83-5-PB.pdf - J Technol Manag Innov 2016 Volume 11 Issue 2 Table of Contents Research Articles Shared Leadership and Team Creativity A Social Network

83-5-PB.pdf - J Technol Manag Innov 2016 Volume 11 Issue 2...

This preview shows page 1 out of 147 pages.

Unformatted text preview: J. Technol. Manag. Innov. 2016. Volume 11, Issue 2 Table of Contents Research Articles Shared Leadership and Team Creativity: A Social Network Analysis in Engineering Design Teams Qiong Wu, Kathryn Cormican 2 Improving Innovation in University Spin-Offs. The Fostering Role of University and Region Antonio Prencipe, Christian Corsi 13 Knowledge Organisations and High-Tech Regional Innovation Systems in Developing Countries: Evidence from Argentina. Carolina Pasciaroni 22 Country Context and University Affiliation: A Comparative Study of Business Incubation in the United States and Brazil. Aruna Chandra, Chia-An Chao 33 Relationships between Innovations and Productivity in the Services in the Slovak Economy Viera kubickova, Dana Benešová, Daniela Breveníková 46 SMEs’ Innovation and Export Capabilities: Identification and Characterization of a Common Space Using Data Spatialization. Manon Enjolras, Mauricio Camargo, Christophe Schmitt 56 Impact of Image and Satisfaction on Marketing Innovation Alexander Zuñiga-Collazos, Marysol Castillo-Palacio 70 Social Networks as Enablers of Enterprise Creativity: Evidence from Portuguese Firms and Users Silvia Fernandes, Ana Belo 76 Adding Entrepreneurship to India’s Science, Technology & Innovation Policy Ragini Chaurasia, Mitrasen Bhikajee 86 Industry 4.0 and Object-Oriented Development: Incremental and Architectural Change Martin Prause, Jürgen Weigand 104 Cooperación Académica en Latinoamérica para la Innovación en los Agronegocios Liliana Scoponi, Marcelo Fernandes Pacheco Dias, Gabriela Pesce, María Alicia Schmidt, Matías Gzain 111 La Vinculación Ciencia-Sociedad: Estereotipos y Nuevos Enfoques Elena Castro-Martínez, Julia Olmos Peñuela, Ignacio Fernandez-de-Lucio 121 Impacto de los Intermediarios en los Sistemas de Innovación Walter Lugo Ruiz, Santiago Quintero, Jorge Robledo 130 Review Discussing the Concepts of Cluster and Industrial District Francisco Javier Ortega-Colomer, Francesc Xavier Molina-Morales, Ignacio Fernández de Lucio ISSN: 0718-2724. ( ) Journal of Technology Management & Innovation © Universidad Alberto Hurtado, Facultad de Economía y Negocios. 139 J. Technol. Manag. Innov. 2016. Volume 11, Issue 2 Shared Leadership and Team Creativity: A Social Network Analysis in Engineering Design Teams Qiong Wu *1, Kathryn Cormican 1 Abstract: This research explores the relationship between shared leadership and creativity in engineering design teams. To do this, a social network perspective was adopted using four measures to assess key elements of shared leadership networks. These are (a) network density, (b) centralization, (c) efficiency and (d) strength. Data was collected from a sample of 22 engineering design teams who adopt a shared leadership approach. Our results support previous findings that the density of a shared leadership network is positively related to team creativity. In contrast, we learned that centralization exerts a negative influence on it. Moreover, while we found that there is no evidence to support a positive correlation between efficiency and team creativity, we demonstrate an inverted U-shaped relationship between strength and team creativity in a shared leadership network. These findings are important because they add to the academic debate in the shared leadership area and provide valuable insights for managers. Keywords: shared leadership; social network analysis; team creativity; engineering design teams Submitted: March 25th 2016 / Approved: Approved: June 7th 2016 1. Introduction High-quality leadership is essential to team effectiveness (Kozlowski & Bell, 2003; Pearce et al., 2004). In fact, some scholars have argued that it is the most decisive enabling factor (Zaccaro et al., 2002). However, the majority of existing research in the area of team leadership has concentrated narrowly on the influence and behavior of individual team leaders who occupy formal leadership positions, therefore largely ignoring leadership roles provided by team members (Kozlowski & Bell, 2003). In recent years, the concept of shared leadership has emerged in the literature. It is defined as “leadership that emanates from the members of teams and not simply from the appointed team leader” (Pearce & Sims, 2002). Shared leadership, occurs when all team members are fully engaged in the leadership process instead of being led by a solitary designated leader (Seers et al., 2003). Studies have found that shared leadership has proven to produce greater effectiveness (Muethel & Hoegl, 2013), to be a significant predictor of team outcomes (Shane Wood & Fields, 2007) and team performance (Ensley et al., 2006), and it is related to an increase in the quality of problem solving skills (Pearce, 2004). Thus, we are witnessing an evolutionary shift in leadership responsibilities