerment climate and supervisory support for creativity on
work role performance. As a result this thesis introduces a model for enhancing NPD
teams’ performance that has not been tested previously. The rationale for using
Griffin et al.'s (2007) model for new product development teams is that these teams
face environmental uncertainty that impacts significantly on their performance. New
product development teams experience rapid changes in market circumstances,
customer needs, technological advances, and competitors’ innovation (Akgün et al.,
2006). Accordingly, they need to manage these unstable situations and proactively
perform within these conditions (Christensen & Overdorf, 2000; Clark & Fujimoto,
1991; Tushman & O’Reilly III, 1996). In addition, each member of the new product
development team needs to work closely with others, as this helps them to generate
new ideas and solve unforeseen issues (Clark & Fujimoto, 1991; Dougherty, 1992).
Moreover, this model (Griffin et al., 2007) has been examined mostly at the
individual level, ignoring team and organisational levels. (Dubreuil, Forest, &
Courcy, 2014; García‐Chas et al., 2014; Leroy, Anseel, Gardner, & Sels, 2012;
Marques-Quinteiro & Curral, 2012). This thesis analysed the team level, as teams
play a significant role in developing new products. Team members’ different
backgrounds provide managers with advantages such as accuracy and completeness,
reduction in errors of omission, risks and surprises, faster market development, and
breaking down organisational barriers (Reilly, Chen, & Lynn, 2003; Reilly, Lynn, &
Aronson, 2002). It is therefore important to evaluate the impacts of a teams’ climate
on their work role performance.
1.3 RESEARCH QUESTION
In response to the aforementioned gap, this study aimed to investigate the
impact of a team empowerment climate and supervisory support for creativity on
NPD team members’ three dimensions of work role performance: proficiency,
adaptivity, and proactivity. As such, the overriding research question was:
Chapter 1: Introduction 5
“To what extent do team empowerment climate and supervisory support for
creativity affect NPD team members’ proficiency, adaptivity, and proactivity?”
Research hypotheses (outlined in Chapter 2, Sections 2.5-2.6) were put forward
to address this question and divided into two main categories related to team
empowerment climate and supervisory support for creativity. The first three
hypotheses were related to the impact of the team empowerment climate on NPD
team members’ proficiency, adaptivity, and proactivity, and the final two related to
the effects of supervisory support for creativity on these dimensions of work role
performance.
1.4 METHODOLOGY OVERVIEW
This research used a survey to investigate the relationships among research variables.
New product development team members who participated in this research were
asked to complete a self-administered questionnaire about their team empowerment
climate, supervisory support for creativity, and team work role performance. To
collect the data, 800 questionnaires were sent to 30 different organisations where the
teams’ main activities were undertaking research regarding producing new products,
finding new ways to market new or existing products, inventing or improving new
ways of producing data, and designing new software to improve the development of
new products. On average, each organisation contained seven teams with four
members. The data collection process was designed to run in two separate
timeframes. The entire questionnaire was sent to participants in the first round of
data collection. After two months, the part of questionnaire related to the dependent
variable (work role performance) was again sent to participants to evaluate
questionnaire validity. After three months and two stages of collecting data, 276
respondents from 73 teams had completed questionnaires and sent them back to the
researcher. The response rate for this research was 34.5%. Cronbach’s alpha test, ,
bivariate correlation, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and path analysis were
used to analyse the data.
1.5 RESEARCH CONTRIBUTIONS
Despite the importance given to work role performance, team empowerment
climate, and supervisory support for creativity within academic and management
literature, little is known about the relationships among them in either academic or
Chapter 1: Introduction 6
practical perspectives. Although many researchers have suggested relationships
between performance, team empowerment climate, and supervisory support for
creativity, no academic studies have empirically tested the relationships between the
specific measurements of performance (proficiency, adaptivity, and proactivity), as
work role performance constructs in terms of a team empowerment climate and
support for creativity. This research contributes to the academic literature and
practical knowledge by providing insight into new product development team
climate factors that affect team members’ work role performance within
organisations. The following sections present the theoretical and practical
implications of this research.
1.5.1 Theoretical implications
This study evaluated the relationship among each of the work role performance
dimensions of proficiency, adaptivity, and proactivity with team empowerment
climate and supervisory support for creativity within a NPD context. This research’s
main theoretical contribution is the development of a new theoretical model that
indicates the relationships of work role performance dimensions and the other two
climate indicators. Using Griffin et al.'s (2007) performance measures, this research
offers evidence that each component of the work role performance model at a team
level has a relationship with each member’s perception about team empowerment
climate and supervisory support for creativity inside their teams.
1.5.2 Practical implications
From a practical perspective, the findings of this research may have particular
implications for new product development teams and their supervisors.
Organisational supervisors are continually seeking ways to increase employees’
performances within the workplace. As new product development team members’
perceptions about their team’s climate directly contribute to their proficiency,
adaptivity, and proactivity, managers need to design empowering practices,
structures, and policies to enhance their team members’ performance. Moreover,
organisations are increasingly seeking new approaches to ensure survival and growth
by encouraging creativity among their employees (Benn et al., 2014). Therefore, the
results may motivate supervisors of NPD teams to support their team members’
creative ideas for solving their problems to achieve higher proficiency, adaptivity,
and proactivity.
Chapter 1: Introduction 7
1.6 THESIS STRUCTURE
This thesis contains five chapters that assist the readers’ coherent and
systematic understanding of the research study.
The second chapter provides an overview of the research context, the existing
literature on definition of performance, how it has changed over time, and leads to a
focus on the work role performance model defined by Griffin et al. (2007). Team
empowerment climate and supervisory support for creativity are considered two
important variables that affect a NPD team’s performance. Finally, their significant
impact on NPD team’s work role performance is evaluated, leading the chapter to its
conclusion, which is the investigation of the research aim and hypotheses.
The third chapter presents a detailed description of the quantitative research
approach applied in this research to test the proposed hypotheses in Chapter Two.
The chapter also rationalises the application of the survey methods and provides
justifications for the use of previously tested research instruments.
The fourth chapter provides the results of the quantitative analysis conducted to
investigate the hypothesised relationships between the variables. The chapter reviews
participants’ demographic information, with the instrument’s questions reliability
tested based on the Cronbach’s alpha test and confirmatory factor analysis. Finally,
the results of the path analysis are presented.
The final chapter highlights the key findings, theoretical contributions, and
practical implications of the findings, concluding with the limitations and directions
for future researchers.
Chapter 2: Literature Review 8
Chapter 2: Literature Review
2.1 CHAPTER OVERVIEW
This chapter begins with a focus on the importance of new product
development (NPD) teams, the context of this research. This critical review of the
literature regarding NPD teams highlights the importance of assessing work role
performance in that context. In addition, three different dimensions of the work role
performance model (Griffin et al., 2007), namely proficiency, adaptivity, and
proactivity, are defined and explored in the NPD team context. The chapter then
discusses team empowerment climate and supervisory support for creativity as two
common factors that could influence a NPD team’s performance. Finally, the chapter
identifies the hypotheses explored in this research and concludes with a conceptual
model to provide an overall framework for the research.
2.2 NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT TEAMS
The ability to produce new, innovative products based on the needs of
customers plays an important role in building competitive advantage in today’s
complex business environment (Salomo, Weise, & Gemünden, 2007). As companies
confront rapid changes in their industry sectors they must innovate effectively to gain
and maintain significant competitive advantages (Christensen & Overdorf,
2000;Clark & Fujimoto, 1991;Tushman & O’Reilly III, 1996). The American
Productivity & Quality Centre revealed that between the period from 2008 to 2011,
businesses attained 27.3 percent of their entity’s annual sales revenue from launching
new products (Edgett, 2011). This shows that new product development is crucial to
long-term business success (Brown & Eisenhardt, 1995; R. G. Cooper, 2005).
NPD teams are essential to the long-term success of a business (Brown &
Eisenhardt, 1995; Clark & Fujimoto, 1991). In today’s competitive business world,
organisations tend to develop new products in a timely manner in response to
customers wants (Olson, Walker Jr, & Ruekert, 1995). A significant factor that helps
organisations to remain competitive is their ability to forecast changes in technology,
market demands, and customer preferences, and to successfully develop and
introduce new products in a timely manner (McDonough, 2000). Moreover, this
Chapter 2: Literature Review 9
helps organisations to stay ahead of the competition in todays’ globally competitive
market (Ragatz, Handfield, & Scannell, 1997). Therefore, establishing new product
development teams within an organisation affects its success.
Teams play a significant role in developing a new product. Teams encourage
cross-functional collaboration and sharing of information in order to develop new
products faster than competitors and gain competitive advantages (Carbonell &
Rodriguez, 2006). A new product development team contains of a small number of
people with complementary skills who are committed to a common purpose, set of
professionals goals, and approach for which they hold themselves mutually
accountable (Badir et al., 2012). A well-functioning team is composed of various
experts who collaborate effectively with each other and share their knowledge in
order to improve their team work (Griffin & Hauser, 1992). Team members should
also be able to achieve mutual goals set by their team and work together to achieve
the goals with the empowerment of accountability, which can enhance their self-
respect and self-esteem (Cheston & Kuhn, 2002). Individual resources such as
knowledge, skills, and abilities also play important roles in stimulating teamwork
(Day, Gronn, & Salas, 2004).
Much of the previous research has been focused on the performance of product
development teams in terms of outputs and outcomes (Barczak, Griffin, & Kahn,
2009; Sivasubramaniam, Liebowitz, & Lackman, 2012). However, research has
recently tended to rely on the significant impacts of the environment in which teams
operate (Griffin et al., 2007;Levi, 2013;Neal, Yeo, Koy, & Xiao, 2012;Tannenbaum,
Mathieu, Salas, & Cohen, 2012). The rapid changes in customer demands,
technological changes, and competitive forces, have created more complexity and
uncertainty for NPD teams (Akgün et al., 2006). Therefore, the traditional
performance definition is not perfectly applicable to these types of teams and there is
a need for new one, which precisely fits this complex environment. As a result, this
research aimed to investigate work role performance as one of the latest definitions
related to the characteristics of an organisation’s environment. The next section
focusses on this in more detail.
Chapter 2: Literature Review 10
2.3 WORK ROLE PERFORMANCE
The definition of performance has changed over time (Campbell, McCloy,
Oppler, & Sager, 1993; Johnson, 2003; Welbourne, Johnson, & Erez, 1998). The
traditional definition of work performance concentrated on the extent to which
employees completed specific duties in their job descriptions (Locke & Latham,
1990; Locke, Shaw, Saari, & Latham, 1981). Recently, however, job effectiveness
has been assessed based on particular behaviours related to the job characteristics
and environment (Griffin et al., 2007; Pulakos et al., 2000). This change occurred
due to the organisational context shifting from a stable environment to a more
dynamic one (Griffin et al., 2007). As a result, employees’ performance is evaluated
based on their behaviour towards their role, rather than task accomplishment (Ilgen
& Pulakos, 1999).
A main factor in explaining changes in today’s work environment is that its
nature has become more interdependent and uncertain in comparison to the past
(García‐Chas et al., 2014). Uncertainty arises when it is hard to forecast the way
work systems operate in an organisational context (Parker, Wall, & Cordery, 2001).
There can be different sources of uncertainty in organisations, such as lack of
information about competitors’ decisions, consumers’ wants, and technological
advancement (Vecchiato, 2012). Interdependence determines to what extent
individuals assume the importance of collaboration and cooperation with others to
attain a shared goal as a team (Cummings & Blumberg, 1987).
In developing new products, NPD team members have to work within an
uncertain and interdependent environment (Akgün et al., 2006). The main factors
generating uncertainty in these teams are intense competition, technological
advances, and changeable customer demands (Burns & Stalker, 1961). Moreover, in
order to invent new parts or new materials of a product, various specialists have to
work together to create different components of a product (Langfred, 2005). For
these reasons, new product development settings become more dynamic, uncertain,
and unpredictable; therefore, not all forms of work performance can be effective or
desirable (Gibbons et al., 1994; Lewick & Bunker, 1996). Thus, there is a need for a
new construct to link these new work characteristics to performance.
Griffin et al. (2007) identified three different sub-dimensions of work role
performance: proficiency, adaptivity, and proactivity. "Proficiency" describes “the
Chapter 2: Literature Review 11
extent to which an individual meets role requirements that can be formalised”.
"Adaptivity" refers to “the extent to which an individual adapts to changes in a work
system or work roles”. Finally, "proactivity" describes “the extent to which the
individual takes self-directed action to anticipate or initiate change in the work
system or work roles”. (p. 329)
The work role performance model introduced by Griffin et al. (2007) addressed
various role behaviours that contribute to the effectiveness of three different
organisational levels (individual, team, and organisation). This research aimed to
investigate work role performance at the team level. The rationale for choosing the
team level related to the benefits organisations achieve by developing teams in
producing new products. Teams help organisations to spend less time completing the
development of a new product, as NPD teams are composed of people from different
backgrounds of expertise that allow them to create a multidisciplinary knowledge
base by sharing information (Reilly et al., 2002). Moreover, cooperation among team
members helps them to develop creative products and solve complex problems faster
than competitors (Baba, Tourigny, Wang, & Liu, 2009; Cheston & Kuhn, 2002). The
following sections explain proficiency, adaptivity, and proactivity within NPD
teams.
2.3.1 NPD team members’ proficiency
From a work role performance perspective (Katz & Kahn, 1978), proficiency
describes the extent to which an individual meets role requirements that can be
formalised. It is possible to assess proficiency when the requirements of a work role
are defined and all standards are clear (Marks, Mathieu, & Zaccaro, 2001). Team
member proficiency describes behaviours employees must fulfil, not only the role
prescribed by their individual tasks, but also taking on their role as a team member
(Griffin et al., 2007). These behaviours replicate the necessities and requirements
that employees should meet as a member of a team to achieve the team’s collective
goals (Marks et al., 2001). Team proficiency involves meeting the requirements of
one’s role as a member of a team or organisation. Team member proficiency is
similar to several other concepts: "personal support" (W. Borman, Buck, Hanson, &
Motowidlo), "helping behaviour" (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000),
and "team role behaviour" (Welbourne et al., 1998).
Chapter 2: Literature Review 12
New product development teams consist of various types of employees who
can have diverse backgrounds and competencies (Reilly et al., 2002). For that reason,
collaborative behaviours within teams that represent how the team as a whole acts,
and individual contributions to teamwork have recently received increasing attention
(Sonnentag & Volmer, 2009; Tasa, Taggar, & Seijts, 2007). For NPD team success,
team members need to cooperate with each other to complete their tasks, incorporate
their task execution toward the team’s goal, and share task-related information in
order to improve their teams’ efficiency within a given time frame (Barczak et al.,
2009).
2.3.2 NPD team members’ adaptivity
Today's organisations face changing, dynamic environments in which the need
for adaptive workers has become increasingly important (Pulakos et al., 2000).
Uncertainty, environmental complexity, technological advances, mergers, and
globalisation in companies (Feltovich, Spiro, & Coulson, 1997;Hesketh & Neal,
1999; Lawler, 1994), are some of the unforeseen changes that create significant
demands for employee’s adaptation. Individuals need to foster not only some
particular job competencies according to their job description, but also other
adaptive-oriented sets of skills for improving their outcomes in response to these
uncertainties (Wanberg & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2000). Therefore, adaptive work role
performance can be defined as the extent to which an individual will be able to cope
with his or her task changes effectively (Griffin et al., 2007).
Team member adaptivity reflects the degree to which individuals cope with,
respond to, and/or support changes that affect their roles as members of a team
(Griffin et al., 2007). Team adaptivity involves adapting to changes that affect one’s
role as a member of a team or organisation. For example, whenever a newcomer
joins a team, other team members have to cope with changes constructively,
according to this new situation (Griffin et al., 2007). As a result, team members are
required to be able to deal with change due to unforeseen circumstances and adjust
their work roles in an effective manner (Pulakos et al., 2002).
The changing nature of technology and customer needs in a new product
development team environment creates unpredictability (Smits & Kok, 2012).
Therefore, team members must pay more attention to their adaptability to develop
successful new products and use it as a competitive advantage in particular (Akgün,
Chapter 2: Literature Review 13
Keskin, Byrne, & Ilhan, 2014). As a result of these changes, team members also have
to cope with increasingly complex problems and less standardised work processes
(Charbonnier‐Voirin & Roussel, 2012). New product team members are therefore
required to solve unforeseen problems creatively, deal with uncertain work
situations, learn new tasks, technologies, and procedures, and represent adaptability
through all environmental changes and uncertainties (Pulakos et al., 2000).
2.3.3 NPD team members’ proactivity
As work becomes more dynamic and indeterminate, proactive behaviour
becomes one of the most essential components of organisational success (Crant,
2000). Proactive behaviour refers to the situation in which individuals act initiatively
towards their changing work situations, such as improving their job approaches, or
performance (Parker et al., 2001). Proactive behaviour is a change-oriented
behaviour that contributes to effectiveness when the organisational environment is
uncertain and unpredictable (Williams, Parker, & Turner, 2010). Active problem
solving (Crant, 2000; Williams et al., 2010), taking charge (Morrison & Phelps,
1999), and personal initiative (Frese, Kring, Soose, & Zempel, 1996) all represent
proactive behaviour. All of these behaviours illustrate self-initiated and future-
oriented actions that aim to change the situation or oneself (Bateman & Crant, 1993;
Crant, 2000; Grant & Ashford, 2008).
