Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Managing Team Innovation in the Research and Development (R&D) Organization: Critical Determinants of Team Effectiveness

  • Product Development and Innovation: Original Research
  • Published:
Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Teams are the principal vehicle in developing new drug development strategy and executing the tasks required to accomplish those objectives. The key research questions related to the measurement of team innovation performance in the branded pharmaceutical industry and identification of the drivers for optimal team performance outcomes. This project evaluated the key drivers for team innovation performance (defined as “outcomes”). Team outcomes included new information creation, compression of development time, expansion of image, learning, capability development, growth satisfaction, and overall effectiveness.

Methods

A total of 13 questions, with multiple subparts, as part of 7 key dimensions were adapted from previously validated scales. Eligible participants were those who were employed in a pharmaceutical R&D organization and were a member of a drug discovery and/or development team. Survey respondents were prompted to respond to the degree they agreed or disagreed using 5- to 7-point Likert-type scales. All analyses (reliability tests, factor analysis, and multivariate regression) were performed in IBM SPSS v22.

Results

While good correlations individually existed between team outcomes (dependent variable) and tested independent variables (autonomy, coaching, climate, proactive personality, empowering leadership, and transactive memory systems [TMSs]), the best predictors identified through multivariate regression analysis were leader and peer coaching and TMSs.

Conclusions

This research offers key insights for managers when forming and staffing teams. One is an emphasis on coaching. It is imperative for senior managers to assign individuals to teams who liaise with broader management that are capable of offering coaching and availability for team members to enhance their skills. This is particularly important in a growing hypercompetitive environment that is witnessing continuous strategic change. A second area of emphasis is on TMS, in an expertise-centered organization. As this is a central driver to team performance, it is imperative to improve adaptation skills of team members.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Clark KB, Wheelright SC. Organizing and leading heavyweight development teams. Cal Management Rev. 1992;34(3):9–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Wegner DM. Transactive memory: a contemporary analysis of the group mind. In: Mullen B, Goethals GR, eds. Theories of Group Behavior. New York: Springer; 1987;185–208.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  3. Breaugh JA. The measurement of work autonomy. Human Relations. 1985;38:551–579.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Wageman R, Hackman JR, Lehman E. Team diagnostic survey: development of an instrument. J Appl Behav Sci. 2005;41(4):373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Cohen SG, Bailey DE. What makes teams work: group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management. 1997;23:239–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and internal structure of tests. Psychometrika. 1951;16:297–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Denison DR, Hart SL, Kahn JA. From chimneys to cross-functional teams: developing and validating a diagnostic model. Acad Manage J. 1996;39(4):1005–1023.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Kivimaki M, Kuk G, Elovainio M, Thomson L, Kalliomaki-Levanto T, Heikkila A. The climate inventory (TCI) four or five factors? Testing the structure of TCI in sample of low and high complexity jobs. J Occup Organ Psychol. 1997;70:375–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Anderson N, West MA. Measuring climate for work group innovation: development and validation of the team climate inventory. J Organ Behav.1998;19:235–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bateman TS, Crant JM. The proactive component of organizational behavior: a measure and correlates. J Organ Behav. 1993;14(2):103–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Ahearne M, Mathieu J, Rapp A. To empower or not to empower your sales force? An empirical examination of the influence of leadership empowerment behavior on customer satisfaction and performance. J Appl Psychol. 2005;90:945–955.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Lewis K. Measuring transactive memory systems in the field: scale development and validation. J Appl Psychol. 2003;88(4):587–604.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Lynn GS, Akgun AE. Innovation strategies under uncertainty: a contingency approach for new product development. Eng Manage J. 1998;10(3):11–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Lynn GS, Akgun AE. Project visioning: its components and impact on new product success. Journal of Product Innovation Management. 2001;18:374–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Parker GM. Team Players and Teamwork. New York: Jossey-Bass; 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Costello AB, Osborne JW. Best practices in exploratory factor analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation. 2005;10(7):1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Mathieu J, Maynard MT, Rapp T, Gilson L. Team effectiveness 1997–2007: a review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future. Journal of Management. 2008;34(3):410–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Krishna R, Wagner JA. Applications of decisionable biomarkers in cardiovascular drug development. Biomark Med. 2010;4(6):815–827.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Wegner DM, Giuliano T, Hertel P. Cognitive interdependence in close relationships. In: Ickes WJ, ed. Compatible and Incompatible Relationships. New York: Springer; 1985;253–276.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  20. Langfred CW. Autonomy and performance in teams: the multilevel moderating effect of task interdependence. Journal of Management. 2005;31:513–529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Cummings TG. Sociotechnical systems: an intervention strategy. In: Burke WW, ed. Current Issues and Strategies in Organization Development. New York: Human Sciences Press; 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Cummings TG. Improving Productivity and the Quality of Work Life. New York: Praeger; 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Wiersema MF, Bantel KA. Top management team demography and corporate strategic change. Acad Manage J. 1992;35(1):91–121.

