Innovation in Work Teams

Abstract

Researchers and practitioners have recognized the importance of team innovation for organizational effectiveness. This chapter provides an overview of the factors that influence team innovation using an input–process–output structure. It identifies factors relating to the team and organizational context as inputs for various team processes that translate into innovative outputs. It further suggests that leadership acts as a contingency factor that facilitates the transition of input factors into team processes. Highlighting the often-overlooked difference between idea generation and idea implementation as part of team innovation, it discusses which input factors and processes are more likely to exert more influence over idea generation and/or idea implementation. It concludes by emphasizing the importance of implementing creative ideas for achieving innovation success.

Independent self-concept promotes group creativity in a collectivistic cultural context only when the group norm supports collectivism.

“…By contrast, there has been an increasing awareness amongst scholars that in the modern workplace creativity almost inevitably requires collaboration between individuals (see John-Steiner, 2000; Thompson & Choi, 2006). Indeed, a large volume of research on group brainstorming (see Paulus & Kenworthy, 2019) and team innovation (see Stollberger et al, 2019) attests to the fact that the ability of members to generate original and useful ideas is an essential aspect of workgroup functioning (see Paulus & Nijstad, 2019). As an attempt to make further strides in this line of work, we turn to the classic perspective in group psychology that the quality of group outcome is a joint function of member characteristics and group characteristics (see Levine & Moreland, 1998; McGrath, 1984).…”

Untangling the team social capital–team innovation link: The role of proportional task conflict as well as group- and differentiated individual-focused transformational leadership

“…We additionally draw from IPO models of team innovation (Stollberger et al, 2019; Van Knippenberg, 2017) to identify the team process that connects team social capital to team innovation. In line with SNT, Van Knippenberg’s IPO model (2017) acknowledges that a team’s access to informational resources determines team innovation, but also highlights information elaboration, or the extent to which teams engage in information exchange and integration, as a crucial team process.…”

“…In line with SNT, Van Knippenberg’s IPO model (2017) acknowledges that a team’s access to informational resources determines team innovation, but also highlights information elaboration, or the extent to which teams engage in information exchange and integration, as a crucial team process. Similarly, the IPO model by Stollberger et al (2019) emphasizes the relevance of knowledge exchange and integration for team innovation but discusses team conflict as a more comprehensive team process in this respect. In contrast to information elaboration, team conflict, consisting of task conflict (TC; i.e.…”

“…Because contemporary perspectives conceptualize team conflict as a complex profile involving the consideration of all individual conflict types and their interdependencies (Jehn and Chatman, 2000; O’Neill and McLarnon, 2018), we propose PTC as a team process that connects team social capital to team innovation. We focus on PTC as a functional conflict profile because it facilitates psychological safety and constructive controversy (O’Neill et al, 2018a) that should promote team innovation (Stollberger et al, 2019).…”

“…Owing to the aforementioned undesirable relational and informational repercussions of team social capital, knowledge exchange and integration via PTC is unlikely to occur seamlessly, thus requiring further intervention and facilitation from team leaders. Here, IPO models of team innovation (Stollberger et al, 2019; Van Knippenberg, 2017) suggest that leadership represents a crucial context factor that motivates information elaboration in teams. We propose that transformational leadership may support a team’s knowledge integration efforts by regulating team dynamics that result from bridging and bonding ties, thereby enabling functional team conflict in the shape of PTC to emerge.…”