Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

How Participative Safety Matters More in Team Innovation as Team Size Increases

  • Published:
Journal of Business and Psychology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to investigate if there is a moderating relation between team size and team innovation.

Design/Methodology/Approach

Data used in statistical analyses were obtained from 531 employees in 124 technology research teams.

Findings

The findings support the hypothesis, showing that not only team size, but also team size together with participative safety facilitates team innovation.

Implications

The findings show that not only large teams, but also large teams with participative safety are innovative. Team leaders thus need to ensure that collaborative rather than competitive environment prevails in their teams.

Originality/Value

This is one of the first studies to assess team innovation by patents received and to provide evidence of the moderating relation of participative safety between team size and team innovation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Team innovation is “the intentional introduction and application, within a role, group or organization of ideas, processes, products or procedures, new to the relevant unit of adoption, designed to significantly benefit the individual, the group, the organization or wider society” (West and Farr 1990, p. 9).

  2. While some scholars distinguish between work groups and work teams (e.g., Katzenbach and Smith 1993), we use these terms interchangeably. A work team is made up of two or more individuals, who see themselves and who are seen by others as a social entity, who are interdependent because of the tasks they perform as members of a team, who are embedded in one or more larger social systems (e.g., organization), and who perform tasks that affect others (e.g., customers) (Guzzo and Dickson 1996).

  3. The minimum number of responding team members necessary for inclusion in the Eisenbeiss et al.’s (2008) study was two members per team. In their study, team size ranged from 5 to 22 members.

  4. Some weaknesses of using patents to measure innovation include international and sectorial differences in patenting behavior, differences in patenting between large and small firms, the identical weight given to very important and run-of-the-mill patents, and the fact that patents only cover a part of the overall trajectory from research and development (R&D) to innovation (Hagedoorn and Cloodt 2003).

References

  • Aiken, L., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interaction. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, N. R., & West, M. A. (1998). Measuring climate for work group innovation: Development and validation of the Team Climate Inventory. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 235–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, N., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Nijstad, B. A. (2004). The routinization of innovation research: A constructively critical review of the state-of-the-science. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 147–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bain, P. G., Mann, L., & Pirola-Merlo, A. (2001). The innovation imperative: The relationship between team climate, innovation, and performance in research and development teams. Small Group Research, 32, 55–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balkin, D. B., Tremblay, M., & Westerman, J. (2001). Workplace innovations in large, unionized Canadian organizations. Journal of Business and Psychology, 15, 439–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bledow, R., Frese, M., Anderson, N., Erez, M., & Farr, J. (2009). A dialectic perspective on innovation: Conflicting demands, multiple pathways, and ambidexterity. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2(3), 305–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement: non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation analyses. In K. J. Klein & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 349–381). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bouchard, T. J., & Hare, M. (1970). Size, performance, and potential in brainstorming groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 54, 51–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Burningham, C., & West, M. A. (1995). Individual, climate, and group interaction processes as predictors of work team innovation. Small Group Research, 26, 106–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caldwell, D. F., & O’Reilly, C. A. (2003). The determinants of team-based innovation in organizations: The role of social influence. Small Group Research, 34, 497–517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Curral, L. A., Forrester, R. H., Dawson, J. F., & West, M. A. (2001). It’s what you do and the way you do it: Team task, team size, and innovation-related group processes. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10, 187–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Dreu, C. K. W. (2006). When too little or too much hurts: Evidence for a curvilinear relationship between task conflict and innovation in teams. Journal of Management, 32, 83–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drach-Zahavy, A., & Somech, A. (2001). Understanding team innovation: The role of team processes and structures. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 5, 111–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edmondson, A. C. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 350–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edmondson, A. C. (2004). Psychological safety, trust, and learning in organizations: A group-level lens. In R. M. Kramer & K. S. Cook (Eds.), Trust and distrust in organizations: Dilemmas and approaches (pp. 239–272). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenbeiss, S. A., van Knippenberg, D., & Boerner, S. (2008). Transformational leadership and team innovation: Integrating team climate principles. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1438–1446.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fay, D., Borrill, C., Amir, Z., Haward, R., & West, M. A. (2006). Getting the most out of multidisciplinary teams: A multi-sample study of team innovation in health care. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 79, 553–567.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frost, T. S. (2001). The geographic sources of foreign subsidiaries’ innovations. Strategic Management Journal, 22, 101–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glick, W. H. (1985). Conceptualizing and measuring organizational and psychological climate: Pitfalls in multilevel research. Academy of Management Review, 10, 601–616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guzzo, R. A., & Dickson, M. W. (1996). Teams in organizations: Recent research on performance and effectiveness. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 307–338.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hagedoorn, J., & Cloodt, M. (2003). Measuring innovative performance: Is there an advantage in using multiple indicators? Research Policy, 32, 1365–1379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hambrick, D., & D’Aveni, R. (1992). Top team deterioration as part of downward spiral of large corporate bankruptcies. Management Science, 38, 1445–1466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hülsheger, U. R., Anderson, N., & Salgado, J. F. (2009). Team-level predictors of innovation at work: A comprehensive meta-analysis spanning three decades of research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1128–1145.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • James, L. R. (1982). Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 219–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 85–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith, D. K. (1993). The wisdom of teams: Creating the high performance organization. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, P. A. (1985). Guide to econometrics (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kivimäki, M., & Elovainio, M. (1999). A short version of the Team Climate Inventory: Development and psychometric properties. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72, 241–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lantane, B., Williams, K., & Harkins, S. (1979). Many hands make light the work: The causes and consequences of social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 822–832.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maloney, M. M., Johnson, S. G., & Zellmer-Bruhn, M. E. (2010). Assessing group-level constructs under missing data conditions: A Monte Carlo simulation. Small Group Research, 41, 281–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGraw, K. O., & Wong, S. P. (1996). Forming inferences about some intraclass correlations coefficients. Psychological Methods, 1, 30–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nijstad, B. A., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2002). Creativity and group innovation. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 51, 400–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peltokorpi, V. (2008). Transactive memory systems. Review of General Psychology, 12, 378–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, N. P., MacKenzie, S. M., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method variance in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Poulton, B. C., & West, M. A. (1999). The determinants of effectiveness in primary health care teams. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 13, 7–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Somech, A. (2006). The effect of leadership style and team process on performance and innovation in functionally heterogeneous teams. Journal of Management, 32, 132–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Staats, B. R., Milkman, K. L., & Fox, C. R. (2012). The team scaling fallacy: Underestimating the declining efficiency of larger teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 118, 132–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steiner, I. D. (1972). Group process and productivity. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tjosvold, D. (1998). Making employee involvement work: Cooperative goals and controversy to reduce costs. Human Relations, 51, 201–214.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van der Vegt, G. S., Emans, B. J. M., & Van de Vliert, E. (2001). Patterns of interdependence in work teams: A two-level investigation of the relations with job and team satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 54, 51–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wegner, D. M. (1986). Transactive memory: A contemporary analysis of the group mind. In B. Mullen & G. R. Goethals (Eds.), Theories of group behavior (pp. 185–208). New York: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • West, M. A. (1990). The social psychology of innovation in groups. In M. A. West & J. L. Farr (Eds.), Innovation and creativity at work: Psychological and organizational strategies (pp. 309–333). Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • West, M. A., & Anderson, N. R. (1996). Innovation in top management teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 680–693.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • West, M. A., & Farr, J. L. (1989). Innovation at work: Psychological perspectives. Social Behavior, 4, 15–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • West, M. A., & Farr, J. L. (1990). Innovation at work. In M. A. West & J. L. Farr (Eds.), Innovation and creativity at work: Psychological and organizational strategies (pp. 3–13). Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin, R. W. (1993). Toward a theory of organizational creativity. Academy of Management Review, 18, 293–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Japan Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, 1-1 Asahidai, Nomi, Ishikawa, 923-1292, Japan

    Vesa Peltokorpi

  2. Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, Helsinki, Finland

    Mervi Hasu

Authors
  1. Vesa Peltokorpi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mervi Hasu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vesa Peltokorpi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Peltokorpi, V., Hasu, M. How Participative Safety Matters More in Team Innovation as Team Size Increases. J Bus Psychol 29, 37–45 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-013-9301-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-013-9301-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation