Technical Professionals in Cross-functional Teams: Their Quality of Work Life

The idea that R&;D professionals typically spend a considerable amount of their time working as members of teams makes sense. After all, plenty of research indicates that the use of cross-functional teams improves the effectiveness of product development efforts. However, the increasing use of cross-functional teams raises an important question for researchers and R&;D practitioners: Does the use of cross-functional teams improve the quality of work life for technical professionals?Rene Cordero, George F. Farris, and Nancy DiTomaso address this question in study of 1,714 R&;D professionals working on projects. They suggest that being a member of a cross-functional team may be more demanding than working as a member of a functional project group. On the other hand, they expect that working on a cross-functional project team may be more rewarding than working in a functional project group. Their study tests these hypotheses by examining the relationships between measures of the extent to which respondents work on cross-functional teams and five measures each of the participants’ job demands and positive job outcomes.The study identifies positive relationships between working on cross-functional teams and the five positive job outcomes studied: job growth, job security, membership in successful teams, earning money, and job satisfaction. The study finds less consistent and weaker relationships between working on cross-functional teams and the five job demands studied. Specifically, the study identifies positive relationships between working on cross-functional teams and the following job demands: effort, job involvement, and considering a lot of difference of opinion. The results of this study do not find a conclusive relationship between cross-functional team membership and time pressure. And contrary to expectations, the study finds a negative relationship between working on cross-functional teams and job stress.Comparing the responses of participants who work on project teams with those who do not, the results of the study indicate that respondents who work on project teams face greater job demands than positive job outcomes. However, working on cross-functional teams seems to increase positive job outcomes more than job demands. In other words, working on cross-functional teams appears to increase the quality of work life for the technical professionals in this study.     

Team member experiences in new product development: views from the trenches

Although cross-functional teams are often used for new product development (NPD), many companies struggle to implement them successfully. Through in-depth interviews with 71 team members from 18 companies in a variety of technology-based industries, this study focuses on the experiences of the people who actually do much of the work of NPD (team members) and explores their perceptions and attitudes about cross-functional team assignments. The purpose of our study is to identify the factors that influence and shape NPD team member experiences. Our results suggest that although NPD work can be rewarding and productive, NPD team members are often neglected by other team members, project leaders, and senior management. This sense of neglect has important implications for all of these constituencies, but particularly for senior management.     

Leadership Style: Its Impact on Cross-Functional Product Development

This article reports the results of a study in which cross-functional product development projects in six companies were analyzed. The study was conducted as part of an interdisciplinary research involving technological, organizational, and behavioral analysis. The article draws on an excerpt of the data collected on leadership styles among project managers as well as some data on organizational climate and team learning. Leadership style, especially the leaders' employee orientation, co-varied significantly with how members of the cross-functional teams perceived their work climate and possibilities for innovative learning. The results of the analyses point to the leader's behavior, rather than his power, as an important factor determining the work climate in successful cross-functional product development projects.     

Success Factors for Integrating Suppliers into New Product Development

Faster, better, cheaper—these marching orders summarize the challenge facing new product development (NPD). In other words, NPD teams must find the means for speeding time to market while also improving product quality and reducing product costs. Cross-functional teams have proved effective for meeting these challenges, and such teams may extend beyond company boundaries to include key materials suppliers. Effective integration of suppliers into NPD can yield such benefits as reduced cost and improved quality of purchased materials, reduced product development time, and improved access to and application of technology. As Gary Ragatz, Robert Handfield, and Thomas Scannell point out, however, those benefits do not automatically accrue to any NPD team that includes representatives from a supplier's company. In a study of 60 member companies from the Michigan State University Global Procurement and Supply Chain Electronic Benchmarking Network, they explore the management practices and the environmental factors that relate most closely to successful integration of suppliers into the NPD process. The study identifies supplier membership on the NPD project team as the greatest differentiator between most and least successful integration efforts. Although the respondents reported only moderate use of shared education and training, the study cites this management factor as another significant differentiator between most and least successful efforts. Respondents listed direct, cross-functional, intercompany communication as the most widely used technique for integrating suppliers into NPD. To integrate suppliers into NPD, a company must overcome such barriers as resistance to sharing proprietary information, and the not-invented-here syndrome. The results of this study suggest that overcoming such barriers depends on relationship structuring—that is, shared education and training, formal trust development processes, formalized risk/reward sharing agreements, joint agreement on performance measurements, top management commitment from both companies, and confidence in the supplier's capabilities. Overcoming these barriers also depends on assett sharing, including intellectual assets such as customer requirements, technology information, and cross-functional communication; physical assets such as linked information systems, technology, and shared plant and equipment; and human assets such as supplier participation on the project team and co-location of personnel.     