from a single appointed manager to that of many team members. Hooker and Csikszentmihalyi (2003) assert that shared leadership is now becoming the new dominant organizational form. There are two key reasons for this. Firstly, because in the present complex working environment, it is difficult for a sole leader, despite the level of experience or education background, to have sufficient knowledge and skills to carry out all leadership functions required 0. Secondly, high performance teams rely on knowledge workers who demand a participative approach to decision making (Bergman et al., 2012). As a consequence, attention has begun to concentrate on this shift from solitary leaders to that of shared leadership as a better way of leading high performance teams (Ensley et al., 2006; Mehra et al., 2006). Table 1 synthesizes recent studies that have been conducted in the area of shared leadership. It illustrates the various contexts that recent research studies have been conducted, the relationships between shared leadership and team outcomes, as well as the methods that researchers have used to measure shared leadership. Specifically, looking at the first column in Table 1, we can see the different contexts in which shared leadership has been studied. This includes change management teams (Pearce & Sims, 2002), independent professional teams (Muethel & Hoegl, 2013), consulting teams (Carson et al., 2007), sports teams (Fransen et al., 2015), virtual teams (Pearce et al., 2004), field-based sales teams (Mehra et al., 2006), top management teams (Ensley et al., 2006), product development teams (Cox et al., 2003), and extreme actions team (Klein et al., 2006). The second column of Table 1 depicts the correlations between shared leadership and team effectiveness (Cox et al., 2003; Muethel & Hoegl, 2013; Pearce & Sims, 2002; Pearce et al., 2004); team performance (Carson et al., 2007; Ensley et al., 2006; Mehra et al., 2006), team leading roles (Fransen et al., 2015) and team dynamic delegation (Klein et al., 2006). Lastly the third column of the table synthesizes the methods used for measuring shared leadership. We found that prior work has mostly focused on aggregating team members’ ratings of their perception of the extent to which leadership responsibilities are shared. For example, Pearce et al. (2004) study on virtual teams and Ensley et al. (2006) work on new venture top management teams both used ratings (aggregated to team level) on behavioral scales for four leadership strategies namely directive, empowering, transactional and transformational. (1) College of Engineering and Informatics, National University of Ireland, Galway *Corresponding author: [email protected] ISSN: 0718-2724. ( ) Journal of Technology Management & Innovation © Universidad Alberto Hurtado, Facultad de Economía y Negocios. 2 J. Technol. Manag. Innov. 2016. Volume 11, Issue 2 Table 1: Previous research of shared leadership related to contexts, correlations, and methods Contexts Correlations Methods References Change management teams Team effectiveness Aggregating ratings Pearce and Sims (2002) Muethel and Hoegl (2013) Independent professional teams Team effectiveness Not defined Consulting teams Team performance Social network analysis Carson et al. (2007) Sports teams Leading roles Social network analysis Fransen et al. (2015) Virtual teams Team effectiveness Aggregating ratings Pearce et al. (2004) Field-based sales teams Team performance Social network analysis Mehra et al. (2006) Top management teams Team performance Not defined Ensley et al. (2006) Product development teams Team effectiveness Not defined Cox et al. (2003) Extreme actions teams Dynamic delegation Aggregating ratings Klein et al. (2006) An analysis of the extant literature reveals some gaps in the research that warrant further investigation. Most notably Bergman et al. (2012) have suggested that future studies in the area of shared leadership should pay attention to aspects beyond traditional team performance metrics. Hooker and Csikszentmihalyi (2003) ascertain that shared leadership may offer both timely and useful assistance in promoting the creative potential of engineering design teams. However, we notice a dearth of studies focusing on the correlation between shared leadership and team creativity. Furthermore, there is lack of empirical analysis and practical arguments for the influence of shared leadership on team creativity. It seems that this important issue should be addressed. Engineering design comprise knowledge workers from many different disciplines and requires complementary skills to execute innovative efforts. Such teams focus on problem solving (Lessard & Lessard, 2007) where creativity plays a vital role (Gehani, 2011). Indeed, the creative capacity of the team is lauded to consolidate the platform of organizational innovation (Pandey & Sharma, 2009) and mold the foundation for positive team outcomes (Kratzer et al., 2010). Additionally, according to Ensley et al. (2006), the creative process is accelerated when workers are encouraged