Team member proactivity refers to what extent a team member engages in self-
starting, future-directed behaviour to change a team's situation or the way the team
performs (Griffin et al., 2007). Team proactivity involves initiating changes in the
team or organisation, such as behaving proactively in relation to developing new
methods to help the team perform better (Parker, Williams, & Turner, 2006). Team
members accomplish shared tasks, frequently interact with each other to allocate
roles and resources, coordinate common activities, and plan the procedure of task
implementation (Marks et al., 2001). During this process they improve their
proactive anticipating and planning ahead to prevent future problems based on their
teams’ environmentally rapid changes (Williams et al., 2010).
As uncertainty is high in a new product development team’s work, team
members cannot formalise their tasks and work roles precisely. Instead they have to
operate dynamically in response to changing conditions and demands (Smits & Kok,
2012). NPD team members need to proactively anticipate their team’s new
Chapter 2: Literature Review 14
challenges, as it is a crucial feature for innovation processing to progress from idea
generation to idea implementation (Rank, Pace, & Frese, 2004). Team members
should actively confront unclear situations, anticipate problems before they arise, and
devise creative solutions (Ennabih, Van Riel, & Sasovova, 2013). Proficient
compliance with specifications is not sufficient in adapting and responding to the
dynamic environmental changes.
In order to achieve success in the current uncertain and interdependent
environment, organisations need to increase their team members’ productivity to
intensify the level of product innovation (Zhang & Doll, 2001). Therefore, they can
enhance their competitive advantage, enable themselves to respond quickly to rapidly
changing environments, and increase profitability (Calantone, Schmidt, & Benedetto,
1997). Previous research represents organisational climate factors as the most
effective elements of employee performance (Gelade & Ivery, 2003;Kangis, Gordon,
& Williams, 2000; Neal, Griffin, & Hart, 2000). This research chose empowerment
climate and supporting creativity as two important climate factors affecting team
members’ performance (Morgeson, 2005; Reilly et al., 2003; Scott & Bruce, 1994;
Shalley & Gilson, 2004; Sun, Zhang, Qi, & Chen, 2012).
2.4 EMPOWERMENT CLIMATE
Empowerment climate has been defined as individuals shared perception about
organisational practices, policies and structures that help them to achieve authority
for making essential work decisions (Seibert et al., 2004). Empowerment has been
found to enhance employees’ authority and responsibility to make decisions about
their work and provide them with more flexibility in dealing with environmental
uncertainties (Mathieu et al., 2006). Moreover, team members are allowed to make
decisions more quickly (Spreitzer, 1995), are more involved and motivated (Kirkman
& Rosen, 1999), and are more likely to have a positive tendency towards their jobs
when they feel empowered (Kirkman & Rosen, 1999). Forrester (2000) argued that
more empowerment leads to greater individual efficacy, which can increase goal
accomplishment. McDonough and Barczak (1991) showed that empowering NPD
team members is one of the key factors for successful outcomes. Thus, the meaning
of empowerment and its different components, especially in NPD teams, is discussed
in the next section.
Chapter 2: Literature Review 15
2.4.1 Empowerment
Empowerment refers to delegating authority to the lower organisational level to
allow taking part in the decision making process (Conger & Kanungo, 1988; Thomas
& Velthouse, 1990). Increasing employees’ access to proper job-related information
and resources can enhance this process (Badir et al., 2012). The idea of assigning
decision making autonomy to employees motivates them to become more
responsible, as they are the centre of action in organisations (Tuuli & Rowlinson,
2009). Empowerment is generally conceptualised at either a macro (organisational)
or a micro (individual) level (Liden & Arad, 1996). The macro perspective focuses
on empowering employees through organisational structures, policies, and practices
(Seibert et al., 2004) and the micro perspective explains empowerment as a
psychological state in employees (Tuuli & Rowlinson, 2009).
Psychological empowerment is a collection of cognitions and is formed based
on an individuals’ experiences and feelings about their work (Conger & Kanungo,
1988). Based on Thomas and Velthouse's (1990) work, Spreitzer (1995) developed a
multidimensional instrument to assess psychological empowerment. Her model has
four dimensions: meaning, competence, self-determination, and impact. According to
the model, employees feel they are empowered if they find their work roles valuable,
their performance commended, their choices prospering, and their decisions effective
(Spreitzer, 1995). Thus, employees will be more satisfied with their jobs when they
identify a foster powerfulness situation in their organisations.
On the other hand, at the macro level, structural empowerment refers to
organisational policies, practices, and structures that motivate employees to
participate in the decision making procedure in order to achieve better outcomes
(Eylon & Bamberger, 2000; Hackman & Oldham, 1976; Liden & Arad, 1996; Mills
& Ungson, 2003; Parker et al., 2001). Structural empowerment is also seen as a
contextual perception affecting an employee’s feeling of empowerment (Seibert et
al., 2004). Some organisational practices include knowledge sharing, skills
development, access to resources and information, opportunities to learn, and
delegated authority and responsibilities (Eylon & Bamberger, 2000; Mills & Ungson,
2003; Seibert et al., 2004). Employees are more likely to feel empowered when
organisations apply these practices.
Chapter 2: Literature Review 16
2.4.2 Team empowerment climate
Seibert et al. (2004) conceptualised structural empowerment as a “climate”. As
previously mentioned, empowerment climate has been defined as individuals’ shared
perception about organisational practices, policies, and structures that help them to
achieve authority for making essential work decisions (Seibert et al., 2004). In other
words, an empowerment climate illustrates the extent to which an organisational
leader makes use of structures, policies, and practices to support employees’ access
to power (Schneider, Ehrhart, & Macey, 2013). While psychological empowerment
is based on individuals’ intrinsic recognition of empowerment (Conger & Kanungo,
1988; Kirkman & Rosen, 1999; Spreitzer, 1995), empowerment climate focuses on
the employees’ perception of the organisational designs that encourage them to be
empowered.
Climate research is an effort to understand organisational behaviour through
the subjective perceptions of organisational members (Schneider et al., 2013).
According to Schneider and Hall (1972), employees’ opinions of an organisation
emerge as a result of their numerous activities, interactions, feelings, and other
experiences within the organisation (Lawler, Hall, & Oldham, 1974). In order to
understand an organisation’s climate, employees should be asked to describe their
beliefs about their work place attributes (Laschinger, Finegan, Shamian, & Wilk,
2004). Climate perception represents employees’ personal overview of the
organisation’s conditions and situations that structure their attitudes and behaviours
(James & Jones, 1974; Schneider et al., 2013).
Empowerment climate is a multidimensional concept (Seibert et al., 2004). It
can be analysed at not only the individual level but also the team level. Team
empowerment climate focuses on shared perceptions among team members
regarding the team’s collective level of empowerment (Chen, Kirkman, Kanfer,
Allen, & Rosen, 2007; Seibert et al., 2004). As team members share the same goals,
strategies, and technologies, they could have similar feelings about the organisation
in comparison with other teams (James & Jones, 1974). Moreover, they share the
same managers, who apply broad organisational policies to the team and influence
the members’ manner in the same work team (Katz & Kahn, 1978). Managers also
filter the information that team members have access to and create the explanations
they reach as a group (Kozlowski & Doherty, 1989).
Chapter 2: Literature Review 17
There are three key organisational practices associated with an empowerment
climate: information sharing, autonomy through boundaries, and team accountability
(Blanchard, Carlos, & Randolph, 1995). The more an organisation provides
fundamental information about the organisation’s performance to team members,
establishes encouraging and supportive policies for their autonomous behaviours,
and delegates making important decision authority to them, the more an
empowerment climate develops within a team (Lashley, 2012; Schneider et al., 2013;
Schüler-Zhou & Schüller, 2013). Taking initiative, being autonomous and
accountable in actions, and sharing proper information are expected for high levels of
a team empowerment climate (Maruping & Magni, 2012). A team empowerment
climate is composed of the three dimensions that Seibert and his colleagues expect to
form a single unidimensional construct (Seibert et al., 2004). These three dimensions
are explained briefly in the following sections.
2.4.2.1. Information sharing
Information sharing is one of the major steps for empowering employees.
Employees require access to appropriate information about the function of the
organisation to perform their jobs responsibly (Blanchard et al., 1995). This
substantial information includes vision, mission, goals, financials, performance
objectives, quality, and productivity, which are necessary for a better decision
making process (Seibert et al., 2004). The role of sharing information will be more
significant when the information about an idea from a concept or customer needs is
distributed among various marketing, financial, technical, and business teams in new
product development organisations in order to transfer to a tangible product
(Schmidt, Montoya‐Weiss, & Massey, 2001).
2.4.2.2. Autonomy through boundaries
There are some practices and structures that encourage employees to perform
autonomously within an organisation (Bowen & Lawler, 1995). A clear
understanding of the roles and responsibilities, open communication among
employees, standardisation to reduce rework, and support for active actions are some
examples of organisational structures that delegate authority to employees (Seibert et
al., 2004). Several research cases have suggested that autonomous teams are best
when applied to a highly uncertain, complex, and innovative context like NPD teams
(Patanakul, Chen, & Lynn, 2012; Ramesh & Tiwana, 1999; Song & Montoya-Weiss,
Chapter 2: Literature Review 18
2001). Therefore, there should be some guidance for employees to clarify the
boundaries within which they can make essential decisions about their tasks
(Patanakul et al., 2012). Accordingly, when goals, purposes, values, and images are
clear and all restrictions become explicit, a more unified source of empowerment will
be achieved throughout the organisation (Michan & Rodger, 2000).
2.4.2.3. Team accountability
Presenting team members as the decision-making unit with the required
authority is one of the key ways to empower them. Teams are made up of a
collection of people who have developed a common purpose and know how to work
together as a consistent unit (Scholtes, Joiner, & Streibel, 2003). There is a synergy
in teams that creates a better solution for solving important production, quality
service, and financial problems (Gibbons et al., 1994). Furthermore, nominating
NPD teams as focal decision making units can help them to achieve creative
solutions to the problems, as they bring different ideas and experience altogether
(Fain & Kline, 2013). Strategies such as responsibility delegation, professional
growth training encouragement, team members’ participative decision making
inspiration, and brain storming support are associated with team accountability
(Seibert et al., 2004).
2.5 TEAM EMPOWERMENT CLIMATE AND WORK ROLE PERFORMANCE
Several studies support the relationship between team empowerment and team
performance (Kirkman & Rosen, 1999; Shea & Guzzo, 1987; Thamhain, 2004; Tuuli
& Rowlinson, 2009). A key presumption of empowerment theory is that empowered
individuals perform better than those relatively less empowered (Thomas &
Velthouse, 1990). When team members are given greater decision-making
responsibility, they will be more committed to the team; thus, they will try their best
to achieve their team’s goal (Kirkman & Rosen, 1999). McDonough (1993) found
that the amount of accountability given to new product development teams would
increase their productivity in developing new products, as they could respond more
quickly to the customer and market demands.
Previous research has also demonstrated a positive relationship between team
empowerment climate and team performance (Pritchard & Karasick, 1973;Schneider,
Chapter 2: Literature Review 19
1987;Seibert et al., 2004;Tuuli & Rowlinson, 2009). Kirkman and Rosen (1999)
argued that the more team members experience team empowerment the more
productive and proactive the team becomes. They also showed more empowered
teams to have higher levels of customer service. As team members feel more
empowered, they perceive their team climate as more influential and, as a result,
more innovative performance is created (Spreitzer, 2008).
In this research, the main focus was on the NPD teams’ climate, as this has
been shown to be one of the key factors affecting the performance (Dul & Ceylan,
2014; Lewin et al., 2008; McDonough, 2000; Sun, Xu, & Shang, 2014; Wei &
Morgan, 2004). Team climate represents the extent to which organisations support
and encourage innovation in NPD teams (Milliman, Taylor, & Czaplewski, 2002).
When all team members have a clear understanding of their team’s process and
structures, work efficiency will be improved (Laschinger, Finegan, Shamian, &
Wilk, 2001). An empowered team climate encourages members to regard their ideas
as valuable contributions to the team and to develop their own strategies for team
effectiveness. Therefore, this research aimed to examine the relationship between
NPD team empowerment climate and each of the main work role performance
components: proficiency, adaptivity, and proactivity.
2.5.1 Team empowerment climate and NPD team members’ proficiency
An empowerment climate is expected to have positive effects on task work and
teamwork behaviours. Kirkman and Rosen (1999) argued that access to strategic
information enables team members to determine appropriate courses of action
towards task accomplishment. Access to information about work, the organisation’s
goals, strategies, and plan enables employees to make more informed decisions that
are more aligned with organisational goals and initiate behaviours that promote task
accomplishment (Kanter, 1988). Additionally, capturing and sharing existing or new
information within NPD teams is relatively beneficial for their innovation
(Armbrecht et al., 2001). Moreover, team responsibility and autonomy, along with
careful selection and training of team members, is associated with team potency and
performance (Cummings, 1978; Guzzo, Yost, Campbell, & Shea, 1993; Kirkman &
Rosen, 1999). Thus:
Hypothesis 1: The more that NPD team members experience an empowerment
climate, the more proficient their team will be.
Chapter 2: Literature Review 20
Figure 2.1: Hypothesis 1
2.5.2 Team empowerment climate and NPD team members’ adaptivity
Adaptable responses of empowered teams are crucial to managing
environmental uncertainty in developing new products (Reilly et al., 2003).
Empowered NPD team members can choose appropriate approaches to handle the
uncertain and changing situations around producing new products, as they have
control over their own work (Wall, Cordery, & Clegg, 2002). Moon et al. (2004)
discussed how team members could adapt their roles and internal structures to align
with their external environment when they had a clear understanding of team visions
and goals. Empowered NPD team members can take action that is responsible and
autonomous in order to adjust to and deal with the unpredictable nature of situations
efficiently and smoothly, and shift their orientation or focus when necessary, in spite
of inherent uncertainty and ambiguity in the situation (Han & Williams, 2008). Thus:
Hypothesis 2: The more NPD team members experience an empowerment
climate, the more adaptable their team will be.
Figure 2.2: Hypothesis 2
2.5.3 Team empowerment climate and NPD team members’ proactivity
Empowerment is necessary for a flexible work approach and behavioural
initiatives to make decisions in changing work situations like NPD teams (Jong & De
Ruyter, 2004). Crant (2000) revealed that the more team members perceive that they
have autonomy, the more they are proactive in work-related situations. Empowered
NPD teams have been exposed to frequently taking action solving problems and
improving the quality of their products by initiating changes in the way work is
Team empowerment climate
Team members’ adaptivity
Team empowerment climate
Team members’ proficiency
Chapter 2: Literature Review 21
carried out (Wellins, Byham, & Wilson, 1991). Moreover, Williams et al. (2010)
supported the idea that team proactive behaviour performance arises from situational
factors such as team climate, structure, and policies. They showed that a supportive
team climate and high levels of self-management were associated with team
proactivity. Thus:
Hypothesis 3: The more NPD team members experience an empowerment
climate, the more proactive their team will be.
Figure 2.3: Hypothesis 3
2.6 SUPERVISORY SUPPORT FOR CREATIVITY
As previously mentioned, NPD teams play an important role for companies to
gain competitive advantages (Ragatz et al., 1997). To this end, they need to develop
creative ideas to satisfy customer’s changing wants faster than their competitors (Im,
Montoya, & Workman, 2013). Team supervisors, leaders, or managers need to
encourage innovation within a NPD team in order to be successful in an increasingly
competitive business environment (Kim, Min, & Cha, 1999; Sarin & McDermott,
2003). Previous research has argued that team members perform more creatively
when they experience a supportive climate in their workplace (Chen, Farh,
Campbell-Bush, Wu, & Wu, 2013; Isaksen & Lauer, 2002; Ishaque, Iqbal, Zafar, &
Tufail, 2014).
As NPD teams can provide critical advantages in competing with other firms
(Akgün et al., 2006; Tiwana & Mclean, 2005), creative behaviour helps them to be
successful and achieve the organisation’s goals in today’s business market (Magni,
Maruping, Hoegl, & Proserpio, 2013). According to Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby,
and Herron (1996), creativity is a process of generating novel and useful ideas,
products or procedures. This process is applicable for creating completely new
products or adjusting existing ones (Amabile et al., 1996). Amabile (1988) also
Team empowerment
climate
Team members’ proactivity
Chapter 2: Literature Review 22
defined creativity as an employee’s personal attribute or intellectual engagement into
the creative activities. As a result, organisations need to take care of the conditions
for their employees to improve creativity (Isaksen & Lauer, 2002; Ishaque et al.,
2014; Ragatz et al., 1997).
It is fundamental for organisations to build a climate that encourages their
employees to act creatively (Isaksen & Lauer, 2002). One efficient way is to promote
supportive behaviour within an organisation (Amabile et al., 1996;Cantor, Morrow,
& Montabon, 2012; Chen & Huang, 2007; Roffe, 1999). Cummings and Oldham
(1997) indicated the importance of supervisors’ behaviour to foster a creative
climate. They illustrated supportive supervisors as those who try to be aware of their
employees’ feelings, motivate them to share their concerns, provide positive and
informative feedback, and assist their employees to develop their skills. These
actions endorse employees’ perceptions of a supportive climate at work, facilitating
them to deliberate, improve, and ultimately contribute to more creative outcomes
(Kark & Carmeli, 2009; Shalley & Gilson, 2004).
