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 2.7: 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).


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


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.


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:


“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


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.


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


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.


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


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).


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,


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


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.


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.


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).


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,


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,


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.


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.


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


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.


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


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


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.


Support for creativity

Team members’ proficiency


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:


creativity, the more adaptable their team will be.


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:


creativity, the more proactive their team will be.


Team members’ adaptivity



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


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


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


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.


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.


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


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.


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


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


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


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%).


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


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


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


Team members’ adaptivity 1.00 1.00 0.000


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


Team members’ proactivity 1.00 1.00 0.000


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


Work role performance 0.96 0.96 0.000


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


Information sharing 0.92 0.91 0.000


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.


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


Autonomy through boundaries 0.97 0.97 0.000


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


Team accountability 0.92 0.92 0.000


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


Team empowerment climate 0.91 0.91 0.000


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.


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).


Supervisory support for creativity

0.96 0.96 0.000


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).


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


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


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



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


Q22 .846

Q23 .799

Q24 .786

Q25 .754

Q26 .810

Q27 .808

Q28 .677

Q29 .778


Team accountability

Q30 .768

Q31 .718

Q32 .769

Q33 .719

Q34 .760

Q35 .814

Q36 .785

Q37 .752

Q38 .768


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).


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


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



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


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


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


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


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


Path analysis model 1.00 1.00 0.000


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


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,


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.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

EMPOWERMENT CLIMATE SUPERVISORY SUPPORT FOR … · EMPOWERMENT CLIMATE, SUPERVISORY SUPPORT FOR...

Documents

Transcript of EMPOWERMENT CLIMATE SUPERVISORY SUPPORT FOR … · EMPOWERMENT CLIMATE, SUPERVISORY SUPPORT FOR...