to collaborate with peers and to autonomously self-direct. In light of this, our research aims to expand the current debate on shared leadership to engineering design teams. We found that prior work has failed to capture the relational nature of shared influence among team members. Therefore, using social network theory, (see Carson et al. (2007), Mehra et al. (2006), and Small and Rentsch (2015)), we advance a more complete conceptualization of the relational phenomenon of shared leadership and use social network analysis to better capture patterns of influence. Consequently, the goal of our research is to explore the correlations between shared leadership and team creativity in engineering design teams using social network analysis. To do this, we create a conceptual model of our study and propose four key hypotheses about the correlations between key metrics in shared leadership networks and team creativity. We develop binary matrices and sociograms to plot the interactions between the team members in each of the sample teams. Finally, we conduct inferential statistical tests using correlation analysis and hierarchical regression analysis to examine our proposed hypotheses. The remainder of the paper is organized as follows: in section 2, a synthesis of the relevant literature is presented which focuses on shared leadership and social network analysis. From this, key hypotheses are generated. Section 3 presents the research methodology employed in this study. This describes the data collection process, sampling method, measuring process as well as the data analysis process. Finally, the research findings are discussed, limitations of the study are identified and the final conclusions are drawn. 2. Literature review and hypotheses generation 2.1. Shared leadership Traditional models of leadership in organizations emphasize hierarchy where a single appointed leader is responsible for communicating visions and controlling operations (Cox et al., 2003; Shane Wood & Fields, 2007). However, with the pervasive presence of self-managed teams (Latora & Marchiori, 2001), team members tend to share leadership responsibilities, with visions, plans and actions emanating from many members within a team as opposed to a single individual. Shared leadership, thus, is attracting more scholars, and has been defined in many different ways. It is considered in terms of team processes during which team members engage in the leadership role and interact with each other to achieve organizational goals (Ensley et al., 2006). It is also characterized by the serial emergence of official and unofficial leaders (Pearce, 2004). Moreover, it refers to a mutual influence process that is dynamic, simultaneous, on-going, as well as multidirectional (Fletcher and Kaufer 2003). Carson et al. (2007) propose that shared leadership should not be considered in a narrow sense where the focus is on specific leadership traits, characteristics or behaviors. But rather they contend that a wider perspective should be adopted where shared leadership is considered in terms of multiple influencing resources within teams. Building on these ideas, we can say that shared leadership refers to the widespread influence that arises from the distribution of leadership responsibility among team members. Moreover, based on the research of Shane Wood and Fields (2007), we present a comparative analysis of traditional leadership and shared leadership characteristics (see Table 2). ISSN: 0718-2724. ( ) Journal of Technology Management & Innovation © Universidad Alberto Hurtado, Facultad de Economía y Negocios. 3 J. Technol. Manag. Innov. 2016. Volume 11, Issue 2 Table 2. Comparative analysis of traditional leadership and shared leadership Dimension Traditional leadership Shared leadership Ways of leading Centralized vision (Pearce & Conger, 2002) Self-led (Cox et al., 2003) Communication & information flow Vertical and top-down (Shane Wood & Fields, 2007) Lateral and interactive (Hackman & Johnson, 2013) Decision-making process Decisions made by the appointed leader (Cox et al., 2003) Members involve in decision making process (Bergman et al., 2012) Members’ behaviors Dependent and instructed (Pearce & Sims, 2002); Executing individual tasks appointed by the formal leader (Day et al., 2004) Autonomous (Mehra et al., 2006); Social integration (Pearce, 2004) Team’s behaviors Responsive to the leader’ s expectations (Seers et al., 2003) Cooperative and consensus–driven (Bergman et al., 2012) Organization’s vision source Top down (Pearce & Conger, 2002) Shared vision stemmed from team (Pearce & Conger, 2002) Intragroup environment Tend to hierarchy (Pearce & Conger, 2002) Less conflict, higher cohesion and intragroup trust (Bergman et al., 2012) 2.2 Social network analysis Shared leadership has been regarded as a relational phenomenon that involves patterns of reciprocal influence within a team. Therefore many studies have used social network analysis techniques to measure it (e.g., Mehra et al., 2006; Small & Rentsch, 2015). This approach is appropriate for two main reasons. First of all, social network analysis is an intrinsically relational method used to examine relationship patterns; it provides methods to model the interpersonal influences and uses network graphs to identify patterns of leadership. Secondly, social network analysis is lauded to better preserve information about actual distributed leadership patterns within teams (Balkundi & Kilduff, 2006). In this research, we use social network analysis to assess the characteristics of shared leadership networks by employing four measurements: density, centralization, efficiency and strength. Table 3 lists the concepts and application of these four measures based on an analysis of the literature of social network analysis. We note that previous studies of shared leadership has applied density (Carson et al., 2007; Lee et al., 2015), centralization (Mehra et al., 2006; Small & Rentsch, 2015) or a combination of these two to measure the distribution of leadership functions among team members (Pastor & Mayo, 2002). However, we notice a lack of research on strength and efficiency in shared leadership networks. Strength and efficiency, have been widely applied to communication networks (Kratzer et al., 2010; Yuan et al., 2009). Communication is regarded as an essential antecedent and a critical success factor to shared leadership (Hoppe & Reinelt, 2010). The willingness of team members to communicate closely aligns with their willingness to interact with peers which in turn can influence the effectiveness of shared leadership in a team (Hackman & Johnson, 2013). As a consequence, efficiency and strength should also be examined in shared leadership networks in order to help us understand a new perspective and enable a deeper analysis. Table 3. Concepts and applications of four measurements of social network analysis Measurements Concepts Network density Measures the compactness or closeness of team member interactions with each other. Network centralization Network Efficiency Network Strength Measures the extent to which team members rely on a small concentrated number of people. Measures the amount of contact among team members. This implies how much information flow is in a network. Measures the frequency of contact among team members. This can influence how often information is exchanged. Applications Shared leadership Networks Shared Leadership Networks References Carson et al. (2007); Lee et al. (2015) Mehra et al. (2006); Small and Rentsch (2015) Communication Kratzer et al. (2010) Networks Communication Yuan et al. (2009) Networks ISSN: 0718-2724. ( ) Journal of Technology Management & Innovation © Universidad Alberto Hurtado, Facultad de Economía y Negocios. 4 J. Technol. Manag. Innov. 2016. Volume 11, Issue 2 2.3.1 Network density Density in a leadership network describes the percentage of actual leadership ties relative to all potential leadership ties among team members (Carson et al., 2007). When more group members perform leadership responsibilities more leadership ties emerge which then increases the network density. Lee et al. (2015) used network density to measure shared leadership by studying its effects on knowledge sharing as well as the subsequent influence on team creativity. Their results illustrate that knowledge sharing plays a partially mediating role between shared leadership and team creativity. In other words, the process of knowledge sharing is boosted in shared leadership networks with high levels of density, where more team members perform leadership behaviors. During this process, members can also share their own expertise and integrate these in new ways. Integration is likely to increase the cross-fertilization of viewpoints and promote the probability of team creativity. On the contrary, low levels of density in shared leadership networks with fewer links among team members hinders knowledge sharing and acts as a barrier to creativity. Therefore we propose: Hypothesis 1: Density in a shared leadership network is positivity related to team creativity. 2.3.2 Network centralization Centralization represents the extent to which one or several team members are predominant in a shared leadership network (Sparrowe et al., 2001). The theoretical basis for proposing a hypothesis that there is a negative correlation between shared leadership network centralization and team creativity, is extracted from differences among dependence, independence and interdependence presented by Molm (1994). Those arguments imply that lower levels of network centralization can facilitate interdependence among team members that in turn contributes to co-operation. Group members in interdependent network relationships are different from those in dependent relationships where team members have fewer interactions with each other. Individuals in interdependent networks tend to have more communication and cooperation with their peers. As network centralization represents the degree to which exchange relations are focus...
View Full Document

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture