A multilevel investigation of factors influencing creativity in NPD teams

Understanding creativity in the context of a new product development (NPD) team is of paramount importance, especially in the high-technology industry where creativity is a key resource. Building on the mood-as-input model, this study examines how contextual factors (organizational support and organizational control) moderate the relationship between team affective tone and team creativity. The data collected comprise 343 sets of responses involving 106 NPD teams drawn from high-technology firms. The results of this study show that negative affective tone relates positively to team creativity when organizational support is high and organizational control is low, but the linkage between positive affective tone and team creativity as moderated by context factors is found to be insignificant. This article likewise includes research limitations, future research directions, and theoretical and managerial implications.     

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.     

Cross-Functional Teams: Good Concept, Poor Implementation!

Since the late 1970s there has been a substantial increase in the use of teams in the product development process. However, even as more manufacturing firms are initiating the use of teams, their value is being questioned by firms that have used teams for years. Based on interviews in dozens of U.S. firms, John Henke, Richard Krachenberg, and Thomas Lyons suggest that most firms are not using teams as effectively and efficiently as they could and should be. In an attempt to overcome this shortcoming, the article discusses the system's characteristics and organizational implications of the multifunctional product development team, including the benefits linked to the use of teams; the current state of team design, and where improvements can be made; and team–people issues, including communications, decision-making processes, and leadership styles. Specific suggestions on what must be done to improve team effectiveness are also discussed. Finally and most importantly, the article discusses what firms are doing, often inadvertently, to discourage the future use of teams and how these activities can be overcome to maintain the continued viability of teams over the long run.     

Increasing Learning and Time Efficiency in Interorganizational New Product Development Teams*

Despite the growing popularity of new product development across organizational boundaries, the processes, mechanisms, or dynamics that leverage performance in interorganizational (I‐O) product development teams are not well understood. Such teams are staffed with individuals drawn from the partnering firms and are relied on to develop successful new products while at the same time enhancing mutual learning and reducing development time. However, these collaborations can encounter difficulties when partners from different corporate cultures and thought worlds must coordinate and depend on one another and often lead to disappointing performance. To facilitate collaboration, the creation of a safe, supportive, challenging, and engaging environment is particularly important for enabling productive collaborative I‐O teamwork and is essential for learning and time efficient product development. This research develops and tests a model of proposed factors to increase both learning and time efficiency on I‐O new product teams. It is argued that specific behaviors (caring), beliefs (psychological safety), task‐related processes (shared problem solving), and governance mechanisms (clear management direction) create a positive climate that increases learning and time efficiency on I‐O teams. Results of an empirical study of 50 collaborative new product development projects indicate that (1) shared problem solving and caring behavior support both learning and time efficiency on I‐O teams, (2) team psychological safety is positively related to learning, (3) management direction is positively associated with time efficiency, and (4) shared problem solving is more strongly related to both performance dimensions than are the other factors. The factors supporting time efficiency are slightly different from those that foster learning. The relative importance of these factors also differs considerably for both performance aspects. Overall, this study contributes to a better understanding of the factors that facilitate a favorable environment for productive collaboration on I‐O teams, which go beyond contracts or top‐management supervision. Establishing such an environment can help to balance management concerns and promote the success of I‐O teams. The significance of the results is elevated by the fragility of collaborative ventures and their potential for failure, when firms with different organizational cultures, thought worlds, objectives, and intentions increasingly decide to work across organizational boundaries for the development of new products.     

Can You Hear Me Now? Communication in Virtual Product Development Teams*

Globalization and technological advances are driving organizations to extend the boundaries of new product development (NPD) teams from traditional colocated settings to dispersed or virtual settings. Virtual NPD teams have a wide array of information and communication technologies (ICTs) at their disposal. ICTs allow team members to communicate and collaborate as they cope with the opportunities and challenges of cross‐boundary work. The purpose of this paper is to explore ICT use by members of virtual NPD teams. This study presents an exploratory test and integration of two competing perspectives of media use in virtual teams: media capacity theories and social dynamic media theories. Specifically, this paper examines the role of task type, organizational context, and ICT type as critical contingency variables affecting ICT use. It also examines how different patterns of ICT use relate to individual perceptions of team performance. The findings from this study of 184 members of virtual NPD teams in three global firms suggest that communication via ICTs in virtual NPD teams is contingent on a range of factors.     