    Google Scholar 

  24. DeRue DS, Hollenbeck JR, Ilgen DR, Johnson MD, Jundt D. How different team downsizing approaches influence team-level adaptation and performance. Acad Manage J. 2008;51:182–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Hackman JR, Wageman R. A theory of team coaching. Acad Manage Rev. 2005;30:269–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Wageman R. How leaders foster self-managing team effectiveness: design choices versus hands-on coaching. Organ Sci. 2001;12:559–577.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Kozlowski SWJ, Gully SM, McHugh PP, Salas E, Cannon-Bowers JA. A dynamic theory of leadership and team effectiveness: developmental and task contingent leader roles. In: Ferris GR, ed. Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management. 1996;253–305.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Zaccaro SJ, Rittman AL, Marks MA. Team leadership. Lead Q. 2001;12:451–483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Morgeson FP. The external leadership of self-managing teams: intervening in the context of novel and disruptive events. J Appl Psychol. 2005;90:497–508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Gibson C, Vermeulen F. A healthy divide: subgroups as a stimulus for team learning behavior. Admin Sci Q. 2003;48(2):202–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Prahalad CK, Hamel G. The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review. 1990;May-June.

  32. Teece DJ, Pisano G, Shuen A. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strat Management J. 1997;18(7):7509–7533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Akgun A, Byrne J, Keskin H, Lynn GS. Transactive memory system in new product development teams. IEEE Trans Eng Manage. 2006;53(1):95–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Dayan M, Basarir A. Antecedents and consequences of team reflexivity in new product development projects. Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing. 2010;25(1–2):18–29.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Gino F, Argote L, Miron-Spektor E, Todorova G. First, get your feet wet: the effects of learning from direct and indirect experience on team creativity. Organ Behav Hum Decis Proc. 2010;111(2):102–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Walsh JP, Ungson GR. Organizational memory. Acad Manage Rev. 1991;16(1):57–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Lewis K, Belliveau M, Herndon B, Keller J. Group cognition, membership change, and performance: investigating the benefits and detriments of collective knowledge. Org Behav Hum Decis Proc. 2007;103(2):159–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Paul SM, Mytelka DS, Dunwiddie CT, et al. How to improve R&D productivity. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2010;9:203–214.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. He H, Baruch Y, Lin CP. Modeling team knowledge sharing and team flexibility: the role of within-team competition [published online February 3, 2014]. Human Relations.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Warwick Business School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK

    Rajesh Krishna PhD, FCP & Hongwei He PhD

  2. Merck Research Laboratories, Merck & Co Inc, 126 East Lincoln Avenue, Rahway, NJ, 07065, USA

    Rajesh Krishna PhD, FCP

  3. University of Strathclyde Business School, Strathclyde, UK

    Hongwei He PhD

Authors
  1. Rajesh Krishna PhD, FCP
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hongwei He PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rajesh Krishna PhD, FCP.

Additional information

Author Note

This work was performed in partial fulfillment of the requirements for an MBA at the University of Warwick (R.K.).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Krishna, R., He, H. Managing Team Innovation in the Research and Development (R&D) Organization: Critical Determinants of Team Effectiveness. Ther Innov Regul Sci 49, 877–885 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1177/2168479015587364

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2168479015587364

Keywords

Search

Navigation