Advertisement

Group Decision and Negotiation

, Volume 27, Issue 3, pp 321–341 | Cite as

The Price of Team Spirit for Sensemaking Through Task Discourse in Innovation Teams

  • Martin Ratzmann
  • Robin Pesch
  • Ricarda Bouncken
  • Carla Martínez Climent
Article

Abstract

Despite interest in innovation teams, we have only limited insights into how team members make sense of innovation teams’ inherent ambiguity. By referring to the sensemaking literature and to the research on task discourse, our study introduces task discourse as a valuable sensemaking mechanism in innovation teams. We argue that team creativity and feasibility testing increases the need for task discourse, which in turn improves team performance. Beyond this, we consider ambivalent effects of team spirit. On the one hand, team spirit allows leveraging smoothly synergies to emerge but on the other hand, high team spirit can limit team member’s willingness to challenge each other’s different perspectives and opinions critically. Data on 250 innovation teams of German manufacturing teams support the assumed beneficial effects of task discourse and the ambivalent effect of team spirit. Teams need sensemaking through task discourse when they want to achieve benefits from team creativity. The total effect of creativity on team performance is insignificant, while the indirect effect of team creativity on team performance is significantly positive. Our study enriches current research on ambiguity and sensemaking in innovation teams, answers the call to elaborate benefits and drawbacks team spirit might bring to teams, and provides valuable managerial implications.