Supervisory support is a significant factor for new product development teams
to operate effectively (Islam, Doshi, Mahtab, & Ariffin Ahmad, 2009; Järvinen &
Poikela, 2001; Sarin & McDermott, 2003). Within a NPD team, a supervisor can
encourage team members to explore problems from a new perspective to attain
creative solutions (Edmondson, 2002; Shalley & Gilson, 2004). For instance, Stahl
and Koser (1978) argued that research and development (R&D) scientists would
perform more creatively when their supervisors were empathic and attempted to
understand their feelings. Moreover, Dul and Ceylan (2014) supported the idea in
their research that if the level of support in an NPD work environment becomes high,
team members will be more productive and introduce more new products to the
market, meaning that they accomplish magnificently in the market.
2.7 SUPPORT FOR CREATIVITY AND WORK ROLE PERFORMANCE
In achieving high new product development performance, team members need
to be creative in order to design new products or renew, expand, or even modify the
existing ones (Moorman & Miner, 1997). Previous research has illustrated a
significant relationship between supervisory support and creativity (Amabile &
Gryskiewicz, 1989). The ability to generate innovative products is related to the
Chapter 2: Literature Review 23
degree of a team members’ creativity (Amabile, 1988;Staw, 1990; Woodman,
Sawyer, & Griffin, 1993). This shows to what extent new product development
teams are able to perform efficiently, as creative performance helps organisations to
respond quickly to market demands (Kanter, 1988; March & Simon, 1958; Van de
Ven, 1986).
Supervisors can support their NPD team members’ creativity by providing
beneficial feedback about their tasks to achieve productivity (Vissers & Dankbaar,
2002). This circumstance is closely related to the NPD team members’ proficiency.
Moreover, as team members have to face unpredictable problems based on the NPD
team’s uncertain environment, their supervisor’s support can help them to cope and
act initiatively to solve these problems creatively (Lubart, 2001; Zenasni, Besançon,
& Lubart, 2008). In other words, a supportive climate created by supervisors can
promote adaptivity and proactivity in NPD team members. These relationships are
discussed in more detail below.
2.7.1 Supervisory support for creativity and proficiency
Evidence shows that a supportive climate created by a supervisor is likely to
result in greater task focus (Kahn, 1990). Hackman (2002) showed that team
members feel more capable of shaping work roles and work contexts when they
receive adequate support from their team leader and are therefore motivated to try
creative approaches to perform their tasks. If employees perceive that their jobs are
meaningful and important on the basis of helpful feedback from supervisors, the
employees will increase creative activities (Yi, Hu, Plucker, & McWilliams, 2013).
Shalley and Gilson (2004) presented that team members spend more effort
understanding a problem from multiple perspectives to perform their task better, and
generate a significant number of creative alternatives when they receive frequent,
valuable support and feedback from their supervisors. Thus:
Hypothesis 4: The more that team members experience supervisory support for
creativity, the more proficient their team will be.
Figure 2.4: Hypothesis 4
Support for creativity
Team members’ proficiency
Chapter 2: Literature Review 24
2.7.2 Supervisory support for creativity and adaptivity
Supervisors can foster creative responses to unforeseen changes by providing a
supportive climate for their employees (Gundry, Muñoz‐Fernandez, Ofstein, &
Ortega‐Egea, 2015). Facteau, Dobbins, Russell, Ladd, and Kudisch (1995) indicated
that supervisory support could enhance creativity by providing support and
recognition for team members’ new ideas. Barczak, Lassk, and Mulki (2010)
revealed that a strongly supportive climate from supervisors could facilitate the
sharing of ideas and knowledge by reducing team members’ concerns that an initial
failure will be criticised. When unexpected changes occur, team members may
establish new configurations of team work according to the supportive climate in
their team to solve an emerging problem or manage unpredicted situations (Pulakos
et al., 2000; Tasa et al., 2007). Thus:
Hypothesis 5: The more that team members experience supervisory support for
creativity, the more adaptable their team will be.
Figure 2.5: Hypothesis 5
2.7.3 Supervisory support for creativity and proactivity
As new product development settings involve uncertainties and risks, team
members need a supportive environment in which their proactivity will be facilitated
(Parker et al., 2006). Parker et al. (2006) showed that proactive behaviour is the self-
initiated and future-oriented action that helps employees to improve their work.
Moreover, Parker, Bindl, and Strauss (2010) revealed a positive relationship between
a supportive climate and employee outcomes. Proactive behaviours help NPD team
members to investigate new possibilities and solutions to solve unfamiliar issues
(Frese & Fay, 2001). Therefore, supporting creativity motivates team members to
proactively generate new ideas, and hence, team performance (Bindl & Parker,
2010). Thus:
Hypothesis 6: The more that team members experience supervisory support for
creativity, the more proactive their team will be.
Support for creativity
Team members’ adaptivity
Chapter 2: Literature Review 25
Figure 2.6: Hypothesis 6
2.8 CONCLUSION
This chapter has presented an overview of the literature on work role
performance, team empowerment climate, and climate support for creativity.
Hypotheses were developed through conducting this review and highlighting
previous studies relevant to this research. Below is the research conceptual
framework. The next chapter will outline the methodology used to test the
hypotheses.
Figure 2.7: Conceptual Model
Support for creativity
Team members’ proactivity
Team Empowerment
Climate
Supervisor support for creativity
Team members Proficiency
Team members Adaptivity
Team members Proactivity
Work Role
Chapter 3: Research Design 26
Chapter 3: Research Design
3.1 CHAPTER OVERVIEW
This chapter presents the methodology used in conducting this research. This
study aimed to investigate the impact of a team empowerment climate and
supervisory support for creativity on team members' work role performance in
organisations. For this purpose, this research employed a quantitative research design
to describe the relationships between independent variables and a dependent one
(Creswell, 2013; Mertler & Vannatta, 2002). This chapter outlines the quantitative
approach taken in this research, including the method of data collection, sampling
design, and measurement instruments used in this research. Finally, the reliability
and validity assessments of this research’s measurements are provided.
3.2 RESEARCH METHOD
This study employed a quantitative approach to investigate the roles of a team
empowerment climate and supervisor support for employees’ creativity on
employees’ work performance in a team. The quantitative method was appropriate in
comparison to the qualitative method, as it offered a better way to demonstrate to
what the extent one variable affected the other (Ragin, 2014) and the aim of this
research was to measure the relationships between empowerment and creativity and
team members’ work role performance. The quantitative method is used to develop
mathematical models, theories, and/or hypotheses relating to a phenomenon (Bryman
& Bell, 2015). Moreover, the quantitative method is useful whenever researchers
decide to collect data from a large sample population (Creswell, 2013). This research
used a survey method to collect primary quantitative data to determine the
relationship among the chosen variables (Mertler & Vannatta, 2002).
3.2.1 Questionnaire
This research used a self-administered questionnaire to collect data from
employees working within various teams in an NPD context. Self-administered
questionnaires enable researchers to reach a large number of potential respondents in
a variety of locations, especially when utilising mail or online questionnaires
(Dillman, 2000; Lincoln, Lynham, & Guba, 2011). As this research aimed to collect
Chapter 3: Research Design 27
data from NPD teams in Iran, sending the questionnaire to potential participants by
email was time and cost effective for the researcher (Saunders, Saunders, Lewis, &
Thornhill, 2011). As a result, a self-administered questionnaire was chosen as an
appropriate data collection method. Common method variance is the most common
threat to validity in a self-administered questionnaire design (Shalley & Gilson,
2004). To reduce the possibility of common-method biases and obtain measures of
the predictor and criterion variables from different sources, this research employed
time separation for the data collection of IV and DV (Shalley & Gilson, 2004).
3.3 SAMPLING
This section demonstrates the various steps involved in the sampling process.
Sampling techniques help researchers to specify the amount of data they need for
their research by reducing all possible data to the proper subgroups (Saunders et al.,
2011). As the following paragraphs show, prior to discussing the sampling technique
and method, this research determined the target population in the research process.
The probability or non-probability sampling method is then discussed and the
appropriate sample size for this research is justified.
3.3.1 Target population
Zikmund (2003) recommended selecting a target population before choosing
an appropriate sampling method. A target population specifies the groups of people
whom a researcher intends to study (Cavana, Delahaye, & Sekeran, 2001). The target
population for this research was new product development teams in medium sized
Iranian organisations. NPD teams are crucial elements for the success of a business
in the long-term and as they perform in a highly uncertain environment, it is
important to know to what extent environmental factors can influence their
performance (Fain & Kline, 2013). NPD teams can be classified into various
categories, such as marketing, finance, research and development, engineering,
design, and production (Cooper & Kleinschmidt, 2007). As a result, an appropriate
target population for this research was teams whose duties were related to producing,
developing, marketing, and designing new products. Further, Iran was selected as a
target population primarily because the researcher had developed a personal network
amongst a number of organisations in the country. As such, it was time and cost
effective for the researcher to collect data.
Chapter 3: Research Design 28
3.3.2 Sampling technique and methods
The two most commonly used sampling methods are probability and non-
probability sampling (Bryman & Bell, 2015). Non-probability sampling is a
purposeful sampling technique in which the chance of being chosen is not equal for
all of the target population (Saunders et al., 2011; Zikmund, 2003). Firstly, effort was
made to contact Australian industry with the support of peak industry body ICCPM.
However, due to the time constrain of the master project, a convenient sampling
technique was employed. Convenience sampling allowed the researcher to select
participants from a population who were readily available, easily accessible, and
convenient (Zikmund, 2003). Therefore, researcher recruited potential participants
through established relationships and networks (Cooper, Schindler, & Sun, 2006) in
Iran. These established relationships allowed for timely access to the participants, as
well as a timely response. As the sample was chosen from a population who were
easily accessible and convenient (Bryman & Bell, 2015), convenience sampling was
both time and cost efficient (Sekaran, 2006). In particular, with the researcher’s
restricted time and budget, convenience sampling was appropriate compared to other
techniques, such as using panel data.
3.3.3 Sample size
A sample size was determined based on the number of statistical analyses
(Bendat & Piersol, 2011). Desu (2012) suggested that a study with too small a
sample size may produce inconclusive results and too large a one would waste scarce
resources and money. Moreover, an inappropriate, insufficient, and disproportionate
sample size influences the quality and accuracy of research (Kotrlik & Higgins,
2001). Saunders et al. (2011) advised obtaining at least 30 units for the statistical
analysis to be meaningful. Hair (2010) argued that the minimum sample size for
undertaking quantitative analysis at the team level is at least 50 to 100 responses. To
collect data, 800 questionnaires were sent to 30 different new product development
organisations with teams whose primary activities were developing new products.
Specifically, NPD teams who were researching the production of new products,
finding new ways to market new or existing products, inventing or improving new
ways of producing data, and designing new software to improve developing new
products. Each organisation who agreed to participate contained on average seven
teams with four members in each team.
Chapter 3: Research Design 29
3.4 DATA COLLECTION
Data collection is the process of gathering information about the variables of
research through an organised, systematic approach that enables researchers to find
appropriate answers for research questions, test hypotheses, and assess results (Ott,
Longnecker, & Ott, 2001). The data collection process ensures researchers that
accurate data leads their research to valid findings (Bryman & Bell, 2015). To
achieve accurate and valid findings, this research’s data collection process involved
two phases. First, a pre-testing survey was conducted in Iran to test the questions and
identify any possible problems in the questionnaire. Questionnaires were then
distributed among potential participants in Iran to collect the research data in two
stages. The following paragraphs explain these two phases of data collection in more
detail.
3.4.1 Pre-testing questionnaire
Survey pre-testing helps researchers to determine a respondents’ level of
understanding and their viewpoint about the questionnaire. This research’s pre-test
was conducted in Iran using English. Therefore, pre-testing questionnaires were able
to give the researcher the opportunity to examine the Iranian participants’ level of
English proficiency and understanding. In pre-testing the questionnaire, 10 Iranian
postgraduate students from a reputable public university were recruited based on the
convenience sampling technique. The participants were emailed the questionnaire
and asked to participate in the pre-test. Further, participants were asked about their
opinion and feedback around the questionnaire, including the research’s design,
coherence, clear English wording or use of language for Iranian employees, and time
needed to complete the questionnaire. As the content of questionnaire was
understandable for the participants, there was no need to make changes to the
questionnaire.
3.4.2 Data collection procedure
The primary data collection phase was conducted in two separate timeframes.
At time1, 15 liaison people who were the professional network in this research made
a connection between the researcher and supervisors of different teams. Following
this, the supervisors sent the email addresses of the list of probable participants’
within each team to the researcher, who then sent an email to them to see whether
Chapter 3: Research Design 30
they were willing to take part in the data collection process. At time1, the
questionnaire was sent as an email attachment to 800 team members and their
supervisors considered being potential participants. The email also contained an
information sheet outlining a summary of the research, participation conditions,
evaluated risks and benefits, and QUT’s Human Research Ethics number.
Participants were asked to sign the participants’ information sheet and email it to the
researcher with a completed questionnaire if they agreed to take part in this data
collection process. A follow up email was sent to the participants a week later
(time2) to thank them and remind those who did not respond to the email (Saunders
et al., 2011). A total of 276 participants completed the questionnaire. In the second
time period, after one month the former participants were asked to complete the part
of questionnaires that contained dependent variable questions in order to measure the
test-retest questionnaires’ reliability (Field, 2009). Participants were offered the
opportunity to take part in a draw to win an iPad mini 2.0 if they sent back the
completed second questionnaire. Church (1993) suggested that proposing an
incentive in a survey method increases response rates. After three months and two
stages of data collection, 276 completed questionnaires from 73 teams were sent
back to researcher in total. The response rate for this research was 34.5% and for
teams’ supervisors was 85%.
3.5 MEASUREMENTS
A well-developed measurement improves the reliability and validity of
research; thus, it is necessary for all research to use reliable and valid measures
(Saunders et al., 2011). This research’s questionnaire included two general types of
measures: demographics and construct. In the demographics section, participants
were asked about their gender, age, and job tenure duration. Further, the construct
measures included the research’s variables. The variables being measured in this
study were empowerment climate, supervisory support for creativity, and work role
performance. By adapting well-tested measures from previous studies, this research
aimed to minimise errors as the reliability and validity of the measures had been
tested previously (Saunders et al., 2011). Nevertheless, some of the items were
modified slightly to better fit the study’s focus and level of analysis. The
demographic and construct measures employed in this study are discussed in the
following sections.
Chapter 3: Research Design 31
3.5.1 Demographic measures
Demographic questions allow researchers to identify a population’s
characteristics, such as age, gender, and educational attainment (Andreev,
Shkolnikov, & Begun, 2002). Demographic measures are extremely important as
they help researchers to recognise how closely the sample represents the target
population (Shryock, 2013). In this research, questions relating to participants’
gender, age, educational level, and work tenure were designed to gather general
information about the research sample. Moreover, the type of team, number of team
members, and their role in the team were asked to gain insights into the team
members’ position in their team. This information helped the researcher to identify
the participants’ eligibility to partake in the research.
3.5.2 Construct measures
Empowerment climate
This research adapted the instrument developed by Blanchard and his
colleagues (Blanchard et al., 1995) to measure the empowerment climate construct.
The measure included 30 items designed to reflect three dimensions: information
sharing, autonomy through boundaries, and team responsibility and accountability.
Some sample items from each dimension of this instrument were: “We get
information into the hands of frontline people so they can make responsible
decisions” for information sharing; “We create structures and procedures that
encourage and expect people to take initiative in improving organisational
performance” for autonomy through boundaries; and “We use teams as the focal
point of responsibility and accountability in our organisation” for team responsibility
and accountability. Participants rated each statement from 1, “almost never,” to 7,
“almost always.”
Support for creativity from supervisors
A six-item instrument was used to measure the supervisory support for
creativity construct, based on work of Zhang and Bartol (2010). They adapted their
instrument from Scott and Bruce (1994) for their study. The items were rated
between 1 “strongly disagree” to 7 “strongly agree”. The items included: “My
manager encourages and emphasises or reinforces creativity by employees”, “My
manager respects employees’ ability to function creatively”, “My manager allows
Chapter 3: Research Design 32
employees to try to solve the same problems in different ways”, “My manager
expects employees to deal with problems in different ways”, “My manager will
reward employees who are creative in doing their job”, and “My manager will
publicly recognise those who are creative”.
Work role performance:
Team members’ performance was measured using the nine-item scale
developed by Griffin et al. (2007). This scale involved three dimensions of team
performance: proficiency (e.g., ensures main tasks are completed properly),
adaptivity (e.g., adjusts to new equipment, processes, or procedures of main tasks),
and proactivity (e.g., initiates action to have a better performance for main tasks).
Each subscale was measured by three items. In the time2, this construct was sent to
both supervisors and team members to complete it.
3.6 ESTABLISHING RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY
An assessment of the research’s validity and reliability ensures researchers that
the results obtained in their research will be trustworthy (Riff, Lacy, & Fico, 2014).
Accurate and consistent data will be provided by valid and reliable questionnaires
(Saunders et al., 2011). The reliability and validity of this research’s questionnaire is
discussed in the following sections.
