Team Reflexivity and Innovation: The Moderating Role of Team Context.

Abstract

The Netherlands. Electronic mail may be sent to: mschippers@rsm.nl. ABSTRACTTeam reflexivity, the extent to which teams collectively reflect upon and adapt their working methods and functioning, has been shown to be an important predictor of team outcomes, notably innovation. In the current paper, we developed and tested a team level contingency model of team reflexivity, work demands, and innovation. We argued that highly reflexive teams will be more innovative than teams low in reflexivity when facing a demanding work environment. A field-study of 98 primary health care teams in the UK corroborated our predictions: team reflexivity was positively related to team innovation, and team reflexivity and work demands interacted such that high levels of both predicted higher levels of team innovation. Furthermore, an interaction between team reflexivity, quality of physical work environment (PWE), and team innovation showed that poor PWE coupled with high team reflexivity, was associated with higher levels of team innovation. These results are discussed in the context of the need for team reflexivity and team innovation among teams at work facing high levels of work demands.Team Reflexivity and Innovation 3

On the Very Model of a Modern Major Manager: The Importance of Academic Administrators in Support of the New Pedagogy

“…There is considerable evidence stating that multidisciplinary true teams are highly effective in ensuring that organizational goals are successfully met in a timely manner (Richter et al, 2011). Moreover, members of real teams also report being more empowered to innovate their practice (Schippers et al, 2015). It is, therefore, perhaps quite surprising that the presence of multidisciplinary real teams is remarkably absent throughout HE given the complex role that effective academic administrators are tasked with executing on a daily basis.…”

“…3 Such reflective thinking allows the team members to improve on subsequent activities (Schippers et al, 2015). There is considerable evidence stating that multidisciplinary true teams are highly effective in ensuring that organizational goals are successfully met in a timely manner (Richter et al, 2011).…”

Effects of Team Structure on Innovation Performance: An Empirical Study

“…In the past, persistence has been positively related to innovation activity, as it helps to complete a variety of tasks over time no matter what (Wong, Tjosvold, & Liu, 2009). Optimistic individuals are also more effective problem-solvers (Peterson, Owens, Tetlock, Fan, & Martorana, 1998), as they are more open to new knowledge and experimentation (Levinthal & March, 1993), more open to new challenges (Seligman & Nathan, 1998), pay more attention to information (Aspinwall, Richter, & Hoffman Iii, 2001), and more likely react to problems (Geers, Handley, & McLarney, 2003), which result in a higher problem recognition (Papenhausen, 2004) and individual innovation performance (Gary, 2003).…”

“…He/she brings people together to get things done and ties the group together in challenging times. In the literature, collaboration has been recognized as an essential part in fostering innovation activity through idea generation (Barczak, Lassk, & Mulki, 2010;Brown & Katz, 2009), creativity (Alves, Marques, Saur, & Marques, 2007), speeding up the product development process (Brown & Eisenhardt, 1995;Schippers, West, & Dawson, 2010), and better predictions of environmental changes (Ambrose & Harris, 2009;Hansen & Oetinger, 2001). The collaborator's main goal is to ensure that the team is used to its full potential in attaining innovation performance.…”

Family Business Research: Roads Travelled and the Search for Unworn Paths

“…Family business leadership teams are likely to possess multiple subteams (e.g., family vs. nonfamily members, members of different generations, members from different linages within the family, or in-groups vs. out-groups), which can significantly influence team functioning and either promote or impede team performance (Aubert & Kelsey, 2003;Lau & Murnighan, 1998;Nirmala & Vemuri, 2009;Roussin, MacLean, & Rudolph, 2016;Tajfel, 1970). Other conditions, such as psychological safety (Edmondson, 1999; i.e., the shared belief within members that the team is safe for interpersonal risk taking), team reflexivity (Schippers, West, & Dawson, 2013; i.e., the extent to which teams collectively reflect on and adapt their working methods and functioning), team collaborative and competitive climates (Zhu, Gardner, & Chen, 2016), critical team member dispositional assertiveness (Pearsall & Ellis, 2006), and leader humility (Rego et al, 2017), to name just a few, can have important implications for exchange information, learning, creativity, and innovation within teams. By drawing from models and constructs from the teams and groups literatures, family business scholars can focus more directly on the critical processes linking the characteristics of family firm teams and outcomes, for it is in these processes where variance across family firms will most likely be found (Pearson et al, 2014).…”