Keywords

Sensemaking Task discourse Ambiguity Team spirit Innovation team 

References

  1. Açıkgöz A, Günsel A, Kuzey C, Zaim H (2016) Team foresight in new product development projects. Group Decis Negot 25:289–323.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-015-9443-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akgün AE, Lynn GS, Yılmaz C (2006) Learning process in new product development teams and effects on product success: a socio-cognitive perspective. Ind Market Manag 35:210–224.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2005.02.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Akgün AE, Keskin H, Lynn G, Dogan D (2012) Antecedents and consequences of team sensemaking capability in product development projects. R&D Manage 42:473–493.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.2012.00696.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Amabile TM (1996) Creativity in context. Westview Press, BoulderGoogle Scholar
  5. Angelsberger M, Kraus S, Mas-Tur A, Roig-Tierno N (2017) International opportunity recognition: an overview. J Small Bus Strategy 27:19–36Google Scholar
  6. Ashmos DP, Nathan ML (2002) Team sense-making: a mental model for navigating uncharted territories. J Manag Issues 14:198–217Google Scholar
  7. Baarup A, Breunig M, Dufour M, Gehrig J, Geldmacher F, Heberger M, Repenning J (2015) Industry 4.0—how to navigate digitalization of the manufacturing sector, Mc Kinsey Digital, MunichGoogle Scholar
  8. Bacon DR, Sauer PL, Young M (1995) Composite reliability in structural equations modeling. Educ Psychol Meas 55:394–406.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164495055003003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bagozzi RP, Yi Y (1988) On the evaluation of structural equation models. J Acad Market Sci 16:74–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bain PG, Mann L, Pirola-Merlo A (2001) The innovation imperative: the relationships between team climate, innovation, and performance in research and development teams. Small Gr Res 32:55–73.  https://doi.org/10.1177/104649640103200103 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Barczak G, Lassk F, Mulki J (2010) Antecedents of team creativity: an examination of team emotional intelligence, team trust and collaborative culture. Creat Innov Manag 19:332–345.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8691.2010.00574.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Berry WD, Golder M, Milton D (2012) Improving tests of theories positing interaction. J Polit 74:653–671.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022381612000199 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bollen KA, Hoyle RH (1990) Perceived cohesion: a conceptual and empirical examination. Soc Forces 69:479–504.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2579670 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bouncken RB, Kraus S (2013) Innovation in knowledge-intensive industries: the double-edged sword of coopetition. J Bus Res 66:2060–2070.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.02.032 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bouncken R, Brem A, Kraus S (2016a) Mutli-cultural teams as sources for creativity and innovation: the role of cultural diversity on team performance. Int J Innov Manag 20:1650012.  https://doi.org/10.1142/s1363919616500122 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bouncken RB, Pesch R, Reuschl A (2016b) Copoiesis: mutual knowledge creation in alliances. J Innov Knowl 1:44–50.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2016.01.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Boyt T, Lusch R, Mejza M (2005) Theoretical models of the antecedents and consequences of organizational, workgroup, and professional esprit de corps. Eur Manag J 23:682–701.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2005.10.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Brambor T, Clark WR, Golder M (2006) Understanding interaction models: improving empirical analyses. Polit Anal 14:63–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Brown AD (2000) Making sense of inquiry sensemaking. J Manage Stud.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00172 Google Scholar
  20. Brown SL, Eisenhardt KM (1995) Product development: past research, present findings, and future directions. Acad Manage Rev 20:343–378.  https://doi.org/10.2307/258850 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Brun EC (2016) Ambidexterity and ambiguity: the link between ambiguity management and contextual ambidexterity in innovation. Int J Innov Technol Manag 13:1650013.  https://doi.org/10.1142/s0219877016500139 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Burningham C, West MA (1995) Individual, climate, and group interaction processes as predictors of work team innovation. Small Gr Res 26:106–117.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496495261006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cabrales A, Calvó-Armengol A (2007) Corporate downsizing to rebuild team spirit: how costly voting can foster cooperation. J Eur Eccon Assoc 5:1016–1042.  https://doi.org/10.1162/JEEA.2007.5.5.1016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Calantone RJ, Di Benedetto CA, Meloche MS (1988) Strategies of product and process innovation: a loglinear analysis. R&D Manage 18:13–21.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.1988.tb00559.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Camelo-Ordaz C, García-Cruz J, Sousa-Ginel E (2015) The influence of top management team conflict on firm innovativeness. Group Decis Negot 24:957–980.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-014-9424-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Chen M-H (2006) Understanding the benefits and detriments of conflict on team creativity process. Creat Innov Manag 15:105–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Cho E, Kim S (2015) Cronbach’s coefficient alpha: well known but poorly understood. Organ Res Methods 18:207–230.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114555994 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Christiansen JK, Varnes CJ (2009) Formal rules in product development: sensemaking of structured approaches. J Prod Innovat Manag 26:502–519.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2009.00677.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Cooper RG, Edgett SJ, Kleinschmidt EJ (1999) New product portfolio management: practices and performance. J Prod Innovat Manag 16:333–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. De Dreu CKW, Gelfand MJ (2008) Conflict in the workplace: sources, functions, and dynamics across multiple levels of analysis. In: DeDreu CKW, Gelfand MJ (eds) The psychology of conflict and conflict management in organizations. Taylor & Francis Group, London, pp 3–54Google Scholar
  31. Dougherty D (1992) Interpretive barriers to successful product innovation in large firms. Organ Sci 3:179–202.  https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.3.2.179 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Dougherty D, Borrelli L, Munir K, O’Sullivan A (2000) Systems of organizational sensemaking for sustained product innovation. J Eng Technol Manage 17:321–355.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0923-4748(00)00028-X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Eisenberg EM (2007) Strategic ambiguities. Sage, Thousands OaksGoogle Scholar
  34. Elsbach KD, Hargadon AB (2006) Enhancing creativity through “mindless” work: a framework of workday design. Organ Sci 17:470–483.  https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1060.0193 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Fornell C, Larcker DF (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res 18:39–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Giordano R, Brugnach M, Pluchinotta I (2017) Ambiguity in problem framing as a barrier to collective actions: some hints from groundwater protection policy in the Apulia region. Group Decis Negot 26:911–932.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-016-9519-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Girotra K, Terwiesch C, Ulrich KT (2010) Idea generation and the quality of the best idea. Manage Sci 56:591–605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Guzzo RA, Shea GP (1992) Group performance and intergroup relations in organizations. In: Dunette MD, Hough LM (eds) Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, vol 3, 2nd edn. Consulting Psychologist Press, Palo Alto, pp 199–267Google Scholar
  39. Habermann H, Schulte R (2017) Analyzing non-linear dynamics of organic growth: evidence from small German new ventures. J Small Bus Strategy 27:36–64Google Scholar
  40. Hackman JR (2012) From causes to conditions in group research. J Organ Behav 33:428–444.  https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1774 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hackman JR, Morris CG (1983) Group tasks, group interaction, and group performance effectiveness. In: Blumberg HH, Hare AP, Kent V, Davies M (eds) Small groups and social interaction, vol 1. Wiley. Chichester, UK, pp 331–345Google Scholar
  42. Hair JF, Black B, Babin B, Anderson RE, Tatham RL (2010) Multivariate data analysis, 7th edn. Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  43. Hoegl M, Gemuenden HG (2001) Teamwork quality and the success of innovative projects: a theoretical concept and empirical evidence. Organ Sci 12:435–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Huarng K-H, Ribeiro-Soriano DE (2014) Developmental management: theories, methods, and applications in entrepreneurship, innovation, and sensemaking. J Bus Res 67:657–662.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.11.023 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Im S, Montoya MM, Workman JP (2013) Antecedents and consequences of creativity in product innovation teams antecedents and consequences of creativity in product innovation teams. J Prod Innov Manag 30:170–185.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2012.00887.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Janis IL (1972) Victims of groupthink; a psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and fiascoes. Houghton Mifflin, BostonGoogle Scholar
  47. Jaworski BJ, Kohli AK (1993) Market orientation: antecedents and consequences. J Mark 57:53–70.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1251854 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Jia L, Shaw JD, Tsui AS, Park T-Y (2014) A social-structural perspective on employee–organization relationships and team creativity. Acad Manage J 57:869–891.  https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0147 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Klein A, Moosbrugger H (2000) Maximum likelihood estimation of latent interaction effects with the LMS method. Psychometrika 65:457–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kratzer J, Leenders RTAJ, van Engelen JML (2004) Stimulating the potential: creative performance and communication in innovation teams. Creat Innov Manag 13:63–71.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8691.2004.00294.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Leenders RTAJ, Van Engelen JML, Kratzer J (2007) Systematic design methods and the creative performance of new product teams: Do they contradict or complement each other? J Prod Innovat Manag 24:166–179.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2007.00241.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Levitt T (2002) Creativity is not enough. Harv Bus Rev 80:137–145Google Scholar
  53. Li J, Hambrick DC (2005) Factional groups: a new vantage on demographic faultlines, conflict, and disintegration in work teams. Acad Manage J 48:794–813CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Lovelace K, Shapiro DL, Weingart LR (2001) Maximizing cross-functional new product teams’ innovativeness and constraint adherence: a conflict communications perspective. Acad Manage J 44:779–793Google Scholar
  55. Lt Hu, Bentler PM (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Model 6:1–55.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Maitlis S, Christianson M (2014) Sensemaking in organizations: taking stock and moving forward. Acad Manag Ann 8:57–125.  https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2014.873177 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Markin E, Swab RG, Marshall DR (2017) Who is driving the bus? An analysis of author and institution contributions to entrepreneurship research. J Innov Knowl 2:1–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2016.10.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Martin LL, Clark LF (1990) Social cognition: Exploring the mental processes involved in human and social interaction. In: Eysenck MW (ed) Cognitive psychology: an international review. Wiley, Hillsdale, pp 195–216Google Scholar
  59. Mintzberg H (1994) The rise and fall of strategic planning. Prentice Hall, Hemel HempsteadGoogle Scholar
  60. Miron-Spektor E, Erez M, Naveh E (2011) The effect of conformist and attentive-to-detail members on team innovation: reconciling the innovation paradox. Acad Manage J 54:740–760CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Mohammed S, Ringseis E (2001) Cognitive diversity and consensus in group decision making: the role of inputs, processes, and outcomes. Organ Behav Hum Dec 85:310–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Montoya-Weiss MM, Massey AP, Song M (2001) Getting it together: temporal coordination and conflict management in global virtual teams. Acad Manage J 44:1251–1262.  https://doi.org/10.2307/3069399 Google Scholar
  63. Mooney AC, Holahan PJ, Amason AC (2007) Don’t take it personally: exploring cognitive conflict as a mediator of affective conflict. J Manage Stud 44:733–758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Muthén LK, Muthén BO (1998–2012) Mplus user’s guide, 7th edn. Muthén & Muthén, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  65. Olugbola SA (2017) Exploring entrepreneurial readiness of youth and startup success components: entrepreneurship training as a moderator. J Innov Knowl 2:155–171.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2016.12.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Oppl S (2017) Supporting the collaborative construction of a shared understanding about work with a guided conceptual modeling technique. Group Decis Negot 26:247–283.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-016-9485-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Pesch R, Bouncken RB (2017a) The double-edged sword of cultural distance in international alliances—how perceived cultural distance influences trust and task discourse to drive new product development performance. Cross Cult Strateg M 24:33–54.  https://doi.org/10.1108/CCSM-03-2016-0065 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Pesch R, Bouncken RB (2017b) How to achieve benefits from diverstiy in international alliances: mechanisms and cultural intelligence. Glob Strateg J.  https://doi.org/10.1002/gsj.1167 Google Scholar
  69. Pesch R, Bouncken RB, Kraus S (2015) Effects of communication style and age diversity in innovation teams. Int J Innov Technol Manag 12:1550029.  https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219877015500297 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Phillips N, Lawrence TB, Hardy C (2004) Discourse and institutions. Acad Manage Rev 29:635–652.  https://doi.org/10.2307/20159075 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Pich MT, Loch CH, Meyer AD (2002) On uncertainty, ambiguity, and complexity in project management. Manage Sci 48:1008–1023.  https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.48.8.1008.163 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Postmes T, Spears R, Cihangir S (2001) Quality of decision making and group norms. J Pers Soc Psychol 80:918–930CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Ribeiro-Soriano D, Urbano D (2009) Overview of collaborative entrepreneurship: an integrated approach between business decisions and negotiations. Group Decis Negot 18:419–430.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-008-9134-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Salojärvi H, Saarenketo S (2013) The effect of teams on customer knowledge processing, esprit de corps and account performance in international key account management. Eur J Marketing 47:987–1005.  https://doi.org/10.1108/03090561311307047 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Silva T, Cunha MPE, Clegg SR, Neves P, Rego A, Rodrigues RA (2014) Smells like team spirit: opening a paradoxical black box. Hum Relat 67:287–310.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726713492349 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Simonin BL (1999) Ambiguity and the process of knowledge transfer in strategic alliances. Strateg Manage J 20:595–623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Sivunen A (2006) Strengthening identification with the team in virtual teams: the leaders’ perspective. Group Decis Negot 15:345–366.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-006-9046-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Slevin DP, Boone LW, Russo EM, Allen RS (1998) CONFIDE: a collective decision-making procedure using confidence estimates of individual judgements. Group Decis Negot 7:179–194.  https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1008650524782 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Smith HJ, Thompson R, Iacovou C (2009) The impact of ethical climate on project status misreporting. J Bus Ethics 90:577.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-009-0062-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Stasser G (1992) Information salience and the discovery of hidden profiles by decision-making groups: a “thought experiment”. Organ Behav Hum Dec 52:156–181.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(92)90049-D CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Stasser G (1999) The uncertain role of unshared information in collective choice. In: Thompson LL, Levine JM, Messick DM (eds) Shared cognition in organizations: the management of knowledge. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hildsdale, pp 49–69Google Scholar
  82. Stasser G, Titus W (1985) Pooling of unshared information in group decision making: biased information sampling during discussion. J Pers Soc Psychol 48:1467–1478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Statistisches Bundesamt (2014) Bruttoinlands-Produkt 2013 für Deutschland: Begleitmaterial zur Pressekonferenz am 15. Januar 2014 in Berlin. Statistisches Bundesamt, WiesbadenGoogle Scholar
  84. Stewart GL, Barrick MR (2000) Team structure and performance: assessing the mediating role of intrateam process and the moderating role of task type. Acad Manage J 43:135–148Google Scholar
  85. Tjosvold D, Wong ASH, Feng Chen NY (2014) Constructively managing conflicts in organizations. Annu Rev Organ Psychol 1:545–568.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091306 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Tsai M-H, Bendersky C (2016) The pursuit of information sharing: expressing task conflicts as debates versus disagreements increases perceived receptivity to dissenting opinions in groups. Organ Sci 27:141–156.  https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2015.1025 Google Scholar
  87. van Knippenberg D, Schippers MC (2007) Work group diversity. Annu Rev Psyhcol 58:515–541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Vlaar PWL, van den Bosch FAJ, Volberda HW (2006) Coping with problems of understanding in interorganizational relationships: using formalization as a means to make sense. Organ Stud 27:1617–1638.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840606068338 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Weick KE (1995) Sensemaking in organizations. Sage Publications, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  90. Weick KE (2005) Managing the unexpected: complexity as distributed sensemaking. In: McDaniel RR, Drie DJ (eds) Uncertainty and surprise in complex systems: questions on working with the unexpected. Springer, Berlin, pp 51–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Welbourne TM, Pardo-del-Val M (2009) Relational capital: strategic advantage for small and medium-size enterprises (SMEs) through negotiation and collaboration. Group Decis Negot 18:483–497.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-008-9138-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Williams KY, O’Reilly CA (1998) Demography and diversity in organizations: a review of 40 years of research. Res Organ Behav 20:77–140Google Scholar
  93. Wittenbaum GM (1998) Information sampling in decision-making groups: the impact of members’ task-relevant status. Small Gr Res 29:57–84.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496498291003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Wittenbaum GM, Stasser G (1996) Management of information in small groups. In: NyeIn JL, Brower AM (eds) What’s social about social cognition? Research on socially shared cognition in small groups. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp 3–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Wittenbaum GM, Hollingshead AB, Botero IC (2004) From cooperative to motivated information sharing in groups: moving beyond the hidden profile paradigm. Commun Monogr 71:286–310.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0363452042000299894 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Workman M, Kahnweiler W, Bommer W (2003) The effects of cognitive style and media richness on commitment to telework and virtual teams. J Vocat Behav 63:199–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Wright CR, Manning MR, Farmer B, Gilbreath B (2000) Resourceful sensemaking in product development teams. Organ Stud 21:807CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Ziegler R, Diehl M, Zijlstra G (2000) Idea production in nominal and virtual groups: does computer-mediated communication improve group brainstorming? Group Process Interg 3:141–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Chair of Strategic Management and OrganisationUniversity of BayreuthBayreuthGermany
  2. 2.University of ValènciaValenciaSpain

Personalised recommendations