3.6.1 Reliability
Reliability illustrates the extent to which a research instrument produces the
same results on repeated trials (Creswell, 2013). To assess the questionnaire’s
reliability, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficients and item-to-total correlations were
examined. These two measurements indicate the inter-correlations among
questionnaire items. Higher inter-correlations among questions maximise the
reliability of the questionnaire’s construct. Cronbach’s alpha is a form of internal
consistency reliability. Cronbach’s alpha values of .70 and above is acceptable in
research, and values of .95 are desirable for applied research (Cronbach, 1951; Field,
2009). An item-to-total correlation of less than .30 should usually be removed as it is
deemed less reliable (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). The Cronbach’s alpha and item-
to-total correlation in this research was calculated separately for each variable. The
exact numbers for these analyses are provided in Chapter 4. Moreover, two stages of
Chapter 3: Research Design 33
data collection were conducted, which further increased the questionnaire’s
reliability (McKeown & Thomas, 2013).
3.6.2 Validity
While reliability is necessary, reliability alone is not sufficient. For research to
be reliable, it needs to be valid as well (Saunders et al., 2011). Validity refers to
whether a research instrument actually measures what it does and whether the results
could actually be generalised to the wider population (Punch, 2013). Confirmatory
factor analysis (CFA) was employed to determine the theoretical structures of
variables and hypothesised relationships (Hooper, Coughlan, & Mullen, 2008). In
addition, using well-known and tested measurements adapted from peer-review
journals increased the content validity of the research (Saunders et al., 2011).
3.7 CONCLUSION
In summary, this chapter has presented a detailed description of the research
methodology, along with a justification for the chosen research design. This included
an explanation of the quantitative approach and the chosen survey method of this
research. Details of the sampling technique, measurement scales, survey design, pre-
test, data collection procedures, and assessments of reliability and validity have also
been provided. The next chapter will discuss the results of the data analysis and
hypothesis testing.
Chapter 4: Analysis and Results 34
Chapter 4: Analysis and Results
4.1 CHAPTER OVERVIEW
The aim of this chapter is to present the processes and results of the data
analysis and hypothesis testing. This research used six hypotheses to predict direct
relationships among team proficiency, team adaptability, and team proactivity as
dependent variables, and team empowerment climate and supervisory support for
creativity as interdependent variables. This research used SPSS version 22 for the
statistical analysis. Cronbach’s alpha test and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)
were used to assess the research questionnaire’s reliability and validity. AMOS
version 22 was employed to evaluate CFA, and the path analysis technique was
adapted to test the hypotheses.
4.2 SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS
Respondents’ age, gender, tenure, highest level of education, team size, and
types of team were collected as demographic data. Demographic information
illustrates the research sample’s characteristics, although not all of these data were
used within the data analysis. A summary of this information is provided in Table
4.1.
There was an almost equal percentage of male (49.1%) and female (50.9%)
respondents, with the age range between 19 to over 65. The largest age section
belonged to the respondents in the range of 25 to 34 (42.9%). Furthermore, the
majority of respondents had worked for their current organisation for one to five
years (49.4%), and attained a completed higher research degree as their highest level
of education (46.9%).
Chapter 4: Analysis and Results 35
Table 4.1: Sample characteristics
Characteristics Percentage
Age 19-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 +65
1.9% 42.9% 19.1% 23.7% 11.2% 1.2%
Gender Male Female
49.1% 50.9%
Highest Education Level Attained
Some Graduate School Completed Graduate School Some Higher Research Completed Higher Research Other
5.8% 42.9% 3.6% 46.9% 0.7%
Tenure
1 to 5 years 5 to 10 years 10 to 15 years More than 15 years
49.4% 42.9% 5.5% 2.2%
Team Size
3 members 4 members 5 members 6 members 7 members 8 members 9 members 10 members
3.3% 10.2% 21.8% 23.6% 13.8% 15.6% 8.0% 3.6%
4.3 CONFIRMATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS (CFA)
As the first stage of analysis data, CFA was employed to check the integrity of
the measurement constructs (Harrington, 2008). Performing CFA is a common way
Chapter 4: Analysis and Results 36
to evaluate the nature of and relationship among latent constructs. This analysis
explicitly tests a priori hypotheses about relationships between observed variables
and latent variables or factors. The main uses of CFA are developing and refining
measurement instruments, assessing construct validity, identifying method effects,
and evaluating factor invariance across time and groups (Brown, 2015). This
research first used CFA for each component of the work role performance, team
empowerment climate, and supervisory support for creativity to examine the
validation of each question for each construct. The relationship among all
dimensions of work role performance and team empowerment climate were then
assessed. To assess goodness of model fit, standardised RMR (SRMR) < 0.08,
incremental fit indices (IFI), and comparative fit index (CFI) > 0.9 were considered
(Hooper, Coughlan, & Mullen, 2008). The following sections represent the CFA of
the research variables.
4.3.1 Team members’ proficiency
The team members’ proficiency measurement contained three items. CFA
results for this measurement show that all of their standardised regression weights
are close to 1 (0.94, 0.96, 0.90), demonstrating that they are all good indicators of
team members’ proficiency. Moreover, the fit indices further supported the validity
of the proposed model in specifying the observed data. The summary of the fit
indices (Table 4.2) suggests that the values are indicative of a good fit. The IFI and
CFI are more than 0.90, which is the greatest range for them (IFI=1.00, CFI=1.00)
(Hooper et al., 2008). The value of SRMR is the desirable value of <0.08 (SRMR =
0.000) (Hooper et al., 2008). Based on the acceptable fit indices, there was no
modification required for this three-item model.
Table 4.2: Summary of the fit indices for team members’ proficiency
Parameter: IFI CFI SRMR
Team members’ proficiency 1.00 1.00 0.000
Chapter 4: Analysis and Results 37
Figure 4.1: Team members’ proficiency CFA diagram
4.3.2 Team members’ adaptivity
The team members’ adaptivity measurement contained three items. The CFA
result for this measurement represents that all of their standardised regression
weights are close to 1 (0.89, 0.89, 0.93), demonstrating that they are all good
indicators of team members’ adaptivity. Moreover, the fit indices further supported
the validity of the proposed model in specifying the observed data. The summary of
the fit indices (Table 4.3) suggests that the values are indicative of a good fit. The
CFI and IFI are more than 0.90, which is the greatest range for them (IFI=1.00,
CFI=1.00) (Hooper et al., 2008). The value of SRMR is the desirable value of <0.08
(SRMR = 0.000) (Hooper et al., 2008). Based on the acceptable fit indices, there was
no modification required for this three-item model.
Table 4.3: Summary of the fit indices for team members’ adaptivity
Parameter: IFI CFI SRMR
Team members’ adaptivity 1.00 1.00 0.000
Chapter 4: Analysis and Results 38
Figure 4.2: Team members’ adaptivity CFA diagram
4.3.3 Team members’ proactivity
The team members’ proactivity measurement contained three items. The CFA
result for this measurement represents that all of their standardised regression
weights are close to 1 (0.94, 0.92, 0.93), demonstrating that they are all good
indicators of team members’ proactivity. Moreover, the fit indices further supported
the validity of the proposed model in specifying the observed data. The summary of
the fit indices (Table 4.4) suggests that the values are indicative of a good fit. The
CFI and IFI are more than 0.90, which is the greatest range for them (IFI=1.00,
CFI=1.00) (Hooper et al., 2008). The value of SRMR is the desirable value of <0.08
(SRMR = 0.000) (Hooper et al., 2008). Based on the acceptable fit indices, there was
no modification required for this three-item model.
Table 4.4: Summary of the fit indices for team members’ proactivity
Figure 4.3: Team members’ proactivity CFA diagram
Parameter: IFI CFI SRMR
Team members’ proactivity 1.00 1.00 0.000
Chapter 4: Analysis and Results 39
4.3.4 Work role performance
Work role performance contained three factors: proficiency, adaptively and
proactivity. The CFA result for this construct represents the relationship among these
three factors and all of their standardised regression weights. The standardised
regression weights for proficiency, adaptivity and proactivity are close to 1 (0.95,
0.98, and 0.97). These results revealed that they are good indicators of work role
performance. Moreover, the summary of the fit indices (Table 4.5) suggests that the
values are indicative of a good fit. The CFI and IFI are more than 0.90, which is the
greatest range for them (IFI=0.96, CFI=0.96) (Hooper et al., 2008). The value of
SRMR is the desirable value of <0.08 (SRMR = 0.000) (Hooper et al., 2008). Based
on the acceptable fit indices, there was no modification required for this 9-item
model.
Table 4.5: Summary of the fit indices for work role performance
Parameter: IFI CFI SRMR
Work role performance 0.96 0.96 0.000
Chapter 4: Analysis and Results 40
Figure 4.4: Work role performance CFA diagram
4.3.5 Information sharing
Information sharing is one of the team empowerment climate dimensions. This
dimension’s measurement contained 10 questions (items). Standardised regression
weights of information sharing’s 10 items calculated from CFA are close to 1 (e.g.
0.83, 0.79, 0.82, and 0.67). This shows that they are all good indicators of
information sharing. In addition, the summary of the fit indices (Table 4.6) suggests
that the values are indicative of a good fit. The CFI and IFI are more than 0.90,
which is the greatest range for them (IFI=0.92, CFI=0.91) (Hooper et al., 2008). The
value of SRMR is the desirable value of <0.08 (SRMR = 0.000) (Hooper et al.,
2008). Based on the acceptable fit indices, there was no modification required for
this ten-item model.
Table 4.6: Summary of the fit indices for information sharing
Parameter: IFI CFI SRMR
Information sharing 0.92 0.91 0.000
Chapter 4: Analysis and Results 41
Figure 4.5: Information sharing CFA diagram
4.3.6 Autonomy through boundaries
Autonomy through boundaries is another dimension of a team empowerment
climate. Its measurement contained ten items. The CFA result for this measurement
represents that all of their standardised regression weights are close to 1 (e.g. 0.86,
0.87, 0.77, and 0.70), which shows that they are all good indicators of autonomy
through boundaries. Moreover, the fit indices further supported the validity of the
proposed model in specifying the observed data. The summary of the fit indices
(Table 4.7) suggests that the values are indicative of a good fit. The CFI and IFI are
more than 0.90, which is the greatest range for them (IFI=0.97, CFI=0.97) (Hooper et
al., 2008). The value of SRMR is the desirable value of <0.08 (SRMR = 0.000)
(Hooper et al., 2008). Based on the acceptable fit indices, there was no modification
required for this ten-item model.
Chapter 4: Analysis and Results 42
Table 4.7: Summary of the fit indices for autonomy through boundaries
Figure 4.6: Autonomy through boundaries CFA diagram
4.3.7 Team accountability
Team accountability is another dimension of a team empowerment climate.
This dimension’s measurement contained 10 questions (items). Standardised
regression weights of team accountablity’s0 items calculated from CFA are close to
1 (e.g. 0.85, 0.79, 0.82, and 0.71). This shows that they are all good indicators of
team accountability. In addition, the summary of the fit indices (Table 4.8) suggests
Parameter: IFI CFI SRMR
Autonomy through boundaries 0.97 0.97 0.000
Chapter 4: Analysis and Results 43
that the values are indicative of a good fit. The CFI and IFI are more than 0.90,
which is the greatest range for them (IFI=0.92, CFI=0.92) (Hooper et al., 2008). The
value of SRMR is the desirable value of <0.08 (SRMR = 0.000) (Hooper et al.,
2008). Based on the acceptable fit indices, there was no modification required for
this ten-item model.
Table 4.8: Summary of the fit indices for team accountability
Figure 4.7: Team accountability CFA diagram
4.3.8 Team empowerment climate
The team empowerment climate contained three factors; information sharing,
autonomy through boundaries, and team accountability, as discussed previously. The
Parameter: IFI CFI SRMR
Team accountability 0.92 0.92 0.000
Chapter 4: Analysis and Results 44
CFA result for this construct represented the relationship among these three factors
and all of their standardised regression weights. The standardised regression weights
for information sharing, autonomy through boundaries, and team accountability are
close to 1 (0.94, 0.85, and 0.87), revealing that they are good indicators of work role
performance. Moreover, the summary of the fit indices (Table 4.9) suggests that the
values are indicative of a good fit. The CFI and IFI are more than 0.90, which is the
greatest range for them (IFI=0.91, CFI=0.91) (Hooper et al., 2008). The value of
SRMR is the desirable value of <0.08 (SRMR = 0.000) (Hooper et al., 2008). Based
on the acceptable fit indices, there was no modification required for this 30-item
model.
Table 4.9: Summary of the fit indices for team empowerment
Parameter: IFI CFI SRMR
Team empowerment climate 0.91 0.91 0.000
Chapter 4: Analysis and Results 45
Figure 4.8: Team empowerment climate CFA
4.3.9 Supervisory support for creativity
Supervisory support for the creativity measurement contained six items. The
CFA result for this measurement represents all of their standardised regression
weights, which are close to 1 (0.86, 0.86, 0.85, 0.80, 0.85, and 0.88), demonstrating
that they are all good indicators of supervisory support for creativity. Moreover, the
summary of the fit indices (Table 4.10) suggested that the values are indicative of a
good fit. The CFI and IFI are more than 0.90, which is the greatest range for them
(IFI=0.96, CFI=0.96) (Hooper et al., 2008). The value of SRMR is the desirable
value of <0.08 (SRMR = 0.000) (Hooper et al., 2008). Based on the acceptable fit
indices, there was no modification required for this 30-item model.
Chapter 4: Analysis and Results 46
Table 4.10: Summary of the fit indices for supervisory support for creativity
Figure 4.9: Supervisory support for creativity CFA diagram
4.4 RELIABILITY ANALYSIS
Reliability tests assess to what extent a research instrument generates stable
and consistent results (Saunders, Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2011). Cronbach’s
alpha coefficient was used to evaluate the internal reliability of the instrument (Field,
2009). Cronbach’s alpha scores of 0.70 and above demonstrated the reliability of the
questionnaire and the internal consistency of the measure (Cavana, Delahaye, &
Sekeran, 2001; Field, 2009).
Parameter: IFI CFI SRMR
Supervisory support for creativity
0.96 0.96 0.000
Chapter 4: Analysis and Results 47
4.4.1 Reliability of team members proficiency items
There were three items that measured team member proficiency in the
questionnaire. The Cronbach’s alpha for these three items was 0.95, and all of their
item-to-total was higher than 0.3, demonstrating that there was no need to delete any
of these items for further analysis. Table 4.11 shows the variable reliability test
results (Field, 2009).
Table 4.11: Reliability of team members’ proficiency items
Team members proficiency items
Item-to-total correlation
We coordinated our work with our co-workers .898
We communicated effectively with our co-workers .913
We provided help to our co-workers when asked, or needed .873
Cronbach’s Alpha .949
4.4.2 Reliability of team members adaptivity
The three items for team members’ adaptivity were tested for reliability as
shown in Table 4.12. All items were found to have item-to-total correlations above
0.30 and Cronbach’s alpha scores over 0.70 (Field, 2009).
Chapter 4: Analysis and Results 48
Table 4.12: Reliability of team members’ adaptivity items
Team members adaptivity items
Item-to-
total correlation
We dealt effectively with changes affecting our work unit (e.g., new
members)
.843
We learnt new skills or took on new roles to cope with changes in the
way our team works
.845
We responded constructively to changes in the way our team works .870
Cronbach’s Alpha .928
4.4.3 Reliability of team members proactivity items
Team members’ proactivity was assessed based on three questions. Their
reliability test results illustrated that they were all reliable, as their Cronbach’s alpha
score was 0.95, which is more than 0.70 (Field, 2009). In addition, item-to-total
scores for all items were more than 0.30. Table 4.13 presents the variable reliability
test results.
Table 4.13: Reliability of team members’ proactivity items
Team members proactivity items
Item-to-total correlation
We suggested ways to make our team more effective .899
We develop new and improved methods to help our team
works better
.891
We improved the way our team does things .896
Cronbach’s Alpha .950
Chapter 4: Analysis and Results 49
4.4.4 Reliability of empowerment climate items
Team empowerment climate was one of the independent variables in this
research. It contained three different dimensions with 30 items as a whole. The
Cronbach’s alpha was calculated for each dimension to determine their reliability
separately. All items were found to have item-to-total correlations above 0.30 and
Cronbach’s alpha scores over 0.70 for each dimension (Field, 2009). Table 4.14
shows the scores of each dimension for the team empowerment climate questions. As
this measurement has a copyright for its writers, only the numbers of the questions
are mentioned in the table.
Table 4.14: Reliability of team empowerment climate items
Corrected Item-total correlation
Information sharing
Q10 .751
Q11 .792
Q12 .759
Q13 .769
Q14 .737
Q15 .697
Q16 .775
Q17 .793
Q18 .656
Q19 .672
Cronbach's Alpha .934
Autonomy through boundaries
Q20 .826
Q21 .837
Chapter 4: Analysis and Results 50
Q22 .846
Q23 .799
Q24 .786
Q25 .754
Q26 .810
Q27 .808
Q28 .677
Q29 .778
Cronbach's Alpha .951
Team accountability
Q30 .768
Q31 .718
Q32 .769
Q33 .719
Q34 .760
Q35 .814
Q36 .785
Q37 .752
Q38 .768
Cronbach's Alpha .941
4.4.5 Reliability of support for creativity items
The six items of support for creativity were tested for reliability as shown in
Table 4.15. All items were found to have item-to-total correlations above 0.30 and
Cronbach’s alpha scores over 0.70 (Field, 2009).
