A Closer Look at Cross‐functional R&D Cooperation for Innovativeness: Innovation‐oriented Leadership and Human Resource Practices as Driving Forces

Because cross‐functional research and development (R&D) cooperation appears to drive innovation, many firms have invested considerably in it. However, despite substantial efforts to improve information and communication infrastructures or to bring departments in closer proximity with one another, structural investments often fail to produce the desired positive impact on cross‐functional R&D cooperation. This failure may arise because firms undertaking these structural investments do not manage their employees adequately. Extant research acknowledges the importance of motivating and enabling members of the R&D function to cooperate with other functions. Yet empirical studies investigating the relative importance of leadership and different human resource (HR) practices for enhancing cross‐functional R&D cooperation are scarce. Drawing on the resource‐based view and organizational support theory, this study investigates how innovation‐oriented leadership and HR practices might support members of the R&D function and encourage cross‐functional R&D cooperation, which enhances product program innovativeness. Specifically, members of the R&D function who are supported in their innovation efforts through innovation‐oriented leadership and HR practices should reciprocate for the support they receive by intensifying their cross‐functional cooperation to achieve greater product program innovativeness. Relying on multi‐informant data from 125 firms with assessments from marketing and R&D managers, this study shows that innovation‐oriented leadership and HR practices have different effects on cross‐functional R&D cooperation. A structural equation modeling‐based analysis of the hypothesized relationships reveals that innovation‐oriented leadership, rewards, and training and development have considerable positive effects. In contrast, recruitment does not drive cross‐functional R&D cooperation. Because firms usually operate in dynamic markets, and increasingly acquire relevant information from customers when generating innovations, this study also considers market‐related dynamism and customer integration as important contingency factors. For firms facing market‐related dynamism and those relying on customer integration, leadership and training and development are particularly effective for enhancing cross‐functional R&D cooperation. By integrating two theoretical perspectives, this study not only advances knowledge on the antecedents of cross‐functional R&D cooperation, but also helps explain differences in their relative effectiveness. Furthermore, it both adds to the discussion of whether monetary rewards are appropriate means to foster innovation and challenges existing assumptions about the role of recruiting for innovation.     

Integration of Finance with Marketing and R&D in New Product Development: The Role of Project Stage

While the interfaces of marketing, research and development (R&D), and manufacturing in product development have been extensively studied, no large‐scale empirical study has focused on finance's role in the product development team. The present research investigates the role of finance in cross‐functional product development teams, thereby extending existing research on cross‐functional integration in product development. A set of hypotheses is tested with a survey of 389 project team leaders and top management team members from companies in the United States, Australia, New Zealand, Germany, and Austria. The findings suggest that the integration of finance in cross‐functional teams positively impacts project performance and that the importance of the finance interface depends on the project development stage and the innovativeness of the product developed. The results indicate that the R&D–finance interface is most critical at the early stage of a project, while the marketing–finance interface is most important at the late stage, and that the integration between R&D and finance is especially useful in the development of less innovative products.     

International R&D partnerships and intrafirm R&D–marketing–production integration of manufacturing firms in emerging economies

Although cross-functional integration is important for research and development (R&D), research about implications of cross-functional integration has been rather sparse. In new product development (NPD), no study to date has examined intrafirm as well as interfirm integration of key functions such as intrafirm R&D–marketing–production together with interfirm integration of host R&D–partner R&D. Such marketing and operations interface contributes to a better understanding of how operational and marketing activities impact on competitiveness and firm performance. This study collected data from 202 electronics manufacturing firms operating in an emerging economy, mainland China and Hong Kong with international R&D partnerships. The findings indicate that a high level of R&D integration between firms improved NPD performance when cross-functional integration is based on existing rather than new product configurations and key technologies. Interestingly, in high distance situations, cross-functional integration in the production validation stage generated NPD success. The findings show that high environmental uncertainties lead to a high level of host and partner firms R&D integration. However, product newness has no significant effects on R&D integration in any of the NPD stages.     

Innovation Performance in New Product Development Teams in China's Technology Ventures: The Role of Behavioral Integration Dimensions and Collective Efficacy

In emerging markets, technology ventures increasingly rely on new product development (NPD) teams to generate creative ideas and to mold these innovative ideas into streams of new products or services. However, little is known about how behavioral integration (a behavioral team process) and collective efficacy (a motivational team process) jointly facilitate or inhibit team innovation performance in emerging markets—especially in China, the world's largest emerging‐market setting with collectivist and high power distance cultures. Drawing on social cognitive theory and behavioral integration research, this article elucidates the relationships between behavioral integration dimensions (i.e., collaborative behavior, information exchange, and joint decision‐making) and innovation performance and also examines how collective efficacy moderates these relationships in China's NPD teams. Results from a sample of 96 NPD teams in China's technology ventures reveal that information exchange is positively associated with innovation performance. Collaborative behavior positively but marginally influences innovation performance, whereas joint decision‐making does not relate to innovation performance. Moreover, collective efficacy demonstrates an important moderating role. Specifically, both collaborative behavior and joint decision‐making are more positively associated with innovation performance when collective efficacy is higher. In contrast, information exchange is less positively associated with innovation performance when collective efficacy is higher. This study makes important theoretical contributions to the literature on team innovation and behavioral integration in emerging markets by offering a better understanding of how behavioral and motivational team processes jointly shape innovation performance in China's NPD teams. This study also extends social cognitive theory by identifying collective efficacy as a boundary condition for the overall effectiveness of behavioral integration dimensions. In particular, this study highlights the condition under which behavioral integration dimensions facilitate or inhibit NPD team innovation performance in China.     

Spurring Cross‐Functional Integration for Higher New Product Performance: A Group Effectiveness Perspective*

Spurring integration among functional specialists so they collectively create successful, or high‐performing, new products is a central interest of innovation practitioners and researchers. Firms are increasingly assembling cross‐functional new product development (NPD) teams for this purpose. However, integration of team members' divergent orientations and expertise is notoriously difficult to achieve. Individuals from distinct functions such as design, marketing, manufacturing, and research and development (R&D) are often assigned to NPD teams but have contrasting backgrounds, priorities, and thought worlds. If not well managed, this diversity can yield unproductive conflict and chaos rather than successful new products. Firms are thus looking for avenues of integrating the varied expertise and orientations within these cross‐functional teams. The aim of this study is to address two important and not fully resolved questions: (1) does cross‐functional integration in NPD teams actually improve new product performance; and if so, (2) what are ways to strengthen integration? The study began by developing a model of cross‐functional integration from the perspective of the group effectiveness theory. The theory has been used to explain the performance of a wide range of small, complex work groups; this study is the first application of the theory to NPD teams. The model developed from this theory was then tested by conducting a survey of dual informants in 206 NPD teams in an array of U.S. high‐technology companies. In answer to the first research question, the findings show that cross‐functional integration indeed contributes to new product performance as long conjectured. This finding is important in that it highlights that bringing together the skills, efforts, and knowledge of differing functions in an NPD team has a clear and coveted payoff: high‐performing new products. In answer to the second question, the findings indicate that both intra‐ (or internal) and extra‐ (or external) team factors contribute and codetermine cross‐functional integration. Specifically, social cohesion and superordinate identity as internal team factors and market‐oriented reward system, planning process formalization, and managerial encouragement to take risks as external team factors foster integration. These findings underscore that spurring integration requires addressing the conditions inside as well as outside NPD teams. These specialized work groups operate as organizations within organizations; recognition of this in situ arrangement is the first step toward better managing and ensuring rewards from team integration. Based on these findings, managerial and research implications were drawn for team integration and new product performance.     