Knowledge sharing and strategic fit in integrated product development proejcts: An empirical study

While product strategy has been approached from a variety of perspectives, the role of strategic fit as a critical linkage of knowledge sharing practices and new product development outcomes have not been adequately explored. This paper discusses how strategic fit is instrumental for cross-functional teams to integrate product development outcomes. This paper identifies critical knowledge sharing components that enhances the extent of strategic fit that in turn improves the success of product development efforts. Strategic fit or alignment requires knowledge sharing practices of the product development team. Teams with a shared knowledge base are more capable of thinking strategically, adapting their actions to their project environment and accordingly engaging in innovative problem-solving while ultimately achieving project goals of time, cost and value. This paper presents and tests a research model using a sample of 285 product development projects of firms from USA, Canada and Spain. The results suggest that strategic fit is associated with greater knowledge sharing and enhance product development outcomes in both small and large firms as well as diverse regions (i.e., USA, Canada and Spain).     

The Difficult Path to Lean Product Development

Lean product development holds the promise of dramatically improving a company's competitive position. Its implementation offers the potential for faster product development with fewer engineering hours, improved manufacturability of products, higher quality products, fewer production start-up problems, and faster time to market. Of course, all of this improves the likelihood of market success. As Christer Karlsson and Pär Åhlström point out, however, a company attempting to implement lean product development must overcome numerous obstacles. By spending more than 2 years observing and facilitating one company's efforts to make this transition, they were able to identify various factors that either hinder or support the implementation of lean product development. Lean product development comprises numerous interrelated techniques, including supplier involvement, cross-functional teams, concurrent engineering, integration (as opposed to coordination) of various functional aspects of each project, the use of a heavyweight team structure, and strategic management of each development project. However, a company does not achieve lean product development simply by implementing some of these techniques. A successful move toward lean product development requires approaching these interrelated techniques as elements of a coherent whole. As observed in the subject company, several factors can hinder attempts to achieve lean product development. For example, managerial overemphasis on R&D in development projects hampers efforts to achieve cross-functional integration. In other words, creating a team with members from various functions is easier than achieving a cross-functional focus throughout an organization. Similarly, a cross-functional team cannot perform effectively if a sequential view of the development process persists. Factors that support the transition to lean product development include: tight development schedules, which contribute to a must-do attitude; close cooperation with a qualified customer, who can provide vital information as well as challenge the development team; highly competent engineers; and, most important, the active, ongoing support and participation of top management. Most participants in the process examined in this study seemed interested in the possibilities of lean product development, which suggests that motivation to change may not pose a significant problem in similar efforts.     

The Role of Salary and Incentives in the New Product Function

It seems reasonable to expect that a company's reward systems would recognize the importance of the new product function. It also seems reasonable that those systems should take into account the importance of cross-functional teams. Unfortunately, current reality does not meet those reasonable expectations. Laurence P. Feldman presents the results of a 1994 PDMA membership survey on the compensation of new product professionals. This study updates and extends the information collected in his 1990 PDMA survey, and thus meets four objectives: tracking changes in compensation levels since the 1990 survey; assessing the effects of various factors on compensation; examining the structure of non-salary financial incentives; and obtaining information on the extent and types of nonfinancial incentives used with cross-functional teams. The survey results indicate that compensation of new product professionals increased by 9.6% between 1989 and 1993. This compares unfavorably with a Labor Department benchmark of 14.7%. Survey findings indicate that the compensation of technical or scientific people does not differ significantly from that of marketing personnel. A firm's industry classification has a greater influence on compensation level than does a person's role in the new products process. Even more important are such factors as number of people supervised, length of time with the firm, and education level. Respondents indicate that performance-based financial incentives play a minor role in overall compensation. Such incentives gain importance as you move up the ranks of the organization, accounting for slightly more than 20% of total compensation at the vice presidential level. Despite the benefits of using cross-functional teams, compensation programs typically do not reward team efforts. Less than 20% of the respondents who served on such teams reported that any portion of their compensation was directly attributable to their team effort. In most cases, the new product professional's performance is evaluated by a functional manager rather than the team leader or project leader. In place of financial rewards for contributions to a team effort, companies often use nonfinancial rewards such as plaques, hoping to minimize the effect of possible errors in judging performance.     

Investigation of Factors Contributing to the Success of Cross-Functional Teams

Although recent empirical research shows that most firms have implemented cross‐functional teams for the majority of the new product development projects undertaken, they are still finding it hard to ensure that these teams are successful in completing the new product development task. In this article, the author first reviews the vast literature on cross‐functional new product development teams to uncover the array of factors that have previously been demonstrated or hypothesized to relate to cross‐functional team success, when measured at the project level. He then analyzes the responses of 112 new product development professionals to determine which factors are more frequently mentioned as leading to project success. In looking at how to achieve successful teams, many factors have been suggested in the literature by a number of different researchers. The author suggests a model of these factors that divides them into three categories that help achieve success. Setting the stage for product development by developing appropriate project goals, empowering the team with the needed decision‐making power, assigning the appropriate human resources, and creating a productive climate should be related to fostering team success. Of these four factors, appropriate project goals is mentioned most often as being associated with success, followed by empowerment. Several specific team behaviors, including cooperation, commitment to the project, ownership of the project, and respect and trust among team members, also have been posited to contribute to team success. Of these, this research finds that cooperation is mentioned most often as being associated with success, followed by commitment and ownership. Finally, a number of researchers have suggested that team leaders, senior managers, and champions provide enabling support to cross‐functional teams in achieving success. Team leadership is the most frequently mentioned enabler, according to these findings, followed by senior management support. The author's results also show that increased use of cross‐functional teams in new product development is related to higher project success. However, achieving cross‐functional team success appears to be more complicated than previously thought. For example, across the set of factors identified in this research, the most frequently mentioned is obtaining the team behavior of cooperation. Setting appropriate project goals, a stage‐setting step that is completed early in the project, follows closely in relative importance. Finally, providing good team leadership as an enabler is the third most frequently mentioned factor in achieving success. This suggests that companies must work in all dimensions to maximize the probability of achieving team success.     

Antecedents and Consequences of Cross-Functional Cooperation: A Comparison of R&D, Manufacturing, and Marketing Perspectives

By breaking down the walls among the R&D, manufacturing, and marketing functions, techniques such as concurrent engineering and quality function deployment can pave the way to more effective new product development (NPD). Recognizing the benefits of such cross-functional efforts, practitioners and researchers have examined the interrelationships among various groups in the NPD process, paying particularly close attention to the R&D–marketing interface. However, manufacturing also plays an important role in NPD. Consequently, any thorough exploration of the relationship between cross-functional cooperation and NPD success must consider manufacturing's perspective. X. Michael Song, Mitzi M. Montoya-Weiss, and Jeffrey B. Schmidt provide such a balanced perspective in a study of cross-functional cooperation during NPD in Mexican high-tech firms. Notwithstanding the differing functional goals, objectives, and reward systems present in R&D, manufacturing and marketing, they hypothesize that all three functions recognize that successful NPD requires crossfunctional cooperation. In particular, they expect that representatives of these three functional groups will share similar perceptions, regarding both the drivers and the consequences of cross-functional cooperation. The survey results support the hypothesis that R&D, manufacturing, and marketing professionals share the same perceptions, regarding the drivers and the consequences of cross-functional cooperation. Respondents from all three groups view internal facilitators as the drivers of cross-functional cooperation. In other words, regardless of their functional area, the survey respondents believe that the strongest, most direct effects on cross-functional cooperation and NPD performance come from a firm's evaluation criteria, reward structures, and management expectations. Respondents perceive these internal facilitators as having a greater effect on cross-functional cooperation than that of external forces such as market competitiveness and technological change. In fact, contrary to expectations, the respondents do not view these external forces as having a significant effect on cross-functional cooperation or NPD performance. And contrary to persistent reports about friction between technical and nontechnical personnel, all three groups perceive a strong, positive relationship between cross-functional communication and NPD performance.     

Managing integration and coordination in cross‐functional teams: an international study of Concurrent Engineering product development

This study is about the influence of integration and coordination of organisational mechanisms on the effectiveness of the process of product development by cross-functional teams. The sample consists of 50 cross-national Concurrent Engineering (CE) project teams, from companies in Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, UK, and USA, in the technology intensive industries of aerospace, automobile, chemical, computer, electronics, shipbuilding, and telecommunications. The study offers a diagnostic tool which measures the effectiveness of the Concurrent Engineering team's process in terms of the behaviours and attitudes of the engineering/R&D and manufacturing representatives on the product development team: (a) two-way communication, (b) overlapping problems-solving, (c) readiness to use uncertain and ambiguous information released by team counterparts for decision-making, and (d) readiness to release uncertain and ambiguous information to team counterparts. The findings of the study are that integration mechanisms, such as team-based rewards and job rotation, and coordination mechanisms, such as project structure and information technology, and project leader's management style, support an effective team process, and overcome the negative effect of geographic distance and time-difference in cross-national teams. In addition, there are interesting implications for organisational learning in the practice of Concurrent Engineering for product development, and of the implications of these findings for practice and future research.     

The effectiveness of different mechanisms for integrating marketing and R&D

The integration of marketing and R&D is a major concern for companies that want to improve their new product performance (NPP). For this integration, companies are using mechanisms such as physical proximity, cross-functional teams, and job rotation. This study examines the effectiveness of these mechanisms by developing a model that distinguishes between indirect effects of mechanisms on NPP (i.e., through a higher level of integration) and direct effects. The model is tested with data collected from 148 pharmaceutical companies. We were able to measure and compare the effectiveness of seven different integration mechanisms, which produced insights that are interesting and relevant for theory as well as practice.
We found that housing marketing and R&D closer to each other and using an influential cross-functional phase review board are the most effective mechanisms to foster integration. Equal remuneration and career opportunities for marketing and R&D and cross-functional teams are somewhat less effective, whereas personnel movement and informal social group events contribute little. ICT appears to be a very effective tool for enhancing NPP. ICT not only fosters integration between marketing and R&D, but it also has an independent direct positive effect on NPP. Through ICT the day-to-day communication between the different parties in the companies becomes much easier, and we think that this fosters the knowledge creation process within marketing and R&D. For cross-functional phase review boards we found a negative direct effect on NPP. Notwithstanding its strong positive effect on integration, a price is paid in terms of NPP. This may be related to the amount of formalization and complexity accompanying this mechanism.     