New Product Development Practices and Early‐Stage Firms: Two In‐Depth Case Studies

New product development practices (NPD) have been well studied for decades in large, established companies. Implementation of best practices such as predevelopment market planning and cross‐functional teams have been positively correlated with product and project success over a variety of measures. However, for small new ventures, field research into ground‐level adoption of NPD practices is lacking. Because of the risks associated with missteps in new product development and the potential for firm failure, understanding NPD within the new venture context is critical. Through in‐depth case research, this paper investigates two successful physical product‐based early‐stage firms' development processes versus large established firm norms. The research focuses on the start‐up adoption of commonly prescribed management processes to improve NPD, such as cross‐functional teams, use of market planning during innovation development, and the use of structured processes to guide the development team. This research has several theoretical implications. The first finding is that in comparing the innovation processes of these firms to large, established firms, the study found several key differences from the large firm paradigm. These differences in development approach from what is prescribed for large, established firms are driven by necessity from a scarcity of resources. These new firms simply did not have the resources (financial or human) to create multi‐ or cross‐functional teams or organizations in the traditional sense for their first product. Use of virtual resources was pervasive. Founders also played multiple roles concurrently in the organization, as opposed to relying on functional departments so common in large firms. The NPD process used by both firms was informal—much more skeletal than commonly recommended structured processes. The data indicated that these firms put less focus on managing the process and more emphasis on managing their goals (the main driver being getting the first product to market). In addition to little or no written procedures being used, development meetings did not run to specific paper‐based deliverables or defined steps. In terms of market and user insight, these activities were primarily performed inside the core team—using methods that again were distinctive in their approach. What drove a project to completion was relying on team experience or a “learn as you go approach.” Again, the driver for this type of truncated market research approach was a lack of resources and need to increase the project's speed‐to‐market. Both firms in our study were highly successful, from not only an NPD efficiency standpoint but also effectiveness. The second broad finding we draw from this work is that there are lessons to be learned from start‐ups for large, established firms seeking ever‐increasing efficiency. We have found that small empowered teams leading projects substantial in scope can be extremely effective when roles are expanded, decision power is ground‐level, and there is little emphasis on defined processes. This exploratory research highlights the unique aspects of NPD within small early‐stage firms, and highlights areas of further research and management implications for both small new ventures and large established firms seeking to increase NPD efficiency and effectiveness.     

Collapsing New Product Development Times: Six Case Studies

Today's customers are sophisticated. They demand product variety, functionality and performance. To survive in this arena, successful companies in a global economy must rapidly introduce new products (new product lines or improvements to existing lines) by collapsing their product development times. Vincent Mabert, John Muth and Roger Schmenner report results from a comparative case study of six new product introduction projects at six different firms, identifying those elements that are important to product introduction lead time and how they are influenced by customer and organizational and technical factors. They note that the new product innovation process is very complex, sensitive to external forces like customer demands or expectations and to internal issues like how team leadership is defined for the development team. The article describes the participating companies and analyzes the six projects with particular attention to four structural elements: motivation, workings of teams, external vendor's cooperation with the teams and project control. The authors conclude by identifying the top priority factors influencing new product introduction time.     

An analysis of predictors of team satisfaction in product development teams with differing levels of virtualness

The purpose of this study is to empirically examine and assess the moderating effects of extent of virtualness on a variety of well-established predictors of new product development team satisfaction. We focus our study on 178 different new product development teams from a variety of industries and use extent of virtualness as a structural characteristic of the teams, measuring it on a continuum. The predictors of team satisfaction we studied are relationship conflict, familiarity, goal clarity and preference for group work. Primary findings include: (1) relationship conflict has a more deleterious effect on team member satisfaction as teams become more virtual, mainly because it is very difficult for team members of virtual teams to resolve their interpersonal disputes; (2) the relationship between preference for group work and team satisfaction is moderated by extent of virtualness, such that preference for group work increases team satisfaction more as virtualness increases; (3) goal clarity and familiarity are not moderated by extent of virtualness, but have a significant direct effect on team satisfaction. Managerial and research implications of these findings relative to new product development teams are also discussed.     

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 Unlearning in New Product Development Teams

Unlearning, which first appeared almost 30 years ago as a subprocess of the organizational learning process, has received only limited attention in the literature. Rather than building on empirical research, the existing scholarship is largely anecdotal, aimed at reviewing the literature and generating new insights. Further, unlearning studies tend to analyze the organizational level and neglect smaller units such as work groups and teams. To address this gap in the understanding of unlearning, this article empirically investigates unlearning in work groups in general and new product development (NPD) teams in particular. This study, based on the literature of organizational memory and change, operationalized team unlearning as changes in beliefs and routines during team‐based projects and then discussed the importance of unlearning behavior in NPD teams. Specifically it was argued that unlearning guards beliefs and routines against rigidity to cope with environmental turbulence. This is of particular note when rigid product development procedures and group beliefs inhibit the reception and evaluation of new market and technology information and reduce the value of perceived new information. To test the antecedents and consequences of the team unlearning model, 319 NPD teams were investigated. Using structural equation modeling, it was found that (1) team crisis and anxiety have a direct impact on team unlearning; (2) environmental turbulence also has a direct impact on both team crisis and anxiety and team unlearning; and (3) after team beliefs and project routines have changed, implementing new knowledge or information positively affects new product success. Specifically, the findings revealed that changes in team members' collective beliefs in accordance with environmental changes and the in‐process planning or adjustment of project work activities and procedures as the projects evolve enable teams to develop and launch new products successfully. Also, results indicated that team crisis and anxiety in NPD projects assist team members in revising their previous beliefs and routines when project teams are performing in turbulent environments. This article suggests that managers can enhance team unlearning by (1) creating a sense of urgency by introducing an artificial crisis; and (2) avoiding the groupthink phenomena by bringing in an outsider to challenge existing policies and procedures, and training the team on lateral thinking. In addition, managers can plan project activities in a flexible manner that allows changes as the project evolves to facilitate team unlearning. However, managers should also be cautious when promoting team unlearning. Without careful and considerable evaluation, change in beliefs and routines can cause information/knowledge loss.     

Entrepreneurial Orientation and Firm Performance: Drawing Attention to the Senior Team

Prior studies have argued entrepreneurial orientation (EO) plays an important role in explaining firm performance. This study aims to assess how senior team attributes moderate the relationship between EO and firm performance. For this purpose, an attention‐based perspective is adopted, focusing on attention scope as well as distributed and situated attention. By considering the role of senior team heterogeneity in broadening the attention scope of senior teams and the role of senior team shared vision in aligning distributed attention across organizational functions, this research investigates how senior teams may enhance the value‐creating potential of EO. In addition, we assess situated attention by including the notion of environmental dynamism and examining whether the role of the senior team attributes is contingent upon environmental conditions. Using a time‐lagged sample of 346 firms operating in various industries, we find that senior team heterogeneity helps firms to leverage their EO and improve their performance. Moreover, once environmental conditions are taken into account, results indicate that the absence of heterogeneity at senior team level may be particularly detrimental for firms operating in stable environments. The direct moderating effect of shared vision on the relationship between EO and performance is not substantiated. However, senior team shared vision has a positive impact for firms operating in dynamic environments, providing a premium for firms aiming to realize the inherent value of EO. Our research provides important implications for senior teams aiming to leverage their EO into increased firm performance. Evidence shows that while a heterogeneous team composition and senior team shared vision may provide several benefits, these advantages may fluctuate across environmental conditions.     

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.     

An investigation of the use of global, virtual, and colocated new product development teams

This paper presents the results of an investigation of differences between global, virtual and colocated new product development (NPD) teams. Specifically, we examined whether and how these three types of teams differed in terms of usage, challenges, and performance. A survey of PDMA members was undertaken to collect the data. Out of 103 firms participating in the survey, 54 had used or were using global teams for some of their NPD efforts. Overall, we found that the use of global teams in our respondent firms is rapidly increasing. Our respondents indicated that by the year 2001, approximately one out of every five NPD teams in their companies are likely to be global. However, our respondents also expect that their companies will be using multiple types of teams that is, global, virtual, and colocated, to develop their new products. Our findings also suggest that global teams generally face greater behavioral and project management challenges than either colocated or virtual teams. Global team performance is also lower than the performance of virtual or colocated teams. Are these challenges associated with poorer performance? In examining this question, our results suggest that greater project management challenges are associated with lower performance, for all three types of teams. Surprisingly, behavioral challenges were not associated with performance for any team type. Our results suggest that firms face different problems associated with managing each type of NPD team—global, virtual and colocated. To effectively manage each type of team may, in turn, require that companies and their managers employ different solutions to these different problems. Additionally, companies may find that the preparation they provide to their managers and team members to work in these different team environments may also need to be different. Further research is clearly needed to address these managerial implications.     