Project Management Characteristics and New Product Survival

We develop a conceptual model of new product development (NPD) based on seminal and review articles in order to answer the question, “What project management characteristics will foster the development of new products that are more likely to survive in the marketplace?” Our model adopts Ruekert and Walker's theoretical framework of situational dimensions, structural/process dimensions, and outcome dimensions as an underlying structure. We conceptualize their situational dimensions more narrowly as project management dimensions, allowing us to examine more specifically how project management practices affect the NPD process. In our model, project management dimensions include project manager style, project manager skills, and senior management support. Structural/process dimensions include cross‐functional integration and planning proficiency. Outcome dimensions include process proficiency and new product survival. Our empirical analysis finds support for 20 hypotheses, a reversal of one hypothesis, and nonsignificant results for one hypothesis. These results show that projects are best led by managers with strong technical, marketing, and management skills, using a participative style and enjoying early and continuous support from senior management. These project management dimensions promote cross‐functional integration and planning, which are important to process proficiency and new product survival. Our study suggests two broad conclusions. First, it confirms the links in the extant literature between situational (project management) dimensions, structural/process dimensions, and outcome dimensions in NPD. Second, firms can improve cross‐functional integration and planning through various project management practices. Generally, we find that firms interested in improving both proficiency in their development process and the survival rate of new products should take steps to promote cross‐functional integration and to improve their planning processes. While the linkage between cross‐functional integration and NPD outcomes is well established in the literature, the impact of the planning process on NPD outcomes is a research area ripe with opportunity. Our study highlights three aspects of planning that contribute to NPD outcomes. Plans should be detailed, team members should participate actively in the planning process, and teams should be given flexibility and autonomy to respond to unanticipated issues as they appear.     

Thematic Thinking and Individual Performance in Research and Development

Individuals differ in their preference for processing information on the basis of taxonomic, feature‐based similarity, or thematic, relation‐based similarity. These differences, which have been investigated in a recently emerging research stream in cognitive psychology, affect innovative behavior and thus constitute an important antecedent of individual performance in research and development (R&D) that has been overlooked so far in the literature on innovation management. To fill this research gap, survey and test data from the employees of a multinational information technology services firm are used to examine the relationship between thematic thinking and R&D professionals' individual performance. A moderated mediation model is applied to investigate the proposed relationships of thematic thinking and individual‐level performance indicators. Results show a positive relationship between thematic thinking and innovativeness, as well as individual job performance. While the results do not support the postulated moderation of the innovativeness–job performance relationship by employees' political skill, they show that the relationship between thematic thinking and job performance is fully mediated by R&D professionals' innovativeness. The present study is thus the first to reveal a positive relationship between thematic thinking and innovative performance.     

Whether to Integrate R&D and Marketing: The Effect of Firm Competence

Integration of research and development (R&D) with marketing remains a frequent topic in the new product development (NPD) literature, largely because it represents a critical antecedent of new product performance (NPP). Two divergent opinions about this integration exist, such that those who contend that firms should pursue high levels of integration in every case provoke criticisms from those who propose that various NPD processes require different levels of integration. This paper proposes that the two perspectives can be reconciled by taking into account the fact that R&D and marketing are integrated mainly to combine critical knowledge (technological and market) that otherwise would be separate to achieve market success. Following Danneels's approach, we investigate how the effect of R&D–marketing integration on performance change across four types of NPD processes: pure exploitation, pure exploration, technological competence exploitation, and market competence exploitation. Data derived from a deep study of 11 NPD projects by five firms, analyzed through qualitative methods, highlight the necessity to vary the level of integration according to the type of competence to be developed during the NPD process. Our analysis suggests two main conclusions. First, the effect of integration depends strictly on the type of competence that the firm uses to develop and launch a new product. Second, integration does not have a unique effect on performance, but it is necessary to distinguish between market performance (e.g., sales and market share) and process performance (e.g., meeting the planned budget and time to market). In some projects, the effect of integration on the two types of performance is diametrically opposite. In particular, we propose that (1) higher performance will be associated with lower integration in pure exploitative projects; (2) in projects that exploit existing market knowledge, higher market performance will be associated with a higher integration, although these projects tend to offer poor process performance regardless of integration level; (3) in projects that exploit technical knowledge, higher performance will be associated with higher integration; and (4) higher integration will be associated with higher market performance but poorer process performance in pure explorative projects.     