Managing the Unexpected Across Space: Improvisation,Dispersion, and Performance in NPD Teams

Organizations are increasingly moving toward a team‐based structure for managing complex knowledge in new product development (NPD) projects. Such teams operate in an environment characterized by dynamic project requirements and emergent nonroutine issues, which can undermine their ability to achieve project objectives. Team improvisation—a collective, spontaneous, and creative action for identifying novel solutions to emergent problems—has been identified as a key team‐situated response to unexpected challenges to NPD team effectiveness. Geographic dispersion is increasingly becoming a reality for NPD teams that find themselves needing to improvise solutions to emergent challenges while attempting to leverage the knowledge of team members who are physically distributed across various locations. However, very little is known about how teams' improvisational actions affect performance when such actions are executed in increasingly dispersed teams. To address this gap in the literature, this paper draws on the emerging literature on different forms and degrees of team dispersion to understand how team improvisation affects team performance in such teams. In particular this paper takes into account both the structural and psychological facets of dispersion by considering the physical distance between team members, the configuration of the team across different sites, as well as the team members' perception of being distant from their teammates. Responses from 299 team leaders and team members of 71 NPD projects in the software industry were used to analyze the relationship between team improvisation and team performance, as well as the moderating effect of the three different conceptualizations of team dispersion. Results of the study indicate that team improvisation has a positive influence on project team performance by allowing team members to respond to unexpected challenges through creative and timely action. However, increasing degrees of team member dispersion (both structural and psychological) attenuate this relationship by making it difficult to have timely access to other team members' knowledge and by limiting real‐time interactions that may lead to the development of creative solutions. The results of this research offer guidance to managers about when to balance the desire to leverage expertise to cope with unexpected events. Moreover, the present paper provides directions for future research on improvisation and team dispersion. Future research is encouraged to investigate factors that may help highly dispersed teams to overcome the shortcomings of team dispersion in dealing with emergent events.     

Communication Flows in International Product Innovation Teams

Recently, we have witnessed a strong growth in the internationalization of many firms' product development activities. However, the lack of attention devoted by scientific research to the management of international innovation contrasts sharply with the importance attached to it as a cornerstone of international business success. Although several empirical studies and normative theories have specified the communication requirements in innovation teams, an empirically based insight is definitely needed on the communication requirements and requirements that prevail in the complex context of international innovation teams, in which the participants are located in different company units, countries, and cultures. This article addresses the following research question: viewing international innovation as an interfunctional activity, what are the communication requirements an international innovation team is facing, and what are the communication capabilities (interface mechanisms) that may be adopted to initiate, develop, and launch the new product effectively and efficiently? An extensive case study research project was designed to develop a comprehensive theoretical framework. Over a two year time period, the research team has investigated selected innovation projects in four European multinational corporations. The analysis of the case study data suggests five requirements that determine the effectiveness and efficiency of communication in international product development teams: network transparency, knowledge codification, knowledge credibility, communication cost, secrecy. To cope with these communication requirements, organizations may create firm level capabilities (parallel structures, cross‐functional and inter‐unit climate, communication infrastructure, goal congruence) and team level capabilities (core team, team leadership, formalization, procedural justice). The evidence from the in‐depth case study research indicates that these mechanisms provide a parsimonious and powerful approach to address the communication requirements in international product innovation teams. After the information processing framework proposed by Tushman and Nadler [124], the adoption of these mechanisms is expected to improve innovation effectiveness. This holds important consequences for the management of international product innovation projects. First, the innovating firm must balance centralization and decentralization, employ formal as well as informal strategies, and integrate ad‐hoc and permanent strategies. Second, it highlights the critical role of the project leader. Given the fact that companies often select the most available person, rather than the best person for the job, the allocation of light weight project leaders may create heavyweight problems in international teams. Third, following the argument in favor of procedural justice, the absence of involvement may severely hinder cross‐functional commitment to international innovation projects. Fourth, the innovating firm must also actively manage the communication flows with external parties. Failure to do so may result in flawed specifications, and a limited understanding about product design and market strategies.     

Product Development and Learning in Project Teams: The Challenges Are the Benefits*

The value of teams in new product development (NPD) is undeniable. Both the interdisciplinary nature of the work and industry trends necessitate that professionals from different functions work together on development projects to create the highest‐quality product in the shortest time. Understanding the conditions that facilitate teamwork has been a pursuit of researchers for nearly a half century. The present paper reviews existing literature on teams and team learning in organizational behavior and technology and innovation to offer insights for research on NPD teams. Building on prior work, the organizational benefits of NPD teams are summarized, and five attributes of these teams are identified that hinder attainment of their potential: (1) project complexity; (2) cross‐functionality; (3) temporary membership; (4) fluid team boundaries; and (5) embeddedness in organizational structures. It is argued here that effective management of these five attributes allows not only organization‐level benefits but also team‐level benefits in the form of new capabilities and team member resilience. The critical roles of leadership and of communication and conflict management training are then highlighted as strategies for overcoming the challenges to team effectiveness in NPD as well as for realizing five team benefits: (1) project management skills; (2) broad perspective; (3) teaming skills; (4) expanded social network; and (5) boundary‐spanning skills. The paper concludes with a discussion of the implications of these ideas for conducting future team research.     

Bringing Employees Closer: The Effect of Proximity on Communication When Teams Function under Time Pressure

Some studies have assumed close proximity to improve team communication on the premise that reduced physical distance increases the chance of contact and information exchange. However, research showed that the relationship between team proximity and team communication is not always straightforward and may depend on some contextual conditions. Hence, this study was designed with the purpose of examining how a contextual condition like time pressure may influence the relationship between team proximity and team communication. In this study, time pressure was conceptualized as a two‐dimensional construct: challenge time pressure and hindrance time pressure, such that each has different moderating effects on the proximity–communication relationship. The research was conducted with 81 new product development (NPD) teams (437 respondents) in Western Europe (Belgium, England, France, Germany, and the Netherlands). These teams functioned in short‐cycled industries and developed innovative products for the consumer, electronic, semiconductor, and medical sectors. The unit of analysis was a team, which could be from a single‐team or a multiteam project. Results showed that challenge time pressure moderates the relationship between team proximity and team communication such that this relationship improves for teams that experience high rather than low challenge time pressure. Hindrance time pressure moderates the relationship between team proximity and team communication such that this relationship improves for teams that experience low rather than high hindrance time pressure. Our findings contribute to theory in two ways. First, this study showed that challenge and hindrance time pressure differently influences the benefits of team proximity toward team communication in a particular work context. We found that teams under high hindrance time pressure do not benefit from close proximity, given the natural tendency for premature cognitive closure and the use of avoidance coping tactics when problems surface. Thus, simply reducing physical distances is unlikely to promote communication if motivational or human factors are neglected. Second, this study demonstrates the strength of the challenge–hindrance stressor framework in advancing theory and explaining inconsistencies. Past studies determined time pressure by considering only its levels without distinguishing the type of time pressure. We suggest that this study might not have been able to uncover the moderating effects of time pressure if we had conceptualized time pressure in the conventional way.     

A model of R&D leadership and team communication: the relationship with project performance

Industrial research and development (R&D) involves the processing and transformation of new knowledge into a commercially valuable outcome. Communication is an effective mechanism to translate, share and integrate new information into commercial products or processes. We developed a five-factor model of team communication comprising: leadership role performance, team boundary spanning, communication safety, team reflexivity and task communication and tested the model using a one-year longitudinal study. Analyses were conducted on team level data from 56 teams, comprising 350 employees. Independent measures of project performance were obtained from surveys of research managers as well as project customers. Three findings emerged. Different factors predicted different stakeholders' ratings of project performance. Communication safety was the strongest predictor of customer ratings of performance. Boundary spanning is most effective when performed by the project leader not the team.     

Who Knows What in NPD Teams: Communication Context,Mode, and Task Contingencies

The use of cross‐functional teams in new product development (NPD) benefits firms in many ways. One benefit is the diverse knowledge team members bring to the project, but that benefit can only be appreciated if team members fully utilize and integrate the differentiated expertise of members. As reliance on cross‐functional NPD teams grows, however, firms struggle to exploit the full potential of functionally diverse groups, the biggest obstacle being integrating team members' varied knowledge, expertise, and abilities. Therefore, understanding how information is integrated and used is a primary concern for both practitioners and researchers. Databases and other forms of hard data are methods team members can use to effectively share and integrate knowledge; another method based on social cognition is transactive memory systems (TMS). TMS indicates who will learn what and from whom. The notion is that knowledge is distributed among people in the group, and to make effective use of it, individuals need to know who knows what and who knows who knows what. Grounded in the knowledge‐based theory of the firm, this study investigates the influence of different communication contexts and modes on TMS under different NPD task environments (i.e., exploitation and exploration) in cross‐functional NPD teams. A theoretical model is developed and empirically tested using data collected from 272 ongoing NPD teams of 128 Chinese high‐tech companies. Findings suggest that when teams face tasks defined by exploration, informal communication and face‐to‐face communication are positively associated with TMS, whereas for tasks defined by exploitation, formal communication and computer‐mediated communication are positively related with TMS. Additionally, this study found that TMS is positively related to NPD performance both in terms of project performance and in terms of market performance. Based on these findings, theoretical and managerial implications are drawn regarding resource deployment that encourages the development of effective TMS leading to successful NPD projects.     

The role of functional and demographic diversity on new product creativity and the moderating impact of project uncertainty

Earlier studies have shown inconsistency in the impact of team diversity on the effective functioning of New Product Development (NPD) teams. This inconsistency has been attributed to the insufficient amount of research on a possible complex (non-monotonic) relationship between team diversity and team performance and the possible boundary conditions of this relationship. Addressing numerous calls for future studies on these issues, we examined whether an inverted-U relationship exists between team diversity (i.e., functional and demographic) and its outcomes (i.e., new product creativity), using project uncertainty as a key moderator. The results of an empirical study with a sample of 103 new product development teams showed an inverted U-shaped functional diversity–new product creativity relationship. Moreover, the results showed that the direct relationship between functional diversity and new product creativity was stronger when project uncertainty was high as opposed to when it was low. On the other hand, the direct relationship between demographic diversity and new product creativity was weaker when project uncertainty was high as opposed to when it was low.     

Action, reflection, and learning – coaching in order to enhance the performance of drug development project management teams

High-performing project teams are crucial for effective research and development (R&D). To become high performing, teams need to make use of their different skills and reflect upon their collective actions, thereby combining knowledge that could lead to value-adding activities for the company. This article describes the use of team coaching in supporting team reflection and learning in global R&D project teams. A collaborative research approach was used during the 8 months of coaching, with several inquiry methods being employed. The results indicate that coaching interventions have a positive effect on team performance, both from an efficiency perspective as well as from a creativity and climate perspective. Practical and theoretical implications are discussed, as is future research.     

Examining cross-functional coopetition as a driver of organizational ambidexterity

Despite the growing number of articles on coopetition, research in the area still lacks insights into this phenomenon on an intraorganizational level. Therefore, this study examines the effect of cross-functional, firm-internal coopetition on organizational ambidexterity (i.e., exploitation and exploration) and the moderating role of social cohesion. Drawing on organizational learning theory and analyzing survey data obtained from 392 department heads and project leaders of new product development teams, we demonstrate that cross-functional coopetition has a significant positive effect on exploratory innovation. Moreover, we find support for the moderating influence of social cohesion on the relationship between coopetition and exploitative innovation. These results not only provide valuable insights for managers in the fields of new product development and innovation, they also highlight the need for further research on the dynamic interplay of competitive and cooperative elements within firms.