Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T17:46:16.220Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The curvilinear relationship between team familiarity and team innovation: A secondary data analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 February 2018

Xiao-Yun Xie ,
Hao Ji ,
Kun Luan  and
Ying-Zhen Zhao
Xiao-Yun Xie
Affiliation:
School of Management, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China
Hao Ji
Affiliation:
School of Management, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China
Kun Luan*
Affiliation:
School of Economics and Management, China University of Petroleum, Qingdao, Shandong, China
Ying-Zhen Zhao
Affiliation:
Health Management School, Hangzhou Normal University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China
*
Corresponding author: luankun@zju.edu.cn
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Paradoxical arguments and mixed empirical evidence coexist in the current literature concerning the relationship between team familiarity and team innovation. To resolve this contradiction, we apply habitual routines theory to propose that team familiarity and team innovation have an inverted U-shaped relationship. Using a data set of 68,933 R&D teams in the electrical engineering industry, our results support a nonlinear relationship between team familiarity and team innovation, and suggest that the best innovative performance is produced by moderately familiar teams. Furthermore, we find that external learning can moderate this curvilinear relationship. Theoretical contributions and future implications are discussed.

Keywords

team familiarityteam innovationexternal learningR&D teamselectrical engineering industry
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Management & Organization , Volume 26 , Issue 5 , September 2020 , pp. 700 - 718
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management 2018

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Akgün, A. E., Byrne, J., Keskin, H., Lynn, G. S., & Imamoglu, S. Z. (2005). Knowledge networks in new product development projects: A transactive memory perspective. Information & Management, 42(8), 1105–1120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2005.01.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Akgün, A. E., & Lynn, G. S. (2002). Antecedents and consequences of team stability on new product development performance. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 19(3), 263–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0923-4748(02)00021-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allison, P. D. (1978). Measures of inequality. American Sociological Review, 43(6), 865–880. https://doi.org/10.2307/2094626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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. https://doi.org/10.2307/256995.Google Scholar
Ancona, D. G. (1990). Outward bound: Strategies for team survival in an organization. Academy of Management Journal, 33(2), 334–365. https://doi.org/10.2307/256328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. (1992). Bridging the boundary: External activity and performance in organizational teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37(4), 634–665. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, N., Potočnik, K., & Zhou, J. (2014). Innovation and creativity in organizations: A state-of-the-science review, prospective commentary, and guiding framework. Journal of Management, 40(5), 1297–1333. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314527128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashkenas, R., & Spiegel, M. (2015). Your innovation team shouldn’t run like a Well-Oiled machine. Harvard Business Review, 2–5. Retrieved December 20, 2016, from https://hbr.org/2015/10/your-innovation-team-shouldnt-run-like-a-well-oiled-machine.Google Scholar
Bain, P. G., Mann, L., & Pirola-Merlo, A. (2001). The innovation imperative: The relationships between team climate, innovation, and performance in research and development teams. Small Group Research, 32(1), 55–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/104649640103200103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berman, S. L., Down, J., & Hill, C. W. L. (2002). Tacit knowledge as a source of competitive advantage in the national basketball association. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 13–31. https://doi.org/10.2307/3069282.Google Scholar
Bessen, J. (2008). The value of U.S. patents by owner and patent characteristics. Research Policy, 37(5), 932–945. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.02.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bledow, R., Frese, M., Anderson, N., Erez, M., & Farr, J. (2009). A dialectic perspective on innovation: Conflicting demands, multiple pathways, and ambidexterity. Industrial & Organizational Psychology, 2(3), 305–337. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9434.2009.01154.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresman, H. (2010). External learning activities and team performance: A multimethod field study. Organization Science, 21(1), 81–96. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1080.0413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresman, H., & Zellmer-Bruhn, M. (2013). The structural context of team learning: Effects of organizational and team structure on internal and external learning. Organization Science, 24(4), 1120–1139. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1120.0783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bunderson, J. S. (2003). Recognizing and utilizing expertise in work groups: A status characteristics perspective. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(4), 557–591. https://doi.org/10.2307/3556637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Busse, C., Mahlendorf, M. D., & Bode, C. (2016). The ABC for studying the too-much-of-a-good-thing effect: A competitive mediation framework linking antecedents, benefits, and costs. Organizational Research Methods, 19(1), 131–153. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428115579699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chi, N. W., Huang, Y. M., & Lin, S. C. (2009). A double-edged sword? Exploring the curvilinear relationship between organizational tenure diversity and team innovation: The moderating role of team-oriented HR practices. Group & Organization Management , 34(6), 698–726. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601109350985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Choi, H. S., & Thompson, L. (2005). Old wine in a new bottle: Impact of membership change on group creativity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 98(2), 121–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.06.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), 555–590. https://doi.org/10.2307/256406.Google Scholar
Dawson, J. F. (2014). Moderation in management research: What, why, when, and how. Journal of Business and Psychology, 29(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-013-9308-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edmondson, A. C., & Nembhard, I. M. (2009). Product development and learning in project teams: The challenges are the benefits. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 26(2), 123–138. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2009.00341.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Espinosa, J. A., Slaughter, S. A., Kraut, R. E., & Herbsleb, J. D. (2007). Familiarity, complexity, and team performance in geographically distributed software development. Organization Science, 18(4), 613–630. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1070.0297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, M. S., & Rafaeli, A. (2002). Organizational routines as sources of connections and understandings. Journal of Management Studies, 39(3), 309–331. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feller, I., Ailes, C. P., & Roessner, J. D. (2002). Impacts of research universities on technological innovation in industry: Evidence from engineering research centers. Research Policy, 31(3), 457–474. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(01)00119-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gajendran, R. S., & Joshi, A. (2012). Innovation in globally distributed teams: The role of LMX, communication frequency, and member influence on team decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(6), 1252–1261. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028958.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gebert, D., Boerner, S., & Kearney, E. (2010). Fostering team innovation: Why is it important to combine opposing action strategies? Organization Science, 21(3), 593–608. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gersick, C. J. G., & Hackman, J. R. (1990). Habitual routines in task-performing groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 47(1), 65–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(90)90047-D.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gevers, J. M., Rispens, S., & Li, J. (2016). Pacing style diversity and team collaboration: The moderating effects of temporal familiarity and action planning. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 20(2), 78–92. https://doi.org/10.1037/gdn0000049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, C. B., & Dibble, R. (2013). Excess may do harm: Investigating the effect of team external environment on external activities in teams. Organization Science, 24(3), 697–715. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1120.0766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gittelman, M. (2006). National institutions, public-private knowledge flows, and innovation performance: A comparative study of the biotechnology industry in the US and France. Research Policy, 35(7), 1052–1068. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2006.05.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glynn, M. A. (1996). Innovative genius: A framework for relating individual and organizational intelligences to innovation. Academy of Management Review, 21(4), 1081–1111. https://doi.org/10.2307/259165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodman, P. S., & Leyden, D. P. (1991). Familiarity and group productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(4), 578–586. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.76.4.578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grinyer, P. H., McKiernan, P., & Yasai-Ardekani, M. (1988). Market, organizational and managerial correlates of economic performance in the U.K. electrical engineering industry. Strategic Management Journal, 9(4), 297–318. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250090402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gruber, M., Harhoff, D., & Hoisl, K. (2013). Knowledge recombination across technological boundaries: Scientists vs. engineers. Management Science, 59(4), 837–851. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1120.1572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, B. H., Jaffe, A. B., & Trajtenberg, M. (2001). The NBER patent citations data file: Lessons, insights and methodological tools (National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 8498). National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Harrison, D. A., Mohammed, S., Mcgrath, J. E., Florey, A. T., & Vanderstoep, S. W. (2003). Time matters in team performance: Effects of member familiarity, entrainment, and task discontinuity on speed and quality. Personnel Psychology, 56(3), 633–669. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2003.tb00753.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horwitz, S. K., & Horwitz, I. B. (2007). The effects of team diversity on team outcomes: A meta-analytic review of team demography. Journal of Management, 33(6), 987–1015. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206307308587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hu, L., & Randel, A. E. (2014). Knowledge sharing in teams: Social capital, extrinsic incentives, and team innovation. Group & Organization Management, 39(2), 213–243. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601114520969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huckman, R. S., & Staats, B. R. (2011). Fluid tasks and fluid teams: The impact of diversity in experience and team familiarity on team performance. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, 13(3), 310–328. https://doi.org/10.1287/msom.1100.0321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huckman, R. S., Staats, B. R., & Upton, D. M. (2009). Team familiarity, role experience, and performance: Evidence from Indian software services. Management Science, 55(1), 85–100. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1080.0921.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hülsheger, U. R., Anderson, N., & Salgado, J. F. (2009). Team-level predictors of innovation at work: A comprehensive meta-analysis spanning three decades of research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(5), 1128–1145. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015978.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jackson, S. E., Brett, J. F., Sessa, V. I., Cooper, D. M., Julin, J. A., & Peyronnin, K. (1991). Some differences make a difference: Individual dissimilarity and group heterogeneity as correlates of recruitment, promotions, and turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(5), 675–689. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.76.5.675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, R. G., & George, M. J. (Eds.) (2014). Essentials of contemporary management (6th ed.), New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Kaplan, S., & Vakili, K. (2015). The double-edged sword of recombination in breakthrough innovation. Strategic Management Journal, 36(10), 1435–1457. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katz, R. (1982). The effects of group longevity on project communication and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27(1), 81–104. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kehoe, R. R., & Tzabbar, D. (2015). Lighting the way or stealing the shine? An examination of the duality in star scientists’ effects on firm innovative performance. Strategic Management Journal, 36(5), 709–727. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, S. K., Arthurs, J. D., Sahaym, A., & Cullen, J. B. (2013). Search behavior of the diversified firm: The impact of fit on innovation. Strategic Management Journal, 34(8), 999–1009. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2038.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lanjouw, J. O., & Schankerman, M. (1999). The quality of ideas: Measuring innovation with multiple indicators (National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 7345). National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Lanjouw, J. O., & Schankerman, M. (2004). Patent quality and research productivity: Measuring innovation with multiple indicators. The Economic Journal, 114(495), 441–465. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0297.2004.00216.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leiponen, A. (2005). Organization of knowledge and innovation: The case of Finnish business services. Industry and Innovation, 12(2), 185–203. https://doi.org/10.1080/13662710500087925.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lind, J. T., & Mehlum, H. (2010). With or without U: The appropriate test for a U-shaped relationship. Oxford Bulletin of Economics & Statistics, 72(1), 109–118. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0084.2009.00569.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Littlepage, G., Robison, W., & Reddington, K. (1997). Effects of task experience and group experience on group performance, member ability, and recognition of expertise. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 69(2), 133–147. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1997.2677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, J., Chen, J., & Tao, Y. (2015). Innovation performance in new product development teams in china’s technology ventures: The role of behavioral integration dimensions and collective efficacy. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 32(1), 29–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luan, K., Ling, C.-D., & Xie, X.-Y. (2016). The nonlinear effects of educational diversity on team creativity. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 54(4), 465–480. https://doi.org/10.1111/1744-7941.12078.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marrone, J. A., Tesluk, P. E., & Carson, J. B. (2007). A multilevel investigation of antecedents and consequences of team member boundary-spanning behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 50(6), 1423–1439. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2007.28225967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mathieu, J. E., Heffner, T. S., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (2000). The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(2), 273–283. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.2.273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mcmahon, B., Holly, L., Harrington, R., Roberts, C., & Green, J. (2008). Do larger studies find smaller effects? The example of studies for the prevention of conduct disorder. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 17(7), 432–437. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-008-0685-9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mitchell, R., & Boyle, B. (2015). Professional diversity, identity salience and team innovation: The moderating role of openmindedness norms. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(6), 873–894. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagaoka, S., Motohashi, K., & Goto, A. (2010). Chapter 25: Patent statistics as an innovation indicator. In H. H. Bronwyn & N. Rosenberg (Eds.), Handbook of the economics of innovation (Vol. 2, pp. 1083–1127). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nembhard, I. M., & Edmondson, A. C. (2006). Making it safe: The effects of leader inclusiveness and professional status on psychological safety and improvement efforts in health care teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(7), 941–966. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nemeth, C. J., & Ormiston, M. (2007). Creative idea generation: Harmony versus stimulation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37(3), 524–535. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Brien, R. M. (2007). A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance inflation factors. Quality & Quantity, 41(5), 673–690. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-006-9018-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierce, J. R., & Aguinis, H. (2013). The too-much-of-a-good-thing effect in management. Journal of Management, 39(2), 313–338. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311410060.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Post, C. (2012). Deep-level team composition and innovation: The mediating roles of psychological safety and cooperative learning. Group & Organization Management, 37(5), 555–588. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601112456289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reagans, R., Argote, L., & Brooks, D. (2005). Individual experience and experience working together: Predicting learning rates from knowing who knows what and knowing how to work together. Management Science, 51(6), 869–881. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1050.0366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roessner, J. D. (1977). Incentives to innovate in public and private organizations. Administration & Society, 9(3), 341–365. https://doi.org/10.1177/009539977700900304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosing, K., Frese, M., & Bausch, A. (2011). Explaining the heterogeneity of the leadership-innovation relationship: Ambidextrous leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(5), 956–974. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.07.014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savelsbergh, C. M., Poell, R. F., & van der Heijden, B. I. (2015). Does team stability mediate the relationship between leadership and team learning? An empirical study among Dutch project teams. International Journal of Project Management, 33(2), 406–418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.08.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheremata, W. A. (2000). Centrifugal and centripetal forces in radical new product development under time pressure. Academy of Management Review, 25(2), 389–408. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2000.3312925.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sieweke, J., & Zhao, B. (2015). The impact of team familiarity and team leader experience on team coordination errors: A panel analysis of professional basketball teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(3), 382–402. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slotegraaf, R. J., & Atuahene-Gima, K. (2011). Product development team stability and new product advantage: The role of decision-making processes. Journal of Marketing, 75(1), 96–108. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.75.1.96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tang, C., & Naumann, S. E. (2016). Team diversity, mood, and team creativity: The role of team knowledge sharing in Chinese R & D teams. Journal of Management & Organization, 22(3), 420–434. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2015.43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, A., & Greve, H. R. (2006). Superman or the fantastic four? Knowledge combination and experience in innovative teams. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 723–740. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2006.22083029.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trajtenberg, M. (1990). A penny for your quotes: Patent citations and the value of innovations. The RAND Journal of Economics, 21(1), 172–187. https://doi.org/10.2307/2555502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trajtenberg, M., Henderson, R., & Jaffe, A. (1997). University versus corporate patents: A window on the basicness of invention. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 5(1), 19–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/10438599700000006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tzabbar, D., & Vestal, A. (2015). Bridging the social chasm in geographically distributed R&D teams: The moderating effects of relational strength and status asymmetry on the novelty of team innovation. Organization Science, 26(3), 811–829. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2015.0969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Varsakelis, N. C. (2006). Education, political institutions and innovative activity: A cross-country empirical investigation. Research Policy, 35(7), 1083–1090. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2006.06.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wong, S. S. (2004). Distal and local group learning: Performance trade-offs and tensions. Organization Science, 15(6), 645–656. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1040.0080.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yoon, W., Lee, D. Y., & Song, J. (2015). Alliance network size, partner diversity, and knowledge creation in small biotech firms. Journal of Management & Organization, 21(5), 614–626. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2015.16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zellmer-Bruhn, M. E. (2003). Interruptive events and team knowledge acquisition. Management Science, 49(4), 514–528. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.49.4.514.14423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhou, J., & Hoever, I. J. (2014). Research on workplace creativity: A review and redirection. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1(1), 333–359. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ziller, R. C., Behringer, R. D., & Goodchilds, J. D. (1962). Group creativity under conditions of success or failure and variations in group stability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 46(1), 43–49. https://doi.org/10.1146/10.1037/h0045647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar