Skip to main content

Teams developing business ideas: how member characteristics and conflict affect member-rated team effectiveness

Abstract

Team researchers have found that the diversity to effectiveness ratings are mediated by team conflict. Using a sample of 73 teams developing their business ideas, I found direct effects of diversity and conflict on member-rated team effectiveness. Here, I explain how the circumstances under which these teams operate can lead to these findings. For these teams, task conflict was found to relate negatively to member-rated team effectiveness. This finding contrasts with research on organizational teams, where task conflict usually relates positively to team effectiveness ratings. I also found that both diversity and average member experience influence member-rated effectiveness. These findings imply that diversity, conflict, and ratings of team effectiveness may differ for teams developing business ideas as compared to organizational teams. Thus, findings from organizational team research should be applied with caution to teams developing business ideas and possibly to new venture teams in general.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  1. Allison, P. (1978). Measures of inequality. American Sociological Review, 43, 865–879. doi:10.2307/2094626.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Allison, P. (1999). Multiple regression: A primer. Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Amason, A., & Sapienza, H. (1997). The effects of top management team size and interaction norms on cognitive and affective conflict. Journal of Management, 23, 495–516. doi:10.1016/S0149-2063(97)90045-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Ancona, D., & Caldwell, D. (1992a). Demography and design. Organization Science, 3, 321–341. doi:10.1287/orsc.3.3.321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Ancona, D., & Caldwell, D. (1992b). Bridging the boundary: External activity and performance in organizational teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 634–665. doi:10.2307/2393475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bantel, K., & Jackson, S. (1989). Top management and innovations in banking: Does the composition of the top team make a difference? Strategic Management Journal, 10, 107–124. doi:10.1002/smj.4250100709.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Baron, R., & Kenny, D. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Barsade, S., Ward, A., Turner, J., & Sonnenfeld, J. (2000). To your heart’s content: A model of affective diversity in top management teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 802–836. doi:10.2307/2667020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Bird, B. (1989). Entrepreneurial behavior. Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Foresman.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Blau, P. (1977). Inequality and heterogeneity. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Brunninge, O., Nordqvist, M., & Wiklund, J. (2007). Corporate governance and strategic change in SMEs: The effects of ownership, board composition and top management teams. Small Business Economics, 29, 295–308. doi:10.1007/s11187-006-9021-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Bunderson, J., & Sutcliffe, K. (2002). Comparing alternative conceptualizations of functional diversity in management teams. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 875–893. doi:10.2307/3069319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Chowdhury, S. (2005). Demographic diversity for building an effective entrepreneurial team: Is it important? Journal of Business Venturing, 20, 727–746. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2004.07.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Cohen, A., Doveh, E., & Eick, U. (2001). Statistical properties of the rwg(j) index of agreement. Psychological Methods, 6, 297–310. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.6.3.297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Cooper, A., Gimeno-Gascon, F., & Woo, C. (1994). Initial human and financial capital as predictors of new venture performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 9, 371–395. doi:10.1016/0883-9026(94)90013-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Dahlin, K., Weingart, L., & Hinds, P. (2005). Team diversity and information use. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 1107–1123.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Eisenhardt, K., Kahwajy, J., Bourgeois, L., & II, I. (1998). Conflict and strategic choice: How top management teams disagree. In D. C. Hambrick, D. A. Nadler, & M. L. Tushman (Eds.), Navigating change (pp. 141–169). Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Ensley, M., & Hmieleski, K. (2005). A comparative study of new venture top management team composition, dynamics and performance between university-based and independent start-ups. Research Policy, 34, 1091–1105. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2005.05.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Ensley, M., Pearson, A., & Amason, A. (2002). Understanding the dynamics of new venture top management teams. Cohesion, conflict, and new venture development. Journal of Business Venturing, 17, 365–386. doi:10.1016/S0883-9026(00)00065-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Finkle, T., & Deeds, D. (2001). Trends in the market for entrepreneurship faculty, 1989–1998. Journal of Business Venturing, 16, 613–663. doi:10.1016/S0883-9026(99)00051-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Foo, M., Sin, H., & Yiong, L. (2006). Effects of team inputs and intrateam processes on new venture team effectiveness. Strategic Management Journal, 27, 389–399. doi:10.1002/smj.514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Foo, M., Wong, P., & Ong, A. (2005). Do others think you have a viable business idea? Team diversity and judges’ evaluation of ideas in a business plan competition. Journal of Business Venturing, 20, 385–402. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2004.04.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Friar, J., & Meyer, M. (2001). Entrepreneurship and start-ups in the Boston Region: Factors differentiating high-growth ventures and micro-ventures. Small Business Economics, 21, 145–152. doi:10.1023/A:1025045828202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Guo, S., Chumlea, W., & Cockram, (1996). Use of statistical methods to estimate body composition. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 64, 428S–435S.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Huffman, D., & Quigley, J. (2002). The role of university in attracting high-tech entrepreneurship: A Silicon Valley tale. The Annals of Regional Science, 36, 403–419. doi:10.1007/s001680200104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Hunter, J., & Hamilton, M. (2002). The advantages of using standardized scores in causal analysis. Human Communication Research, 28, 552–561. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2002.tb00823.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. James, L., Demaree, R., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 85–98. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.69.1.85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Jehn, K. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 256–282. doi:10.2307/2393638.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Jehn, K., Northcraft, G., & Neale, M. (1999). Why differences make a difference: A field study of diversity, conflict, and performance in workgroups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 741–763. doi:10.2307/2667054.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Kamm, J., & Nurick, A. (1993). The stages of team venture formation: A decision-making model. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 17, 17–28.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Lankau, M., Ward, A., Amason, A., Ng, T., Sonnenfeld, J., & Agle, B. (2007). Examining the impact of organizational value dissimilarity in top management teams. Journal of Managerial Issues, 19, 11–34.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Milliken, F., & Martins, L. (1996). Searching for common threads: Understanding the multiple effects of diversity in organizational groups. Academy of Management Review, 21, 402–433. doi:10.2307/258667.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Newman, D., & Sin, H. (2009). How do missing data bias estimates of within-group agreement? Sensitivity of SDWG, CVWG, r, r*, and ICC to systematic nonresponse. Organizational Research Methods, 12, 113–147.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Nunally, J. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Pelled, L., Eisenhardt, K., & Xin, K. (1999). Exploring the black box: An analysis of work group diversity, conflict, and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 1–28. doi:10.2307/2667029.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Podsakoff, P., & Organ, D. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12, 531–544. doi:10.1177/014920638601200408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Richard, O., Barnett, T., Dwyer, S., & Chadwick, K. (2004). Cultural diversity in management, firm performance, and the moderating role of entrepreneurial orientation dimensions. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 255–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Shane, S. (2000). Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. Organization Science, 11, 448–469. doi:10.1287/orsc.11.4.448.14602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 25, 217–226. doi:10.2307/259271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Simons, T., Pelled, L., & Smith, K. (1999). Making use of differences: Diversity, debate, and decision comprehensiveness in top management teams. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 662–673. doi:10.2307/256987.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Simons, T., & Peterson, R. (2000). Task conflict and non-task conflict in top management teams: The pivotal role of intragroup trust. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 102–111. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.85.1.102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Tajfel, H. (1982). Social identity and intergroup relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1986). The social identity theory in intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Tsui, A., Egan, T., & Xin, K. (1995). Diversity in organizations: Lessons from demography research. In M. M. Chemers, S. Oskamp, & M. A. Costanzo (Eds.), Diversity in organizations: New perspectives for a changing workplace (pp. 191–219). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Ucbasaran, D., Westhead, P., & Wright, M. (2001). The focus of entrepreneurial research: Contextual and process issues. Entrepreneurship: theory & practice, 25, 57–80.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Van der Vegt, G., & Bunderson, J. (2005). Learning and performance in multidisciplinary teams: The importance of team identification. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 532–547.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Watson, W., Kumar, K., & Michaelsen, L. (1993). Cultural diversity’s impact on interaction process and performance: Comparing homogeneous and diverse task groups. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 590–602. doi:10.2307/256593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Westhead, P., & Wright, M. (1998). Novice, portfolio, and serial founders in rural and urban areas. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 22, 63. 10.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Williams, K., & O’Reilly, C. (1998). Demography and diversity in organizations. In B. M. Staw & R. M. Sutton (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior (Vol. 20, pp. 77–140). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Wong, P., Lee, L., & Foo, M. (2008). Occupational choice: The influence of product vs. process innovation. Small Business Economics, 30, 267–281. doi:10.1007/s11187-006-9044-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Zenger, T., & Lawrence, B. (1989). Organizational demography: The differential effects of age and tenure distributions on technical communication. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 353–376. doi:10.2307/256366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maw-Der Foo.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Foo, MD. Teams developing business ideas: how member characteristics and conflict affect member-rated team effectiveness. Small Bus Econ 36, 33–46 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-009-9176-8

Download citation

Keywords

  • Business ideas
  • Conflict
  • Diversity
  • Ratings of team effectiveness

JEL Classifications

  • L26
  • M12
  • M13