Technological Innovativeness as a Moderator of New Product Design Integration and Top Management Support

Many war stories, as well as a number of empirical research studies, point to the value of design integration and top management support in new product development (NPD) efforts, where design integration is conceptualized as the coordination of product and process design activities performed by various organizational groups. However, some emerging evidence suggests that these aspects of program management are not equally valuable in all NPD contexts. Furthermore, the benefits of these approaches may not extend to all dimensions of NPD performance. This article addresses these issues as they relate to technological innovativeness. The author reports the results of a research study designed to (1) assess the direct contributions of design integration and top management support to several dimensions of NPD performance, and (2) identify potential moderating influences of technological innovativeness on these direct effects. A survey of 136 NPD projects drawn from firms representing most of the major U.S. manufacturing industries provides data for the study. The overall goals of the study were to amplify our understanding of management's role in NPD and to further the development of contingency theory explaining new product success. The results indicate that design integration is positively associated with higher design quality in NPD, but it is not significantly linked with better financial performance. In addition, design integration appears to be an important influence on achieving NPD time goals, but only in cases of high technological innovativeness. This result suggests that increased design integration produces its greatest impacts when development processes are full of uncertainty. Top management support is positively associated with better time‐based performance, design quality, and financial performance on the whole. However, a significant interaction effect suggests that high levels of top management support are ineffective in securing good financial performance in high technologically innovative environments. Other forces appear to be at work in these circumstances, making top management support less important. The article discusses the implications of these findings for management practice, a contingency‐oriented view of NPD processes, and future research.     

Marketing–Industrial Design Integration in New Product Development: The Case of China*

Despite the acknowledgement of functional integration as an important driver of new product development (NPD) success and the growing recognition of the significance of industrial design (ID), the integration between industrial design and other functional units in NPD has been rarely researched. In this article, we examine the marketing and ID integration in NPD in the context of China. Mainly based on Cooper's (1994) stage‐gate phases of NPD process and Gupta, Raj, and Wilemon's (1985) categorization of NPD activities, we develop a conceptual framework that identifies 29 areas that might require integration or where integration might occur between marketing and ID. Specifically, we investigate and compare the current and the ideal integration between marketing and ID perceived by the two functions. An analysis of data from 113 companies reveals that the current level of integration fell short of the ideal level of integration in all the phases of NPD. Both managers believed in the descending trend of integration along the stage‐gate NPD phases and were dissatisfied with the current level of integration in all the NPD phases. Except for a few areas of agreement, marketing and ID managers showed significant differences with each other in their perceptions of the current and the ideal integration in most of the 29 areas. Despite the disagreements however, the two functions agreed with each other on the most important areas that require integration and achieved the highest level of marketing–ID integration. These findings suggest that firms should improve the marketing–ID integration in all the NPD phases and that management could improve the effectiveness of marketing–ID integration by prioritizing and focusing on the most important areas. Research and managerial implications, limitations, and future research directions are presented in the paper.     

Interaction Orientation and Product Development Performance for Taiwanese Electronics Firms: The Mediating Role of Market‐Relating Capabilities

While academics and practitioners are increasingly aware of the value of including the customer in new product development (NPD), processes for doing so effectively remain unclear. Therefore, this study explores the process through which a firm's interaction orientation (the ability to effectively interact with customers) influences product development performance. Drawing on the resource‐based view, this study develops a research model in which two market‐relating capabilities—market‐linking and marketing capabilities—mediate the effect of interaction orientation on product development performance. The validity of this model is examined by analyzing primary data gathered from 167 Taiwanese electronics companies. The model results provide support for a process link between interaction orientation, market‐relating capabilities, and product development performance, such that a firm's capabilities enable the conversion of customer‐based resources into productive new product outcomes. More specifically, the interaction orientation–product development speed relationship is mediated by both marketing and market‐linking capabilities, while the interaction orientation–product innovativeness relationship is partially mediated by marketing capability. That is, interaction orientation has indirect effects on product innovativeness and product development speed by strengthening both marketing and market‐linking capabilities that in turn improve product development performance. In addition, the results suggest that a firm's interactive rationality moderates the relationship between interaction orientation and marketing capability. Overall, this study enhances our understanding of how firms achieve superior product development performance by developing effective customer interaction. The findings of this study provide important strategic insights into NPD.     

Good Cop–Bad Cop: Trust,Control, and the Lure of Integration

Based on a longitudinal case study of four interorganizational product development collaborations, this paper identifies a lure to cross‐functional integration that has hereto been neglected. In particular, findings suggest that when the buyer firm separates the Research and Development (R&D) Department from the Procurement Department, the two departments play a good cop–bad cop strategy toward the supplier. Thereby, they are able to foster a high level of goodwill trust between R&D personnel of the collaborating firms, while procurement personnel maintain a high level of formal control. Using an intricate sample design with polar cases, the study shows that cross‐functional integration of the two departments hampers interorganizational goodwill trust at the benefit of formal control. The findings offer a way forward for managers seeking to reap the benefits of collaboration, while limiting their exposure to the associated risks.     

National culture and R&D and marketing integration mechanisms in new product development: A cross-cultural study between Singapore and New Zealand

The integration of R&D and marketing in new product development (NPD) is an important contributor to NPD performance. Of the mechanisms developed to aid functional integration, many have been developed in western cultural environments and may not have applicability in other national cultural settings. Using a sample of NPD workgroup personnel in New Zealand (NZ), the western cultural environment, and Singapore, quantitative and qualitative data have been used to measure national culture and determine the applicability of different organization integration mechanisms. Results show key differences between the two samples, indicating a link between formalization, centralization, role flexibility and interfunctional climate mechanisms with the Hofstede dimensions of Power Distance, Masculinity and Uncertainty Avoidance of national culture. Managerial implications are that national cultural values and settings of the respondents are important when determining best integration mechanisms.     

How Formal Control Influences Decision‐Making Clarity and Innovation Performance

Implementing formal planning instruments such as the stage‐and‐gate‐type system (SGS) and project management (PM) have long been seen as the key to new product development (NPD) success. They create the structure needed for managing NPD activities, supporting coordination among functional groups, reducing uncertainty and error, and assuring time and cost efficiency. But recent research presents ambiguous results, suggesting that SGS and PM as formal controls can also have a negative effect. Integrating ideas from three literatures—i.e., NPD management, organization control theory, and technical control theory—the present study assesses NPD programs in terms of three perspectives: (1) the formal control mechanisms used for managing NPD programs—specifically SGS, which is mainly seen as a higher organizational level approach used for guiding and implementing a portfolio of NPD projects, and PM, which is a precise formal control mechanism relevant for managing specific problems at a single project level; (2) the immediate outcome of the application of formal controls, i.e. decision‐making clarity (DMC); and (3) degree of NPD innovativeness, a key contingency hypothesized to impact the efficacy of formal controls. For the empirical analysis, data are collected through a survey of 162 corporate NPD programs (Austria and Denmark, manufactured goods and services) where a total of 1274 respondents provide information relevant to their position. Hierarchical regression analysis is used to test the relationships. Results indicate that the performance effect of NPD formal control is fully mediated by DMC. Further, of the six hypothesized outcome relationships, four are fully supported. Both SGS and PM are effective systems for managing NPD when degree of innovativeness is not taken into account. PM, however, loses its efficacy at higher degrees of NPD program innovativeness while SGS continues to work at achieving positive DMC at the radical end of the innovativeness spectrum. Analysis of interaction effects indicates that for more innovative NPD programs, best results are achieved when companies implement an interactive system of both SGS and PM, where the two systems complement each other.     