Chapter 4: Analysis and Results 51
Table 4.15: Reliability of supervisory support for creativity items
4.5 PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS
Prior to starting any statistical analysis, two more tests required investigation to
ensure the accuracy of research results. Data were collected from various team
members and the research aim was to examine relationship between the variables at
the team level. In order to do so, aggregate individual level data was converted to the
team level. To assess the team level data, it is necessary to determine within and
between group agreement (Hofmann & Stetzer, 1996; Klein, Dansereau, & Hall,
1994; Naumann & Bennett, 2000). Moreover, there is a need to determine variable
relationships to draw a correct conclusion from a statistical analysis (Kleinbaum,
Kupper, Nizam, & Rosenberg, 2013). Therefore, bivariate correlations were
conducted among variables to measure the strength of their relationship (Mertler &
Vannatta, 2002).
Supervisory support for creativity items
Item-to-total correlation
My manager encourages and emphasises or reinforces
creativity by employees.
.826
My manager respects employees’ ability to function creatively. .858
My manager allows employees to try to solve the same
problems in different ways.
.824
My manager expects employees to deal with problems in
different ways.
.785
My manager will reward employees who are creative in doing
their job.
.817
My manager will publicly recognise those who are creative. .846
Cronbach’s Alpha .924
Chapter 4: Analysis and Results 52
4.5.1 Aggregation
Within-group agreement is the measure that indicates to what extent team
members’ ratings on a scale within a team are the same (Kozlowski & Hattrup,
1992). There are two different methods designed to measure single items and
multiple item scales within organisational literature (James, Demaree, & Wolf,
1984). As, participants rated multiple items scales in this research, was
employed to assess the agreement of team members’ perception about their team’s
work role performance, team empowerment climate, and supervisory support for
creativity. Table 4.16 illustrates the , means, and SD for three different
teams as an example of how they were calculated for each team. The complete
table of all teams’ total and this measurement for each research variable is
attached as Appendix A. There were few teams where the total was lower
than 0.7. The most disagreement within results related to how team members
scored the support of their supervisors for creativity. The probable reason for this
might be that the answers from the supervisors were not excluded from other team
members. By excluding the supervisor’s questionnaires, the became
meaningful for the most teams; however, there was only one team (Team 29) where
the for all variables were still meaningless. In order to achieve reliable results
that team was eliminated from the analyses. For the remaining 72 teams, was
0.97, indicating high levels of interrater agreement. Table 4.16 shows teams with
insignificant .
Table 4.16: r(wg(j)) of different teams
Team Total
Mean
SD
1 0.97 4.6 2.73
2 0.96 4.2 3.72
3 0.98 4.6 1.15
Chapter 4: Analysis and Results 53
Table 4.17: Teams with insignificant r(wg(j))
This study used an analysis of variance (ANOVA) to examine between-groups
variation for all of the research variables as their level analysis was team level.
Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC (1)) was chosen an appropriate method as an
index of within-group agreement in this research (Bliese, 2000). Results of a one-
way ANOVA for team empowerment climate indicated significant differences across
teams in the level of team members proficiency (F = 4.761, p < 0.01), team members
adaptivity (F = 4.565, p < 0.01), and team members proactivity (F = 4.753, p < 0.01).
The ICC (1) was 0.15, indicating significant between-team variation. For the
supervisory support for creativity results of a one-way ANOVA indicated that there
were significant differences across teams in the level of team members proficiency
(F = 4.761, p < 0.01), team members adaptivity (F = 4.565, p < 0.01), and team
members proactivity (F = 4.753, p < 0.01). Thus, individual scores for team
empowerment climate and supervisory support for creativity were aggregated to the
team level by averaging the scores of team members. Tables 4.18 and 4.19 illustrate
the results of one way ANOVA for the research variables.
Team Support for creativity
Supervisor’s answer
Correct rwg after omitting supervisor’s
answer
2 0.31 6 0.95
5 0.00 6 0.85
9 0.24 6 0.79
13 -0.50 7 0.71
20 -0.03 7 0.72
29 0.28 7 0.90
30 0.28 6 0.84
31 0.15 6 0.88
Chapter 4: Analysis and Results 54
Table 4.18: The one-way ANOVA for team empowerment climate
Sum of Squares
Mean Square F Sig.
Team proficiency
Between groups
148.887 6.768 4.761 .000
Team adaptability
Between groups
118.229 5.374 4.565 .000
Team proactivity
Between groups
135.840 6.175 4.753 .000
Table 4.19: The one-way ANOVA for team empowerment climate
Sum of Squares
Mean Square F Sig.
Team proficiency
Between groups
148.887 6.768 4.761 .000
Team adaptability
Between groups
118.229 5.374 4.565 .000
Team proactivity
Between groups
135.840 6.175 4.753 .000
4.5.2 Bivariate correlations
Bivariate correlation is an analytic test that indicates whether there is a relationship
between two variables (Field, 2009). It is also demonstrates how strong the linear
relationship is between those two variables (Mertler & Vannatta, 2002). The
correlations among team members’ proficiency, adaptivity, and proactivity (mean,
minimum, maximum, and variance levels) and team empowerment climate and
supervisory support for creativity were examined. The means, standard deviations,
and inter-correlations for the variables are shown in Table 4.20. The team members’
proficiency, adaptivity, and proactivity were significantly related to the team
Chapter 4: Analysis and Results 55
empowerment climate, as all were above 7. Moreover, the correlation analysis
showed significant correlation among team members’ proficiency, adaptivity, and
proactivity and supervisory support for creativity.
Table 4.20: Variables’ descriptive statistics
M SD 1 2 3 4 5
1. Team members’ proficiency 4.56 1.74 1
2. Team members’ adaptivity 4.32 1.52
1
3. Team members’ proactivity 4.52 1.66
1
4. Team empowerment climate 3.65 0.85
1
5. Supervisory support for
creativity
3.75 1.25
1
Correlation is significant at p < 0.01. N=72
4.6 PATH ANALYSIS
This research employed the path analysis technique to test the framework of
variable relationships. Path analysis is used to test the fit of a hypothetical model
with empirical data (Loehlin, 1998). It is not only used to assess the relationship
between two or more variables, but also enables researchers to build complex models
from their research variables, and to test whether this is a valid (good fitting) model
(Garson, 2008). The rationale for choosing this method is that path analysis enables
researchers to explore both latent and directly measured variables, which provide a
higher statistical power to identify an independent variables effect on dependent ones
than traditional regression analysis (Loehlin, 1998).
The three first research hypotheses were related to the relationship between a
team empowerment climate and each dimension of work role performance. As can be
seen in Figure 4.10, all directed patterns among these variables had positive weight
(proficiency=0.43, adaptivity=0.52, and proactivity=0.44). In addition, the other
three hypotheses represented the positive relationships between supervisory support
Chapter 4: Analysis and Results 56
for creativity and team members’ proficiency, adaptivity, and proactivity. Path
analysis results also confirmed these positive relationships (proficiency=0.64,
adaptivity=0.54, and proactivity=0.61). Moreover, the summary of the fit indices
(Table 4.21) suggested that the values were indicative of a good fit. The CFI and IFI
were more than 0.90, which is the greatest range for them (IFI=1.00, CFI=1.00)
(Hooper et al., 2008). The value of SRMR was the desirable value of <0.08 (SRMR
= 0.000) (Hooper et al., 2008).
Figure 4.10: Path analysis
Table 4.21: Summary of the fit indices for path analysis
4.7 CONCLUSION
The results of the hypothesis testing indicated a positive relationship among the
team empowerment climate, supervisory support for creativity, and work role
performance dimensions. Prior to the testing of the hypotheses, the data was prepared
and sample characteristics were then described. Following this, confirmatory factor
analyses demonstrated that no modification was required for these research variable
items. In addition, the Cronbach’s alpha values confirmed the reliability of the scale
items. Results from the path analysis were then used on the items to test the
Parameter: IFI CFI SRMR
Path analysis model 1.00 1.00 0.000
Chapter 4: Analysis and Results 57
hypotheses. The following chapter discusses the results highlighted within this
chapter and their implications for real business and the academia management world.
The limitations of the study and future research opportunities are also discussed.
Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusion 58
Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusion
5.1 CHAPTER OVERVIEW
This chapter discusses the findings of this research. The first section examines
the main findings related to the relationships between team empowerment climate
and supervisory support for creativity, and the NPD team members’ work role
performance. In the second section, significant theoretical contributions and practical
implications are discussed. The chapter concludes with the research limitations and
suggestions for future research.
5.2 OVERALL FINDINGS
The current study’s aim was to investigate the dimensions of work role
performance: proficiency, adaptivity, and proactivity, introduced by Griffin, Neal,
and Parker (2007), and the impacts of a team empowerment climate and support for
creativity as predictors of a team’s performance in a new product development team
context at the team level. The rationale for choosing this definition of performance to
assess NPD teams’ performance was that researchers have recently tended to rely on
the significant impacts of environment in which teams operate (Griffin et al., 2007;
Levi, 2013; Neal, Yeo, Koy, & Xiao, 2012; Tannenbaum, Mathieu, Salas, & Cohen,
2012). As the focus of Griffin et al.'s (2007) model is on the important effects of
environmental features on performance, such as uncertainty and interdependence,
this research adapted it to measure NPD teams’ performance.
Although other research has evaluated NPD teams’ performance using a
variety of different performance measurements (Kratzer, Leenders, & Van Engelen,
2004; Leenders, Van Engelen, & Kratzer, 2007; Sarin & McDermott, 2003), the
importance of environmental aspects in measuring NPD teams performance was not
considered in those measurements. The environment of NPD teams is especially
important, as team members have to cope with market changes, technological
advancements, and customers’ needs in order to gain more market share and defeat
other competitors (Akgün, Byrne, Lynn, & Keskin, 2007). Moreover, previous
research has suggested that organisational climate factors are one of the most
effective elements impacting employees’ performance (Kangis, Gordon, & Williams,
Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusion 59
2000; Neal, Griffin, & Hart, 2000). This research chose empowerment climate and
support creativity as two important climate factors affecting team members’
performance (Ahmed, 1998; Shadur, Kienzle, & Rodwell, 1999; Shalley & Gilson,
2004; Xue, Bradley, & Liang, 2011).
Previous research has mostly explored creative or adaptable work-related
behaviour within NPD teams (Im & Workman Jr, 2004; Leenders et al., 2007;
McCarthy, Tsinopoulos, Allen, & Rose‐Anderssen, 2006); however, in the Griffin et
al. (2007) model, three different types of work-related behaviours were examined to
predict work role performance. These three dimensions evaluate team members’
proficiency, adaptivity, and proactive behaviours. ‘‘Proficiency’’ describes the extent
to which an individual meets the formal requirements of his or her role.
‘‘Adaptivity’’ describes the extent to which an individual adapts to changes in work
systems or roles, and ‘‘proactivity’’ describes the extent to which an individual takes
self-directed action to anticipate or initiate change in work systems or roles (Griffin
et al., 2007, p. 329).
To explore the impacts of a team empowerment climate and supervisory
support on creativity on dimensions of work role performance: proficiency,
adaptivity, and proactivity, this study designed six different hypotheses. The first
three research hypotheses tested the relationships among team empowerment climate
and each dimension of work role performance at the team level. In addition, the next
three hypothese related to the relationships between supervisory support for
creativity and three elements of work role performance: proficiency, adaptivity, and
proactivity. The linear regression method was employed to examine each research
hypothesis and the path analysis technique was used to represent the whole model for
the further exploration. Figure 5.1 shows the research conceptual model for
clarification of each variable’s relationship in this research.
Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusion 60
Figure 5.1: Conceptual model
5.3 SUPPORTED HYPOTHESES
5.3.1 Hypothesis 1: The more that NPD team members experience an empowerment climate, the more proficient their team will be.
As expected, the overall findings of this research confirm the significant
positive impact of a team empowerment climate on team members’ proficiency. This
result is consistent with the theory that argues that when a team leader provides
accurate information, clear goals, responsibilities, and procedures, and an
opportunity to take part in team’s decision making progress for his/her team
members, effective team work will be enhanced (Campion, Medsker, & Higgs, 1993;
Kirkman & Rosen, 1999; Seibert, Silver, & Randolph, 2004).
McDonough (2000) found that team empowerment has an indirect effect on
cross-functional teams’ performance, and that empowered cross-functional team
members generate cooperation among them, which leads to higher quality outcomes
(McDonough, 2000). This research found that there is in fact a direct relationship
between team empowerment and team task performance, specifically in the context
of NPD teams. Furthermore, the finding of this research is consistent with the
findings of Tuuli and Rowlinson’s, (2009) study. In their qualitative study, Tuuli and
Team Empowerment
Climate
Supervisor support for creativity
Team members Proficiency
Team members Adaptivity
Team members Proactivity
Work Role
Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusion 61
Rowlinson (2009) found that there is a positive relationship between a team
empowerment climate and team members task accomplishment behaviour in
construction project settings. As the characteristics environment of a construction
project are close to that of new product development teams, this research therefore
generalised their findings, demonstrating a positive relationship between a team
empowerment climate and team member proficiency in the NPD context.
5.3.2 Hypothesis 2: The more NPD team members experience an empowerment climate, the more adaptable their team will be.
The overall findings of this research highlight the role of a team empowerment
climate in influencing NPD team members’ adaptivity, as path analysis result
showed significant and positive effects for model testing of hypothesis 2. This result
is consistent with the theoretical assertion that teams have to cope with unforeseen
changes in an uncertain environment. When members of those teams are encouraged
to share their ideas, vision, and solutions, make decisions related to their team
problems, and accept the consequences of their decisions, their team adaptive
performance is enhanced (Charbonnier-Voirin, El Akremi, & Vandenberghe, 2010).
This supports the notion that a team empowerment climate plays a significant role in
increasing NPD team members’ adaptivity.
This research extends the qualitative findings of Wall, Cordery, and Clegg's
(2002) work by testing the relationship between a team empowerment climate and
team members’ adaptivity. Wall et al. (2002) suggested that when a manager
provides a climate that strengthens team members’ motivation, initiative, and
involvement behaviours, the team is more likely to respond in a flexible manner to
increasingly competitive conditions. This research used quantitative methods to
confirm that when a team operates in an environment of empowerment it is more
flexible and can adjust to unforeseen challenges.
Moreover, this research provides consistent findings to those proposed by Jong
and De Ruyter (2004). Jong and De Ruyter (2004) found that adapting empowering
policies in the banking sector improves team members’ flexible work approaches,
which leads to optimally satisfied customers. The banking sector is characterised by
a more stable environment (Hanschel & Monnin, 2005) if compared to NPD teams
that operate in uncertain and fast paced environment. This research therefore builds
Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusion 62
upon these previous findings, demonstrating a positive relationship between team
empowerment climate and team member adaptivity in the NPD context.
5.3.3 The more NPD team members experience an empowerment climate, the more proactive their team will be.
A team empowerment climate is commonly introduced in the organisational
behaviour and management literature as a variable that has a positive relationship
with proactive behaviour (Kirkman & Rosen, 1999; Martin, Liao, & Campbell,
2013). The more team members perceive that they are autonomous to make work-
related decisions for their team and within this process they are free to share their
knowledge and their different points of view without fear of failures, the more they
initiatively seek continuous improvement, revise work processes, and seek
innovative solutions for their team problems (Hyatt & Ruddy, 1997). This finding is
consistent with previous research stating that empowered teams frequently take
action on problems and improve the quality of their work by initiating changes in the
way they perform (Wellins, Byham, & Wilson, 1991). The findings support the
notion that a team empowerment climate plays a significant role in increasing NPD
team member proactivity.
Moreover, this research contributes to the performance literature related to
proactivity responding to calls for the need to identify factors influencing proactive
behaviour. Grant, Parker, and Collins (2009) confirmed a positive relationship
between employees’ proactive behaviours and their leaders’ evaluations regarding
team members’ performance. Their work focused primarily on the leader’s
perspective of the team performance, neglecting the team’s perception and the aspect
of an empowerment climate. By evaluating the team empowerment climate, this
research provides important findings related to the structures and policies that leaders
can offer to improve team’s proactive behaviour. Therefore, this research builds
further upon Grant et al.'s (2009) findings by revealing that a team empowerment
climate leads to increased team member proactivity.
5.3.4 Hypothesis 4: The more that team members experience supervisory support for creativity, the more proficient their team will be.
Many management scholars have highlighted the role of supervisory support in
assisting teams to act efficiently when they are required to perform in complex
situations (Kirkman, Rosen, Tesluk, & Gibson, 2006; Lim & Ployhart, 2004). The
Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusion 63
more a supervisor provides valuable support and feedback for their team members,
the more they will attempt to understand a problem, perform their tasks better, and
generate a significant number of creative alternatives to solve work-related problems
(Shalley & Gilson, 2004). Therefore, whenever team members receive adequate
support from their team leader, they become motivated to try creative approaches to
perform their tasks. This supports the notion that supervisory support for creativity
plays a significant role in increasing NPD team member proficiency.
Past research on leadership claims that a directive leadership style leads to
increased performance, arguing that directive leaders show their subordinates
specific ways to complete tasks; hence, achieving organisational goals (Kahai, Sosik,
& Avolio, 2004; Muczyk & Reimann, 1987). For instance, Kahai et al. (2004) found
that directive leadership improves team members’ formalised task proficiency, as
leaders provide clear directions to their team members about how to solve issues
related to their structured tasks. More recent research agrees that when leaders allow
their team members to cooperate in finding an approach for completing their core
tasks, team members provide more creative ways for doing their job and their
proficiency increases (Gong, Huang, & Farh, 2009; Hirst, Van Knippenberg, Chen,
& Sacramento, 2011; Hirst, Van Knippenberg, & Zhou, 2009). This study supports
these existing findings by demonstrating a positive relationship between supervisor
support for creativity and team member proficiency.
5.3.5 Hypothesis 5: The more that team members experience supervisory support for creativity, the more adaptable their team will be.
The overall findings of this research confirm the significant positive impact of
supervisory support for creativity on team member proficiency. This result is
consistent with the theoretical position that supervisors can create a supportive
climate within their teams to facilitate idea sharing among team members in an
uncertain environment. In this process, each team member can express his or her
thoughts and suggestions freely without a fear of being criticised, which enables
various solutions to be provided for unpredictable problems in environmental
uncertainty (Guzzo, Yost, Campbell, & Shea, 1993). As a result, when an unexpected
change occurs, team members will enhance their action towards new team work
patterns in order to solve an emerging problem or manage unpredicted situations
(Pulakos, Arad, Donovan, & Plamondon, 2000; Tasa, Taggar, & Seijts, 2007). This
Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusion 64
supports the notion that supervisory support for creativity plays a significant role in
increasing NPD team member adaptivity.
This research extends the qualitative findings of Basadur's (2004) work by
testing the relationship between supervisor support for creativity and team member
adaptivity. Basadur (2004) suggested that if leaders want to be effective in the 21st
century, they should support their team members to continuously discover and define
new problems, solve those problems, and implement creative solutions. Leaders
should take into account their employees’ suggestions and the ideas they provide to
deal with unpredictable challenges experienced by the team (Basadur, 2004). There
has been limited empirical research demonstrating the important role of employees in
dealing with unforeseen challenges and the role of leaders in supporting employees
to put forward their ideas. This research used quantitative methods to confirm that
when supervisors support their team members to propose creative ideas, their
adaptable behaviours increase regarding unforeseen issues.
5.3.6 Hypothesis 6: The more that team members experience supervisory support for creativity, the more proactive their team will be.
This result is in line with the theoretical assertion that a supervisor can create a
beneficial climate to help his/her team members feel that their ideas and actions are
valuable and their efforts will be appreciated (Ohly & Fritz, 2010). In this situation
there is no limitation for a team member to not take an initiative action relating to an
unknown situation because of his or her concern about confronting unacceptable
behaviours from supervisors or other team members (Singh & Smith, 2004). As a
result, the higher the level of support those supervisors provide within their teams,
the higher the level of proactive behaviour they will receive from their team
members. This supports the notion that supervisory support for creativity plays a
significant role in increasing NPD team member proactivity.
This research contributes to the scarce research on the role of leaders in
providing an environment for creativity in fostering proactive behaviour. Parker,
Williams, and Turner, (2006) found that a team leader’s supportive style fosters self-
goal oriented behaviour among the members who act more flexibly and initiate
orientation toward changes. Parker et al.'s (2006) research was conducted in the
context of manufacturing, where environmental characteristics are more constant
(Cole, Elliott, & Shimamoto, 2005) in comparison to NPD teams that operate in
Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusion 65
more ambiguous environments. This research extends Parker et al.'s (2006) argument
by testing these relationships in the context of NPD teams and revealing that the
more that team members experience a supportive climate, the more they generate
self-starting proactive behaviours. Therefore, this research builds upon these
previous findings by demonstrating a positive relationship between supportive
climates for creativity provided by a supervisor and team member proactivity in the
NPD context.
5.4 RELATED FINDINGS
In addition to the main findings regarding the research objectives and
hypotheses, there are important findings that were not hypothesised that contribute to
the understanding of the whole research model. The findings draw attention to the
dimension of work role performance, which is affect the most by a team
empowerment climate and supervisory support for creativity in new product
development teams.
When comparing the results from the path analysis, it is apparent that the
impact of a team empowerment climate on team members’ adaptivity is more
significant than its impact on the other two performance dimensions: team members’
proficiency and proactivity. These findings suggest that in an empowered team,
members have access to work-related information, a clear understanding of the roles
and responsibilities, and open communication to express their thoughts. Thus, they
can autonomously make decisions regarding solving unpredictable problems.
Therefore, when team leaders provide encouraging structures and policies for teams
to improve their self-determination, team members present more adaptive behaviour.
One plausible reason for this result may be related to the uncertain environment of
NPD teams, which highlights the importance of adaptable responses for being
successful in this context (Lengnick-Hall & Beck, 2005). This finding is in line with
previous research arguments stating that empowerment is a requirement for a flexible
work approach and self-motivated behaviour to make decisions (Cleary &
Zimmerman, 2004; Hartline & Ferrell, 1996; Muthusamy, Wheeler, & Simmons,
2005).
Moreover, outcomes from the path analysis related to the relationship between
supervisory support for creativity and dimensions of work role performance
Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusion 66
disclosed that supervisory support for creativity had a more significant impact on
team members’ proficiency in comparison to the other two dimensions of work role
performance: adaptivity and proactivity. Proficiency is a type of work-related
behaviour that employees represent towards achieving their team’s goals (Griffin et
al., 2007). In NPD teams, when a team leader provides adequate support for
creativity, members create more innovative ideas to complete their tasks. One
possible explanation for this result may be found in the fact that the core task of NPD
teams is introducing creative products to the competitive market surrounding them to
gain more market share (Mullins & Sutherland, 1998). Therefore, proficiency is
perceived as the most fundamental aspect of team member performance in the NPD
context. This finding is consistent with previous work (George & Zhou, 2007; Hirst
et al., 2009) regarding NPD team members’ tendency to express their useful ideas
related to their task in a situation where they are reassured their creative ideas will be
supported.
5.5 THEORETICAL CONTRIBUTIONS
Three main theoretical contributions are discussed in this section. First, this
research contributes to the ongoing development of work role performance theory
(Griffin et al., 2007; Ilgen & Hollenbeck, 1991; Murphy & Jackson, 1999), and the
research related to organisational contextual variables that impact team performance
(Madjar, Oldham, & Pratt, 2002; Seibert et al., 2004). This research developed a new
conceptual model that represents the linkages between the three dimensions of work
role performance proficiency, adaptivity, and proactivity recently identified by
Griffin et al. (2007), and team empowerment climate and supervisory support for
creativity at a team level. To the best of researcher’s knowledge, this is the first
research to develop such a model.
The main focus of previous research has been on NPD team members’ task
proficiency (Martin et al., 2013). Task proficiency represents the extent to which
team members can complete the task defined in the team job description (Marks,
Mathieu, & Zaccaro, 2001). This research went a step further by examining other
work-related behaviours, such as creativity, adaptivity, and proactivity, in the context
of NPD teams (Kratzer et al., 2004; Leenders et al., 2007; Sarin & McDermott,
2003). The main difference among Griffin et al.'s (2007) construct with the other
Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusion 67
performance measurements is that it considers the significant impacts of
environmental features on NPD teams work-related behaviour, such as proficiency,
adaptivity, and proactivity. Therefore, this research contributes to extending the
literature on new product development teams by examining new performance
measurement within this context.
Second, for the collective of various new product development teams, all three
dimensions of the work role performance (Griffin et al., 2007) proficiency,
adaptivity, and proactivity are related to NPD team members’ work behaviour
based on the significant results this research obtained through quantitative analysis.
Moreover, this research builds upon previous findings by revealing that providing an
empowering climate for NPD teams will increase their adaptable behaviour in
comparison with proficient and proactive behaviour. In addition, the more NPD team
supervisors support their team members’ creativity, the more proficient a
performance they will receive from their subordinate. Thus, this research builds on,
and validates, the use of work role performance (Griffin et al., 2007) to determine
NPD team’s performance and assess the best approach to increase NPD team
members’ work-related behaviours.
Third, this new theoretical model’s analytical results contribute to literature
regarding new product development teams by showing that the more empowering
and supportive a climate provided for NPD team members; the more they can
demonstrate proficiency, adaptivity, and proactivity. When NPD team members
perceive that they have access to sensitive work-related information they can make
better decisions for their team and take greater responsibility for their decisions;
when their supervisors support their creative decisions, they are encouraged to fulfil
their team duties creatively and show initiative in response to unforeseen changes.
5.6 PRACTICAL IMPLICATION
This research has practical implications for new product development
organisations and their teams’ supervisors. The results indicate that climate factors,
namely team empowerment climate and supervisory support for creativity, play an
important role in influencing NPD team members’ work role performance. As team
members’ perceptions of empowerment and support within their team influences
their proficiency, adaptivity, and proactivity, NPD teams’ supervisors need to work
Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusion 68
on their teams’ structures, policies, and practices and their own supportive
behaviours to enhance their team members’ specific dimensions of work role
performance.
This research shows that an empowering work climate enhances NPD team
members’ proficiency, adaptivity, and proactivity. As a team empowerment climate
relates to organisational policies, structures, and practices, NPD team leaders and
supervisors can work on these organisational variables to increase their team
members’ perceptions of empowerment within their teams. In this regard, this
research suggests supervisors should pay more attention to their team-related
information and make resources more accessible. Accurate information and
accessible resources help NPD team members to perform efficiently and adjust their
behaviours according to their team’s changeable environment (Schmidt,
Montoya‐Weiss, & Massey, 2001). Moreover, new product development team
supervisors are encouraged to assign the power of making work-related decisions to
their teams if they are seeking a cooperative climate, which is particularly necessary
in the context of high interdependence and uncertainty contexts (Patanakul, Chen, &
Lynn, 2012).
This research highlights how managers of new product development
organisations need to design or select training programs to develop their own and
team supervisors skills in order to better communicate with team members to
encourage stimulating their enthusiasm toward team work, help team members to
build confidence in performing tasks, provide a flow of challenging new ideas, and
persuade them to try new approaches to solving problems (Dul & Ceylan, 2014). In
summary, new product development team members perform efficiently, adaptively,
and proactively based on a reliance on their supervisors to respond to market
demands and increase their teams’ creative outputs.
5.7 LIMITATION AND FUTURE RESEARCH
There are a few key limitations of this research. Due to the small sample size, it
was not possible to analyse different types of teams separately and compare their
different results regarding the impacts of a team empowerment climate and
supervisory support for creativity on work role performance dimensions. Future
researchers may benefit from focusing on larger samples collected from various
Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusion 69
types of NPD teams, and performing cross-comparison between different types of
teams.
Second, data were collected from new product development teams in Iran using
a non-probability sampling technique. This issue may result in limitations for the
generalisability of research findings (Hall, 2008). The generalisability of this
research may also be affected by the culture of the specific country context. This is a
significant limitation of the research, as a sample must be a close representation of
the population of interest in order to depict conclusions about the population (Hall,
2008). Therefore, future researchers may consider other types of sampling techniques
and examine this model in another country context to see if culture affects the results.
Third, resources and time limit of the master project prevented further
collection of qualitative data to provide a richer description of the participants’
empowered experiences ,how they were empowered, and the degree to which that
impacted their experiences. Future research is recommended to better understand
how and why team work related to the empowerment and support enhances work
role performance.
Forth, according to a self-administered questionnaire, common-method
variance bias is the most limitation of this research data collection (Shalley & Gilson,
2004). Following Shalley & Gilson (2004) to decrease the possibility of common-
method biases and obtain measures of the predictor and criterion variables from
different sources, this research employed time separation for the data collection of IV
and DV. In time 1 respondents reported on IV questions. After two weeks, time 2
data collection was conducted measuring dependent variable. Future researcher may
consider other types of qualitative data collection such as interview or case study to
obtain more accurate results.
Finally, this research explored the impact of team climate factors, namely a
team empowerment climate and supervisory support for creativity on NPD team
members work role performance. Different climate factors, other than empowerment
and creativity, will also affect team members’ proficiency, adaptivity, and
proactivity. Future researchers could therefore study other influential factors, such as
the quality of leader-member exchange, organisational culture, and team
heterogeneity on work role performance of new product development teams.
Moreover, in this model, the work role performance was investigated only at the
Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusion 70
team level. Thus, future researchers might investigate other individual or
organisational levels of NPD organisations. The results of this thesis may be more
relevant for other types of teams who perform in an uncertain and interdependent
environment. Hence, future research could replicate this investigative approach with
different groups of employees, such as knowledge workers, technical and
nontechnical, and manual workers. Lastly, this model could be examined in other
contexts, taking various mediators and moderators into consideration.
5.8 CONCLUSION
In conclusion, this research contributes to the body of performance literature by
expanding the understanding of the influence of a team empowerment climate and
supervisory support for creativity on NPD team’s work role performance.
Specifically, the research contributes to the literature from the perspective of
investigating the team level of work role performance for new product development
teams. The research highlights that the more empowering and supportive climate a
NPD team member perceives, the more proficient, adaptable, and proactive work-
related behaviour he/she will have. Hence, these results reveal the importance of a
new product development teams’ climate.
References 71
References
Akgün, A. E., Keskin, H., Byrne, J. C., & Ilhan, Ö. Ö. (2014). Complex adaptive system mechanisms, adaptive management practices, and firm product innovativeness. R&D Management, 44(1), 18-41.
Akgün, A. E., Lynn, G. S., & Yılmaz, C. (2006). Learning process in new product development teams and effects on product success: A socio-cognitive perspective. Industrial Marketing Management, 35(2), 210-224.
Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in organizational behavior, 10(1), 123-167.
Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of management Journal, 39(5), 1154-1184.
Amabile, T. M., & Gryskiewicz, N. D. (1989). The creative environment scales: Work environment inventory. Creativity research journal, 2(4), 231-253.
Andreev, E. M., Shkolnikov, V. M., & Begun, A. Z. (2002). Algorithm for decomposition of differences between aggregate demographic measures and its application to life expectancies, healthy life expectancies, parity-progression ratios and total fertility rates. Demographic Research, 7(14), 499-522.
Armbrecht, F., Chapas, R. B., Chappelow, C. C., Farris, G. F., Friga, P. N., Hartz, C. A., . . . Whitwell, G. E. (2001). Knowledge management in research and development. Research-Technology Management, 44(4), 28-48.
Baba, V. V., Tourigny, L., Wang, X., & Liu, W. (2009). Proactive personality and work performance in China: The moderating effects of emotional exhaustion and perceived safety climate. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 26(1), 23-37.
Badir, Y. F., Büchel, B., & Tucci, C. L. (2012). A conceptual framework of the impact of NPD project team and leader empowerment on communication and performance: an alliance case context. International Journal of Project Management, 30(8), 914-926.
Barczak, G., Griffin, A., & Kahn, K. B. (2009). Perspective: trends and drivers of success in NPD practices: results of the 2003 PDMA best practices study*. Journal of product innovation management, 26(1), 3-23.
Barczak, G., & Kahn, K. B. (2012). Identifying new product development best practice. Business Horizons, 55(3), 293-305.
Barczak, G., Lassk, F., & Mulki, J. (2010). Antecedents of team creativity: An examination of team emotional intelligence, team trust and collaborative culture. Creativity and innovation management, 19(4), 332-345.
References 72
Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. (1993). The proactive component of organizational behavior: A measure and correlates. Journal of organizational behavior, 14(2), 103-118.
Bendat, J. S., & Piersol, A. G. (2011). Random data: analysis and measurement procedures (Vol. 729): John Wiley & Sons.
Benn, S., Dunphy, D., & Griffiths, A. (2014). Organizational change for corporate sustainability: Routledge.
Bindl, U., & Parker, S. K. (2010). Proactive work behavior: Forward-thinking and change-oriented action in organizations (Vol. 2): American Psychological Association Washington, DC.
Blanchard, K., Carlos, J., & Randolph, W. (1995). The empowerment barometer and action plan. Escondido, CA: Blanchard Training and Development.
Borman, W., Buck, D., Hanson, M., & Motowidlo, S. Stark. S., & Drasgow, F.(2001). An examination of the comparative reliability, validity, and accuracy of performance ratings made using computerized adaptive ratings scales. Journal of applied psychology, 86, 965-973.
Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. Personnel Selection in Organizations; San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 71.
Bowen, D. E., & Lawler, E. E. (1995). Empowering service employees: MIT press Cambridge, MA.
Brown, S. L., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (1995). Product development: Past research, present findings, and future directions. Academy of Management Review, 20(2), 343-378.
Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2015). Business research methods: Oxford university press.
Burns, T. E., & Stalker, G. M. (1961). The management of innovation. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign's Academy for Entrepreneurial Leadership Historical Research Reference in Entrepreneurship.
Calantone, R. J., Schmidt, J. B., & Benedetto, C. A. (1997). New product activities and performance: the moderating role of environmental hostility. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 14(3), 179-189.
Campbell, J. P., McCloy, R. A., Oppler, S. H., & Sager, C. E. (1993). A theory of performance. Personnel selection in organizations, 3570.
Cantor, D. E., Morrow, P. C., & Montabon, F. (2012). Engagement in environmental behaviors among supply chain management employees: An organizational support theoretical perspective. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 48(3), 33-51.
Carbonell, P., & Rodríguez-Escudero, A. I. (2011). The effects of managerial output control and team autonomy on the speed of new product development: The moderating effect of product newness. International Journal of Product Development, 13(4), 298-315.
References 73
Carbonell, P., & Rodriguez, A. I. (2006). The impact of market characteristics and innovation speed on perceptions of positional advantage and new product performance. International journal of research in marketing, 23(1), 1-12.
Cavana, R., Delahaye, B. L., & Sekeran, U. (2001). Applied business research: Qualitative and quantitative methods: John Wiley & Sons Australia.
Charbonnier-Voirin, A., El Akremi, A., & Vandenberghe, C. (2010). A multilevel model of transformational leadership and adaptive performance and the moderating role of climate for innovation. Group & Organization Management, 35(6), 699-726.
Charbonnier‐Voirin, A., & Roussel, P. (2012). Adaptive performance: A new scale to measure individual performance in organizations. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences/Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l'Administration, 29(3), 280-293.
Chen, C.-J., & Huang, J.-W. (2007). How organizational climate and structure affect knowledge management—The social interaction perspective. International Journal of Information Management, 27(2), 104-118.
Chen, G., Farh, J.-L., Campbell-Bush, E. M., Wu, Z., & Wu, X. (2013). Teams as innovative systems: Multilevel motivational antecedents of innovation in R&D teams. Journal of applied psychology, 98(6), 1018.
Chen, G., Kirkman, B. L., Kanfer, R., Allen, D., & Rosen, B. (2007). A multilevel study of leadership, empowerment, and performance in teams. Journal of applied psychology, 92(2), 331.
Chen, J., Neubaum, D. O., Reilly, R. R., & Lynn, G. S. (2015). The relationship between team autonomy and new product development performance under different levels of technological turbulence. Journal of Operations Management, 33, 83-96.
Cheston, S., & Kuhn, L. (2002). Empowering women through microfinance. Draft, Opportunity International.
Christensen, C. M., & Overdorf, M. (2000). Meeting the challenge of disruptive change. Harvard business review, 78(2), 66-77.
Church, A. H. (1993). Estimating the effect of incentives on mail survey response rates: A meta-analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 57(1), 62-79.
Clark, K. B., & Fujimoto, T. (1991). Product development performance: Strategy, organization, and management in the world auto industry: Harvard Business Press.
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1988). The empowerment process: Integrating theory and practice. Academy of management review, 13(3), 471-482.
Conway, J. M., & Lance, C. E. (2010). What reviewers should expect from authors regarding common method bias in organizational research. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(3), 325-334.
References 74
Cooper, D. R., Schindler, P. S., & Sun, J. (2006). Business research methods (Vol. 9): McGraw-hill New York.
Cooper, R. G. (2005). New products: What separates the winners from the losers and what drives success. The PDMA handbook of new product development, 3-28.
Cooper, R. G., & Kleinschmidt, E. J. (2007). Winning businesses in product development: The critical success factors. Research-Technology Management, 50(3), 52-66.
Crant, J. M. (2000). Proactive behavior in organizations. Journal of management, 26(3), 435-462.
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches: Sage publications.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. psychometrika, 16(3), 297-334.
Cummings, A., & Oldham, G. R. (1997). Enhancing creativity: Managing work contexts for the high potential employee. California Management Review, 40(1), 22.
Cummings, T., & Blumberg, M. (1987). Advanced manufacturing technology and work design. The human side of advanced manufacturing technology, 37, 60.
Cummings, T., & Worley, C. (2014). Organization development and change: Cengage learning.
Cummings, T. G. (1978). Self-regulating work groups: A socio-technical synthesis. Academy of management review, 3(3), 625-634.
Day, D. V., Gronn, P., & Salas, E. (2004). Leadership capacity in teams. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(6), 857-880.
Desu, M. (2012). Sample size methodology: Elsevier.
Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method (Vol. 2): Wiley New York.
Dougherty, D. (1992). Interpretive barriers to successful product innovation in large firms. Organization Science, 3(2), 179-202.
Dubreuil, P., Forest, J., & Courcy, F. (2014). From strengths use to work performance: The role of harmonious passion, subjective vitality, and concentration. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 9(4), 335-349.
Dul, J., & Ceylan, C. (2014). The Impact of a Creativity‐supporting Work Environment on a Firm's Product Innovation Performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(6), 1254-1267.
Duncan, R. B. (1972). Characteristics of organizational environments and perceived environmental uncertainty. Administrative science quarterly, 313-327.
Edgett, S. J. (2011). New Product Development: Process Benchmarks and Performance Metrics: Stage-Gate International.
References 75
Edmondson, A. C. (2002). The local and variegated nature of learning in organizations: A group-level perspective. Organization science, 13(2), 128-146.
Ekstrom, R. B., French, J. W., Harman, H. H., & Dermen, D. (1976). Manual for kit of factor referenced cognitive tests: Educational Testing Service Princeton, NJ.
Ennabih, A., Van Riel, A. C., & Sasovova, Z. (2013). Implicit Coordination in NPD Project Teams: Exploring its Dimensions, Antecedents and Consequences. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Proceedings.
Eylon, D., & Bamberger, P. (2000). Empowerment Cognitions and Empowerment Acts Recognizing the Importance of Gender. Group & Organization Management, 25(4), 354-372.
Facteau, J. D., Dobbins, G. H., Russell, J. E., Ladd, R. T., & Kudisch, J. D. (1995). The influence of general perceptions of the training environment on pretraining motivation and perceived training transfer. Journal of management, 21(1), 1-25.
Fain, N., & Kline, M. (2013). The dynamics of multicultural NPD teams in virtual environments. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23(2), 273-288.
Feltovich, P. J., Spiro, R. J., & Coulson, R. L. (1997). Issues of expert flexibility in contexts characterized by complexity and change.
Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS: Sage publications.
Forrester, R. (2000). Empowerment: Rejuvenating a potent idea. The Academy of Management Executive, 14(3), 67-80.
Frese, M., & Fay, D. (2001). 4. Personal initiative: An active performance concept for work in the 21st century. Research in organizational behavior, 23, 133-187.
Frese, M., Kring, W., Soose, A., & Zempel, J. (1996). Personal initiative at work: Differences between East and West Germany. Academy of management Journal, 39(1), 37-63.
García‐Chas, R., Neira‐Fontela, E., & Varela‐Neira, C. (2014). Comparing the Explanatory Capacity of Three Constructs in the Prediction of Engineers’ Proficiency, Adaptivity, and Proactivity. Human Resource Management.
Gelade, G. A., & Ivery, M. (2003). The impact of human resource management and work climate on organizational performance. Personnel Psychology, 56(2), 383-404.
Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies: Sage.
Gil, F., Alcover, C.-M., Peiró, J.-M., Gil, F., Rico, R., Alcover, C. M., & Barrasa, Á. (2005). Change-oriented leadership, satisfaction and performance in work groups: Effects of team climate and group potency. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20(3/4), 312-328.
References 76
González‐Romá, V., Fortes‐Ferreira, L., & Peiró, J. M. (2009). Team climate, climate strength and team performance. A longitudinal study. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 82(3), 511-536.
Grant, A. M., & Ashford, S. J. (2008). The dynamics of proactivity at work. Research in organizational behavior, 28, 3-34.
Griffin, A., & Hauser, J. R. (1992). Patterns of communication among marketing, engineering and manufacturing—A comparison between two new product teams. Management science, 38(3), 360-373.
Griffin, M. A., Neal, A., & Parker, S. K. (2007). A new model of work role performance: Positive behavior in uncertain and interdependent contexts. Academy of Management Journal, 50(2), 327-347.
Gundry, L. K., Muñoz‐Fernandez, A., Ofstein, L. F., & Ortega‐Egea, T. (2015). Innovating in Organizations: A Model of Climate Components Facilitating the Creation of New Value. Creativity and innovation management.
Gupta, A. K., & Wilemon, D. L. (1990). Accelerating The Development Of Technology-Based New Produc. California management review, 32(2), 24.
Guzzo, R. A., Yost, P. R., Campbell, R. J., & Shea, G. P. (1993). Potency in groups: Articulating a construct. British journal of social psychology, 32(1), 87-106.
Hackman, J. R. (2002). Leading teams: Setting the stage for great performances: Harvard Business Press.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational behavior and human performance, 16(2), 250-279.
Hair, J. F. (2010). Multivariate data analysis.
Han, T. Y., & Williams, K. J. (2008). Multilevel investigation of adaptive performance individual-and team-level relationships. Group & Organization Management, 33(6), 657-684.
Hesketh, B., & Neal, A. (1999). Technology and performance. Pulakos (Eds.), The changing nature of performance: Implications for staffing, motivation, and development, 21-55.
Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. (2008). Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Articles, 2.
Ilgen, D. R., & Pulakos, E. D. (1999). Employee performance in today’s organizations. Pulakos (Eds.), The changing nature of work performance: Implications for staffing, motivation, and development, 1-20.
Im, S., Montoya, M. M., & Workman, J. P. (2013). Antecedents and consequences of creativity in product innovation teams. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30(1), 170-185.
Isaksen, S. G., & Lauer, K. J. (2002). The climate for creativity and change in teams. Creativity and innovation management, 11, 74-86.
References 77
Ishaque, A., Iqbal, H., Zafar, M. A., & Tufail, M. (2014). Creative Workplace: A support for creativity Case of a Pakistani Private Sector University. Abasyn University Journal of Social Sciences, 7(2).
Islam, Z., Doshi, J. A., Mahtab, H., & Ariffin Ahmad, Z. (2009). Team learning, top management support and new product development success. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 2(2), 238-260.
James, L. R., & Jones, A. P. (1974). Organizational climate: A review of theory and research. Psychological bulletin, 81(12), 1096.
James, L. R., Joyce, W. F., & Slocum, J. W. (1988). Comment: Organizations do not cognize. Academy of Management Review, 13(1), 129-132.
Järvinen, A., & Poikela, E. (2001). Modelling reflective and contextual learning at work. Journal of workplace learning, 13(7/8), 282-290.
Johnson, J. W. (2003). Toward a better understanding of the relationship between personality and individual job performance. Personality and work: Reconsidering the role of personality in organizations, 83-120.
Jong, A. d., & De Ruyter, K. (2004). Adaptive versus proactive behavior in service recovery: the role of self‐managing teams. Decision sciences, 35(3), 457-491.
Jung, D. I., Chow, C., & Wu, A. (2003). The role of transformational leadership in enhancing organizational innovation: Hypotheses and some preliminary findings. The Leadership Quarterly, 14(4), 525-544.
Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of management Journal, 33(4), 692-724.
Kangis, P., Gordon, D., & Williams, S. (2000). Organisational climate and corporate performance: an empirical investigation. Management decision, 38(8), 531-540.
Kanter, R. M. (1988). Three tiers for innovation research. Communication Research, 15(5), 509-523.
Kark, R., & Carmeli, A. (2009). Alive and creating: The mediating role of vitality and aliveness in the relationship between psychological safety and creative work involvement. Journal of organizational behavior, 30(6), 785-804.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations.
Kim, Y., Min, B., & Cha, J. (1999). The roles of R&D team leaders in Korea: a contingent approach. R&D Management, 29(2), 153-166.
Kirkman, B. L., & Rosen, B. (1999). Beyond self-management: Antecedents and consequences of team empowerment. Academy of management Journal, 42(1), 58-74.
Kotrlik, J., & Higgins, C. (2001). Organizational research: Determining appropriate sample size in survey research appropriate sample size in survey research. Information technology, learning, and performance journal, 19(1), 43.
Kozlowski, S. W., & Doherty, M. L. (1989). Integration of climate and leadership: Examination of a neglected issue. Journal of applied psychology, 74(4), 546.
References 78
Krishnan, V., & Ulrich, K. T. (2001). Product development decisions: A review of the literature. Management science, 47(1), 1-21.
Langfred, C. W. (2005). Autonomy and performance in teams: The multilevel moderating effect of task interdependence. Journal of management, 31(4), 513-529.
Laschinger, H. K. S., Finegan, J., Shamian, J., & Wilk, P. (2001). Impact of structural and psychological empowerment on job strain in nursing work settings: expanding Kanter’s model. Journal of nursing Administration, 31(5), 260-272.
Laschinger, H. K. S., Finegan, J. E., Shamian, J., & Wilk, P. (2004). A longitudinal analysis of the impact of workplace empowerment on work satisfaction. Journal of organizational behavior, 25(4), 527-545.
Lashley, C. (2012). Empowerment: HR strategies for service excellence: Routledge.
Lawler, E. E. (1994). From job-based to competency-based organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15(1), 3-15.
Lawler, E. E., Hall, D. T., & Oldham, G. R. (1974). Organizational climate: Relationship to organizational structure, process and performance. Organizational behavior and human performance, 11(1), 139-155.
Leroy, H., Anseel, F., Gardner, W. L., & Sels, L. (2012). Authentic leadership, authentic followership, basic need satisfaction, and work role performance: A cross-level study. Journal of management, 0149206312457822.
Levi, D. (2013). Group dynamics for teams: Sage.
Lewick, R., & Bunker, B. B. C. (1996). Developing and maintaining trust in work relationships. Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Reach, 114-139.
Lewin, J., Badrinarayanan, V., & Arnett, D. B. (2008). Effective virtual new product development teams: an integrated framework. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 23(4), 242-248.
Liden, R. C., & Arad, S. (1996). A power perspective of empowerment and work groups: Implications for human resources management research. Research in personnel and human resources management, 14, 205-252.
Lincoln, Y. S., Lynham, S. A., & Guba, E. G. (2011). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences, revisited. The Sage handbook of qualitative research, 4, 97-128.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting & task performance: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Locke, E. A., Shaw, K. N., Saari, L. M., & Latham, G. P. (1981). Goal setting and task performance: 1969–1980. Psychological bulletin, 90(1), 125.
Lubart, T. I. (2001). Models of the creative process: Past, present and future. Creativity research journal, 13(3-4), 295-308.
References 79
Magni, M., Maruping, L. M., Hoegl, M., & Proserpio, L. (2013). Managing the unexpected across space: Improvisation, dispersion, and performance in NPD teams. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30(5), 1009-1026.
March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations.
Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of management review, 26(3), 356-376.
Marques-Quinteiro, P., & Curral, L. A. (2012). Goal orientation and work role performance: Predicting adaptive and proactive work role performance through self-leadership strategies. The Journal of psychology, 146(6), 559-577.
Maruping, L. M., & Magni, M. (2012). What's the weather like? The effect of team learning climate, empowerment climate, and gender on individuals' technology exploration and use. Journal of Management Information Systems, 29(1), 79-114.
Mathieu, J. E., Gilson, L. L., & Ruddy, T. M. (2006). Empowerment and team effectiveness: an empirical test of an integrated model. Journal of applied psychology, 91(1), 97.
McDonough, E. F. (1993). Faster new product development: Investigating the effects of technology and characteristics of the project leader and team. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 10(3), 241-250.
McDonough, E. F. (2000). Investigation of factors contributing to the success of cross‐functional teams. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 17(3), 221-235.
McDonough, E. F., & Barczak, G. (1991). Speeding up new product development: The effects of leadership style and source of technology. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 8(3), 203-211.
McKay, P. F., Avery, D. R., & Morris, M. A. (2009). A TALE OF TWO CLIMATES: DIVERSITY CLIMATE FROM SUBORDINATES’AND MANAGERS’PERSPECTIVES AND THEIR ROLE IN STORE UNIT SALES PERFORMANCE. Personnel psychology, 62(4), 767-791.
McKeown, B., & Thomas, D. B. (2013). Q methodology (Vol. 66): Sage Publications.
Mertler, C. A., & Vannatta, R. A. (2002). Advanced and multivariate statistical methods. Los Angeles, CA: Pyrczak.
Michan, S., & Rodger, S. (2000). Characteristics of effective teams: a literature review. Australian Health Review, 23(3), 201-208.
Milliman, J., Taylor, S., & Czaplewski, A. J. (2002). Cross-cultural performance feedback in multinational enterprises: Opportunity for organizational learning. People and Strategy, 25(3), 29.
References 80
Mills, P. K., & Ungson, G. R. (2003). Reassessing the limits of structural empowerment: Organizational constitution and trust as controls. Academy of management review, 28(1), 143-153.
Moon, H., Hollenbeck, J. R., Humphrey, S. E., Ilgen, D. R., West, B., Ellis, A. P., & Porter, C. O. (2004). Asymmetric adaptability: Dynamic team structures as one-way streets. Academy of management Journal, 47(5), 681-695.
Moorman, C., & Miner, A. S. (1997). The impact of organizational memory on new product performance and creativity. Journal of marketing research, 91-106.
Morgeson, F. P. (2005). The external leadership of self-managing teams: intervening in the context of novel and disruptive events. Journal of applied psychology, 90(3), 497.
Morrison, E. W., & Phelps, C. C. (1999). Taking charge at work: Extrarole efforts to initiate workplace change. Academy of management Journal, 42(4), 403-419.
Neal, A., Griffin, M. A., & Hart, P. M. (2000). The impact of organizational climate on safety climate and individual behavior. Safety science, 34(1), 99-109.
Neal, A., Yeo, G., Koy, A., & Xiao, T. (2012). Predicting the form and direction of work role performance from the Big 5 model of personality traits. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(2), 175-192.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. (1994). The assessment of reliability. Psychometric theory, 3, 248-292.
Olson, E. M., Walker Jr, O. C., & Ruekert, R. W. (1995). Organizing for effective new product development: the moderating role of product innovativeness. The Journal of Marketing, 48-62.
Ott, L., Longnecker, M., & Ott, R. L. (2001). An introduction to statistical methods and data analysis (Vol. 511): Duxbury Pacific Grove, CA.
Parker, S. K., Bindl, U. K., & Strauss, K. (2010). Making things happen: A model of proactive motivation. Journal of management.
Parker, S. K., Wall, T. D., & Cordery, J. L. (2001). Future work design research and practice: Towards an elaborated model of work design. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74(4), 413-440.
Parker, S. K., Williams, H. M., & Turner, N. (2006). Modeling the antecedents of proactive behavior at work. Journal of applied psychology, 91(3), 636.
Patanakul, P., Chen, J., & Lynn, G. S. (2012). Autonomous teams and new product development. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 29(5), 734-750.
Patterson, M., Warr, P., & West, M. (2004). Organizational climate and company productivity: The role of employee affect and employee level: Centre for Economic Performance, London School of Economics and Political Science.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). es in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of applied psychology, 88(5), 879.
References 81
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of management, 26(3), 513-563.
Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of management, 12(4), 531-544.
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2011). Creating shared value. Harvard business review, 89(1/2), 62-77.
Pritchard, R. D., & Karasick, B. W. (1973). The effects of organizational climate on managerial job performance and job satisfaction. Organizational behavior and human performance, 9(1), 126-146.
Pulakos, E. D., Arad, S., Donovan, M. A., & Plamondon, K. E. (2000). Adaptability in the workplace: development of a taxonomy of adaptive performance. Journal of applied psychology, 85(4), 612.
Pulakos, E. D., Schmitt, N., Dorsey, D. W., Arad, S., Borman, W. C., & Hedge, J. W. (2002). Predicting adaptive performance: Further tests of a model of adaptability. Human performance, 15(4), 299-323.
Punch, K. F. (2013). Introduction to social research: Quantitative and qualitative approaches: Sage.
Ragatz, G. L., Handfield, R. B., & Scannell, T. V. (1997). Success factors for integrating suppliers into new product development. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 14(3), 190-202.
Ragin, C. C. (2014). The comparative method: Moving beyond qualitative and quantitative strategies: Univ of California Press.
Ramesh, B., & Tiwana, A. (1999). Supporting collaborative process knowledge management in new product development teams. Decision support systems, 27(1), 213-235.
Rank, J., Pace, V. L., & Frese, M. (2004). Three avenues for future research on creativity, innovation, and initiative. Applied Psychology, 53(4), 518-528.
Reilly, R. R., Chen, J., & Lynn, G. S. (2003). Power and empowerment: the role of top management support and team empowerment in new product development. Paper presented at the Management of Engineering and Technology, 2003. PICMET'03. Technology Management for Reshaping the World. Portland International Conference on.
Reilly, R. R., Lynn, G. S., & Aronson, Z. H. (2002). The role of personality in new product development team performance. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 19(1), 39-58.
Riff, D., Lacy, S., & Fico, F. (2014). Analyzing media messages: Using quantitative content analysis in research: Routledge.
References 82
Roffe, I. (1999). Innovation and creativity in organisations: a review of the implications for training and development. Journal of European industrial training, 23(4/5), 224-241.
Salomo, S., Weise, J., & Gemünden, H. G. (2007). NPD planning activities and innovation performance: the mediating role of process management and the moderating effect of product innovativeness. Journal of product innovation management, 24(4), 285-302.
Sarin, S., & McDermott, C. (2003). The effect of team leader characteristics on learning, knowledge application, and performance of cross‐functional new product development teams. Decision sciences, 34(4), 707-739.
Saunders, M. N., Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2011). Research methods for business students, 5/e: Pearson Education India.
Schmidt, J. B., Montoya‐Weiss, M. M., & Massey, A. P. (2001). New Product Development Decision‐Making Effectiveness: Comparing Individuals, Face‐To‐Face Teams, and Virtual Teams*. Decision sciences, 32(4), 575-600.
Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40(3), 437-453.
Schneider, B., Ehrhart, M. G., & Macey, W. H. (2013). Organizational climate and culture. Annual review of psychology, 64, 361-388.
Schneider, B., & Hall, D. T. (1972). Toward specifying the concept of work climate: A study of Roman Catholic diocesan priests. Journal of applied psychology, 56(6), 447.
Schneider, B., & Reichers, A. E. (1983). On the etiology of climates. Personnel psychology.
Scholtes, P. R., Joiner, B. L., & Streibel, B. J. (2003). The team handbook: Oriel Incorporated.
Schüler-Zhou, Y., & Schüller, M. (2013). An empirical study of Chinese subsidiaries’ decision-making autonomy in Germany. Asian Business & Management, 12(3), 321-350.
Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of management Journal, 37(3), 580-607.
Seibert, S. E., Silver, S. R., & Randolph, W. A. (2004). Taking empowerment to the next level: A multiple-level model of empowerment, performance, and satisfaction. Academy of management Journal, 47(3), 332-349.
Sekaran, U. (2006). Research methods for business: A skill building approach: John Wiley & Sons.
Shalley, C. E., & Gilson, L. L. (2004). What leaders need to know: A review of social and contextual factors that can foster or hinder creativity. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(1), 33-53.
References 83
Shanock, L. R., & Eisenberger, R. (2006). When supervisors feel supported: relationships with subordinates' perceived supervisor support, perceived organizational support, and performance. Journal of applied psychology, 91(3), 689.
Shea, G. P., & Guzzo, R. A. (1987). Groups as human resources. Research in personnel and human resources management, 5, 323-356.
Shryock, H. S. (2013). The methods and materials of demography: Academic Press.
Siguaw, J. A., Simpson, P. M., & Enz, C. A. (2006). Conceptualizing innovation orientation: a framework for study and integration of innovation research*. Journal of product innovation management, 23(6), 556-574.
Sivasubramaniam, N., Liebowitz, S. J., & Lackman, C. L. (2012). Determinants of New Product Development Team Performance: A Meta‐analytic Review. Journal of product innovation management, 29(5), 803-820.
Smits, A., & Kok, R. (2012). The interplay between outbound team strategy and market information processing in the course of ‘really new’NPD projects. Industrial Marketing Management, 41(5), 759-769.
Song, M., & Montoya-Weiss, M. M. (2001). The effect of perceived technological uncertainty on Japanese new product development. Academy of management Journal, 44(1), 61-80.
Sonnentag, S., & Volmer, J. (2009). Individual-level predictors of task-related teamwork processes the role of expertise and self-efficacy in team meetings. Group & Organization Management, 34(1), 37-66.
Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of management Journal, 38(5), 1442-1465.
Spreitzer, G. M. (2008). Taking stock: A review of more than twenty years of research on empowerment at work. Handbook of organizational behavior, 54-72.
Stahl, M. J., & Koser, M. C. (1978). Weighted productivity in R & D: Some associated individual and organizational variables. Engineering Management, IEEE Transactions on(1), 20-24.
Staw, B. M. (1990). An evolutionary approach to creativity and innovation.
Sumukadas, N., & Sawhney, R. (2004). Workforce agility through employee involvement. Iie Transactions, 36(10), 1011-1021.
Sun, L.-Y., Zhang, Z., Qi, J., & Chen, Z. X. (2012). Empowerment and creativity: A cross-level investigation. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(1), 55-65.
Sun, W., Xu, A., & Shang, Y. (2014). Transformational leadership, team climate, and team performance within the NPD team: Evidence from China. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 31(1), 127-147.
References 84
Tannenbaum, S. I., Mathieu, J. E., Salas, E., & Cohen, D. (2012). Teams are changing: Are research and practice evolving fast enough? Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 5(1), 2-24.
Tasa, K., Taggar, S., & Seijts, G. H. (2007). The development of collective efficacy in teams: a multilevel and longitudinal perspective. Journal of applied psychology, 92(1), 17.
Thamhain, H. J. (2004). Linkages of project environment to performance: lessons for team leadership. International Journal of Project Management, 22(7), 533-544.
Thomas, K. W., & Velthouse, B. A. (1990). Cognitive elements of empowerment: An “interpretive” model of intrinsic task motivation. Academy of management review, 15(4), 666-681.
Tiwana, A., & Mclean, E. R. (2005). Expertise integration and creativity in information systems development. Journal of Management Information Systems, 22(1), 13-43.
Tushman, M. L., & O’Reilly III, C. A. (1996). Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California management review, 38(4), 8-28.
Tuuli, M. M., & Rowlinson, S. (2009). Empowerment in project teams: a multilevel examination of the job performance implications. Construction Management and Economics, 27(5), 473-498.
Van de Ven, A. H. (1986). Central problems in the management of innovation. Management science, 32(5), 590-607.
Vecchiato, R. (2012). Environmental uncertainty, foresight and strategic decision making: An integrated study. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 79(3), 436-447.
Vissers, G., & Dankbaar, B. (2002). Creativity in multidisciplinary new product development teams. Creativity and innovation management, 11(1), 31-42.
Wall, T. D., Cordery, J. L., & Clegg, C. W. (2002). Empowerment, performance, and operational uncertainty: A theoretical integration. Applied Psychology, 51(1), 146-169.
Wanberg, C. R., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D. (2000). Predictors and outcomes of proactivity in the socialization process. Journal of applied psychology, 85(3), 373.
Wei, Y. S., & Morgan, N. A. (2004). Supportiveness of organizational climate, market orientation, and new product performance in Chinese firms. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 21(6), 375-388.
Welbourne, T. M., Johnson, D. E., & Erez, A. (1998). The role-based performance scale: Validity analysis of a theory-based measure. Academy of management Journal, 41(5), 540-555.
Wellins, R., Byham, W., & Wilson, J. (1991). Empowered teams: Creating self-managing working groups and the improvement of productivity and participation: San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
References 85
Williams, H. M., Parker, S. K., & Turner, N. (2010). Proactively performing teams: The role of work design, transformational leadership, and team composition. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83(2), 301-324.
Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin, R. W. (1993). Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Academy of management review, 18(2), 293-321.
Wright, P. M., & McMahan, G. C. (2011). Exploring human capital: putting ‘human’back into strategic human resource management. Human Resource Management Journal, 21(2), 93-104.
Xue, Y., Bradley, J., & Liang, H. (2011). Team climate, empowering leadership, and knowledge sharing. Journal of Knowledge Management, 15(2), 299-312.
Yi, X., Hu, W., Plucker, J. A., & McWilliams, J. (2013). Is there a developmental slump in creativity in China? The relationship between organizational climate and creativity development in Chinese adolescents. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 47(1), 22-40.
Zenasni, F., Besançon, M., & Lubart, T. (2008). Creativity and tolerance of ambiguity: An empirical study. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 42(1), 61-73.
Zhang, A. Y., Tsui, A. S., Song, L. J., Li, C., & Jia, L. (2008). How do I trust thee? The employee‐organization relationship, supervisory support, and middle manager trust in the organization. Human Resource Management, 47(1), 111-132.
Zhang, Q., & Doll, W. J. (2001). The fuzzy front end and success of new product development: a causal model. European Journal of Innovation Management, 4(2), 95-112.
Zhang, X., & Bartol, K. M. (2010). Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity: The influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative process engagement. Academy of management Journal, 53(1), 107-128.
Zikmund, W. G. (2003). Sample designs and sampling procedures. Business research methods, 7, 368-400.
Appendices 86
Appendices
Appendix A
J: Number of question in each field
: Variance A: Number of option for each question
Team Team
proficiency Team
adaptability Team
proactivity Information
sharing
Autonomy through
boundaries
Team accountability
Support for
creativity Total
1 0.75 0.71 0.81 0.81 0.93 0.75 0.74 0.97
2 0.73 0.88 0.90 0.88 0.92 0.87 0.95 0.96
3 0.96 0.97 0.88 0.94 0.91 0.85 0.94 0.98
4 0.95 0.84 0.90 0.84 0.94 0.95 0.96 0.98
5 0.90 0.93 0.88 0.76 0.94 0.89 0.85 0.90
6 0.93 0.85 0.98 0.96 0.95 0.89 0.86 0.99
7 0.95 0.93 0.95 0.98 0.92 0.95 0.94 0.99
8 0.96 0.77 0.93 0.97 0.97 0.93 0.94 0.99
9 0.88 0.85 0.92 0.76 0.83 0.75 0.79 0.96
10 0.98 0.95 0.96 0.83 0.86 0.85 0.75 0.97
11 0.82 0.89 0.89 0.95 0.89 0.74 0.96 0.97
12 0.92 0.94 0.93 0.96 0.97 0.96 0.98 0.99
13 0.97 0.95 0.82 0.93 0.96 0.93 0.71 0.98
14 0.98 0.94 0.99 0.96 0.97 0.92 0.96 0.98
15 0.82 0.92 0.98 0.98 0.97 0.98 0.96 0.99
16 0.90 0.91 0.88 0.93 0.95 0.94 0.93 0.99
17 0.92 0.81 0.97 0.94 0.97 0.84 0.75 0.98
18 0.98 0.91 0.90 0.95 0.98 0.93 0.93 0.99
19 0.94 0.87 0.90 0.75 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.98
Appendices 87
20 0.97 0.94 0.98 0.88 0.90 0.91 0.72 0.98
21 0.91 0.98 0.96 0.64 0.90 0.97 0.96 0.99
22 0.85 0.95 0.83 0.88 0.96 0.89 0.83 0.98
23 0.98 0.97 0.95 0.86 0.93 0.82 0.49 0.97
24 0.85 0.84 0.73 0.86 0.93 0.80 0.88 0.97
25 0.95 0.97 0.92 0.91 0.99 0.93 0.96 0.98
26 0.94 0.96 0.94 0.86 0.96 0.92 0.94 0.99
27 0.73 0.95 0.98 0.90 0.93 0.87 0.70 0.98
28 0.82 0.62 0.93 0.87 0.91 0.87 0.78 0.93
29 0.71 -12.00 -2.22 -0.49 0.36 -0.38 2.80 0.21
30 0.87 0.91 0.95 0.96 0.96 0.94 0.84 0.98
31 0.90 0.88 0.90 0.75 0.75 0.81 0.88 0.97
32 0.86 0.92 0.90 0.85 0.92 0.85 0.79 0.96
33 0.94 0.90 0.95 0.93 0.78 0.84 0.97 091
34 0.73 0.98 0.88 0.79 0.80 0.91 0.89 0.77
35 0.89 0.98 0.97 0.93 0.90 0.82 0.76 0.87
36 0.98 0.93 0.78 0.89 0.95 0.90 0.79 0.86
37 0.88 0.78 0.90 0.93 0.90 0.84 0.72 0.84
38 0.93 0.82 0.90 0.96 0.81 0.79 0.99 0.94
39 0.88 0.90 0.78 0.90 0.93 0.95 0.79 0.84
40 0.90 0.95 0.91 0.79 0.89 0.94 0.90 0.74
41 0.85 0.76 0.90 0.86 0.82 0.94 .077 0.90
42 0.88 0.84 0.79 0.94 0.82 0.90 0.76 0.90
43 0.83 0.72 0.86 0.91 0.94 0.88 0.75 0.89
44 0.79 0.85 0.94 0.93 0.91 0.90 0.89 0.75
45 0.98 0.94 0.92 0.89 0.79 0.90 0.96 0.88
46 0.73 0.86 0.84 0.81 0.90 0.79 0.72 0.93
47 0.93 0.82 0.91 0.96 0.74 0.71 0.82 0.95
48 0.94 0.90 0.96 0.89 0.86 0.90 0.91 0.92
49 0.82 0.95 0.83 0.75 0.73 0.87 0.77 0.90
50 0.75 0.82 0.88 0.89 0.90 0.79 0.75 0.88
51 0.90 0.84 0.79 0.91 0.86 0.93 0.76 0.77
Appendices 88
52 0.88 0.79 0.91 0.95 0.90 0.78 0.84 0.96
53 0.91 0.88 0.81 0.85 093 0.85 0.84 0.81
54 0.92 0.90 0.97 0.89 0.91 0.91 0.90 089
55 0.83 0.87 091 0.79 0.88 0.86 0.96 0.78
56 0.78 0.90 0.88 0.87 0.91 0.74 0.95 0.94
57 0.85 0.82 0.73 0.89 0.71 0.86 0.72 0.81
58 0.91 0.95 0.98 0.94 0.93 0.89 0.92 0.99
59 0.93 0.91 0.97 0.90 0.93 0.89 0.85 0.95
60 0.94 0.93 0.95 0.89 0.93 0.90 0.87 0.94
61 0.93 0.95 0.94 0.86 0.92 0.93 0.97 0.94
62 0.96 0.95 0.93 0.99 0.89 0.96 0.90 0.99
63 0.94 0.92 0.94 0.88 0.99 0.99 0.97 0.99
64 0.96 0.91 0.92 0.87 0.89 0.76 0.91 0.89
65 0.95 0.95 0.92 0.90 0.91 0.75 0.97 0.91
66 0.94 0.93 0.94 0.89 0.77 0.84 0.82 0.90
67 0.90 0.92 0.92 0.88 0.72 0.94 0.97 0.90
68 0.94 0.93 0.94 0.88 0.84 0.93 0.97 0.89
69 0.96 0.95 0.91 0.99 0.93 0.95 0.96 0.94
70 0.95 0.95 0.93 0.90 0.94 0.89 0.97 0.95
71 0.95 0.90 0.93 0.99 0.89 0.92 0.97 0.96
72 0.91 0.93 0.96 0.89 0.90 0.70 0.86 0.89
73 0.95 0.94 0.95 0.82 0.73 0.81 0.75 0.89