The Effects of Environmental Turbulence on New Product Development Strategy Planning

Managers need guidance on how to cope with turbulent environments in order to improve corporate performance. Research on environmental turbulence has suggested that firms adopt a less centralized, more organic structure in dynamic, uncertain environments. Little work has been done specifically, however, on how environmental turbulence affects strategy planning for new product development (NPD). In this article, we specify a baseline model with firm innovativeness, market orientation and top management risk taking as antecedents to NPD speed and corporate strategic planning; these in turn are modeled as antecedents to NPD program (not project) performance. Two conceptualizations of the role of environmental turbulence are examined: (1) that market turbulence and technological turbulence are additional direct antecedents to NPD program performance; and (2) that the baseline model is moderated by turbulence (that is, that the strengths of the paths differ depending on levels of turbulence). A cross-sectional survey methodology including four diverse industries [automotive, electronics, publishing, and manufacturing/research and development (R&D) laboratories] was used to test the hypotheses. The latter conceptualization is supported. In particular, the paths from innovativeness to strategic planning and from risk taking to NPD speed are significantly greater in highly turbulent environments. A set of managerial recommendations and implications are provided. First, managers must recognize the possible improvements in new product performance by actively including NPD personnel in corporate strategic planning and also by involving corporate planners in NPD activities. Second, managers also should recognize that turbulent environments heighten the need to make risky investments, and sometimes, risky decisions; risk-taking decisions ought to be encouraged in such environments.     

Proactive/Responsive Market Orientation and Marketing—Research and Development Integration

The level of integration between the marketing and research and development (R&D) functions may be gauged by degree of communication, information sharing, and collaboration between the functions during the new product development process. This article examines how a firm's strategic choice regarding market orientation may influence the relationship between marketing and R&D personnel, and how this relationship may affect organizational success. Under examination are both the responsive form of market orientation, in which a firm focuses on immediate customer needs and tends to be market driven, and the proactive form, in which the firm focuses on future market needs and tends to be invention driven. It is theorized that responsive market orientation will be more positively related to marketing‐R&D integration due to the market‐driven nature of the orientation. Conversely, it is theorized proactive market orientation will be more positively related to organizational success than responsive market orientation due to the innovation‐driven nature of the orientation. The study was implemented via a Web‐based survey and data analysis was performed using structural equation modeling techniques. The results of this study provide empirical evidence that both proactive and responsive market orientation exhibit a positive relationship with marketing–R&D integration, indicating that both forms of market orientation may lead to closer collaboration between the marketing and R&D functions. Despite the assumption that a proactive orientation is driven by innovation and technology in which R&D may play a more significant role, there is evidence that a high degree of synergy is developed between the groups when the focus is on future market needs. A market‐driven responsive orientation by necessity requires high integration between departments to commercialize products in a timely manner to meet current market needs. Proactive market orientation exhibits a positive relationship with market performance, whereas responsive market orientation does not. The result may show evidence of the “new product paradox," whereby developing products to address immediate market needs may result in lower market performance because the new products may be replacements for obsolete offerings or are actually cannibalizing sales of existing products.     

A Manager's Perspective on Virtual Customer Integration for New Product Development

Despite the high potential of virtual customer integration (VCI) methods for new product development (NPD) mentioned in the literature, practical use is still limited. This paper aims to provide a deeper understanding of managers’ perspectives on VCI and their intentions to use these methods for NPD. The theory of planned behavior (TPB) served as basis for developing a research model, which considers managers’ cognition, attitude, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control as important factors affecting their intention to apply VCI. Because more recent literature has expressed doubts about the explanatory potential of the rather simple TPB model, a more complex alternative model was proposed for comparison. The alternative model included the market orientation of the company, the hierarchical position of the innovation manager as well as the manager's level of innovativeness as additional explanatory variables. An empirical online study was conducted in the field of consumer goods and services. Based on a sample of 216 German‐speaking innovation managers, the results show that the model derived from the TPB explains 68% of the variance in the managers’ intention to apply VCI compared with 69% of variance explained by the model containing additional explanatory variables. An extension of the model does not significantly improve its explanatory power. Managers show high interest in virtually integrating customers in NPD processes. Managers consider identification of future customer needs, a broader decision basis, increased efficiency in gathering and use of customer information, and increased customer retention as major advantages of VCI. Disadvantages considered by managers in making their overall judgment are the lack of secrecy and only incremental innovations. The perceived potential contribution of VCI to NPD, the assessment of its general acceptance within the company, and the perceived ability of innovation managers to successfully implement VCI mainly influence the adoption decision. Managers’ attitudes toward VCI have no significant influence on their intention to use VCI. The results suggest that strong promotion of VCI through senior management would enforce the positive effect of subjective norms on applying VCI. Measures such as including VCI on innovation managers’ personal scorecard, trainings offered, and cross‐functional meetings could help speed up VCI in NPD processes by increasing innovation managers’ perceived behavioral control toward VCI.     

How entrepreneurial orientation can leverage innovation project portfolio management

Innovation project portfolio management (IPPM) is a key task in R&D management because this decision‐making process determines which R&D projects should be undertaken and how R&D resources are allocated. Previous research has developed a good understanding of the role of IPPM in R&D strategy implementation and of successful IPPM practices. But the fundamental orientations that drive the strategy formation and implementation process have never been investigated in the context of IPPM, and it is unclear whether successful practices are equally valid for different strategic orientations. This study, therefore, investigates the moderating impact of a firm’s entrepreneurial orientation on the relationship between strategic portfolio management practices and portfolio success. An empirical analysis of 257 firms shows that both innovativeness and risk taking as entrepreneurial orientation’s dimensions positively moderate the relationship between managerial practices and performance. Specifically, we find that firms high in innovativeness profit more from stakeholder engagement compared to firms low in innovativeness. Firms high in risk‐taking profit more from a clearly formulated strategy. With increasing innovativeness and risk‐taking propensity, firms also profit more from business case monitoring and agility in portfolio steering. The results suggest that a firm’s entrepreneurial orientation can leverage the effect of IPPM practices. Vice versa, a lacking entrepreneurial orientation can render these practices ineffective. Strategic orientation and IPPM practices should, therefore, be aligned with each other to enable firms to better implement their strategy and generate competitive advantage.     

Offshoring and firm innovation: The moderating role of top management team attributes

This study attempts to increase the understanding of how offshoring influences the introduction of new products and services. Focusing on the offshoring of those business functions that provide direct knowledge inputs for innovation (i.e., production, R&D, and engineering), we propose that offshoring has an inverted U‐shaped influence on firm innovativeness. Additionally, we provide an upper echelon contingency perspective by considering the moderating role of two top management team (TMT) attributes (i.e., informational diversity and shared vision). Using a cross‐industry sample with lagged data, we find that offshoring has an inverted U‐shaped influence on firm innovativeness and that this relationship is steeper in firms with high TMT informational diversity and in firms with low TMT shared vision. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Empowering leadership in R&D teams: a closer look at its components,process, and outcomes

Empowering leadership in R&D teams has gained increasing popularity as it provides a balance between autonomy and control, encourages member participation and self‐leadership, and benefits creativity and innovation. This research examined the unique influences of two behavior components of empowering leadership: group‐focused empowering leadership and differentiated individual‐focused empowering leadership on R&D team's processes and team effectiveness. Using data from 54 R&D teams, we found that group‐focused empowering leadership is strongly related to intra‐team collaboration, which in turn is positively related to both team innovativeness and performance. Differentiated individual‐focused empowering leadership, however, is positively related to intra‐team competition.