From Empowerment Dynamics to Team Adaptability: Exploring and Conceptualizing the Continuous Agile Team Innovation Process

To foster their innovation teams’ adaptability, organizations are increasingly relying on agile teams. While research on the adoption of agile methods and practices has grown tremendously in the past decade, little is currently known about the human side of agile teams and how it contributes toward the emergence of adaptability. While the Agile Manifesto states that individuals and interactions are more important for agile product development than tools and processes, research on how these interactions unfold is still in its infancy. To shed light on the human side of adaptability, 44 semi-structured, in-depth interviews were conducted with team members and leaders from various teams at three organizations (i.e., two German and one multinational European firm). The inductive analysis identified empowerment as a focal human factor for adaptability emergence. A model of the continuous agile team innovation process is developed and uncovers the importance of dynamic empowerment states and their temporary equilibria for team adaptability. The underlying findings demonstrate that empowerment is not a static state, but rather emerges through the interactions between various actors. Specifically, the team and its leader engage in both empowerment-enhancing and empowerment-reducing activities. These activities are further influenced by the agile team’s immediate context: Two-fold customer influences, that is, supporting and hindering empowerment interactions, and the organizational environment, that is, undergoing an agile transformation and supportive top management behaviors, play an important role in affecting the empowerment dynamics that result in team adaptability. As such, this study contributes to the innovation and management literatures by revealing the dynamic role of the empowerment and adaptability constructs for agile innovation processes and the importance of various actors and the organizational environment for fostering adaptability. Practical insights are offered to management, teams, and team members on how to create conditions for empowerment dynamics and consequently adaptability to unfold.     

Antecedents and consequences of team sensemaking capability in product development projects

With the increasing popularity of organizational sensemaking in the literature, sensemaking capability of firms attracts many researchers and practitioners from different fields. Nevertheless, sensemaking capability is rarely addressed in the new product development (NPD) project teams in the technology and innovation management literature. Specifically, we know little about what team sensemaking capability is, its ingredients and benefits, and how it works in NPD projects (e.g., its antecedents and consequences). By investigating 92 NPD project teams, we found that (1) team sensemaking capability, which is composed of internal and external communication, information gathering, information classification, building shared mental models, and taking experimental actions, has a positive impact on the information implementation and speed‐to‐market; (2) information implementation and speed‐to‐market mediate the relationship between team sensemaking capability and new product success; and (3) team sensemaking capability mediates the relationship between team processes and information implementation and partially mediates the relationship between team processes and speed‐to‐market. We also found that team autonomy, interpersonal trust among team members, and open‐mindedness of team members positively influence the development of team sensemaking capability. Theoretical and managerial implications of the study findings are discussed.     

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.     

Soaking It Up: Absorptive Capacity in Interorganizational New Product Development Teams

Prior research has acknowledged the importance of an organization's absorptive capacity—the ability to acquire new knowledge and information, assimilate, transform, and exploit it—for innovation purposes. Because innovations are usually developed by project teams, this suggests that absorptive capacity, as a construct, may also be usefully applied at the team level. Consequently, this study developed a measure for team‐level absorptive capacity, investigated the potential influencing factors, and examined its relationship to team effectiveness in terms of product innovativeness in an interorganizational context. Specifically, building on the theory of homophily and information and decision‐making theories, three factors (social‐category similarity, work‐style similarity, and knowledge complementarity between the recipient and the partner organization teams) were identified as likely antecedents of team absorptive capacity. The hypotheses were tested on data from 98 interorganizational new product development teams and included responses from team members, team leaders, and team‐external managers. With regard to the antecedents of team absorptive capacity in interorganizational settings, the results showed a significant positive association with partners' work‐style similarity and an inverted U‐shaped relationship with partners' knowledge complementarity. Social‐category similarity was not significantly associated with team absorptive capacity. We also examined whether team absorptive capacity was related to interorganizational team effectiveness and found a significant positive relationship between team absorptive capacity and product innovativeness. The study demonstrates that absorptive is indeed related to team effectiveness outcomes in an interorganizational context, which underlines the importance of team‐level absorptive capacity for product innovation management and suggests paying more attention to the lower levels of absorptive capacity.     

Stacking the deck: the effects of top management backgrounds on investor decisions

Young firms going public are dependent upon the decisions of investors for a successful public offering. Yet convincing investors to invest is not easy, as young firms have limited track records and, thus, face challenges associated with gaining legitimacy in their respective industries. This paper examines ways in which select information about firms undertaking an initial public offering (IPO) can affect investor decisions. Building upon recent research on upper echelons and signaling theory, we propose that the composition of a firm's top management team can signal organizational legitimacy that in turn affects investor decisions. In the context of young firms undertaking an IPO, such signals are critical, especially when objective measures of firm quality are not easily available. We introduce a typology of signals of organizational legitimacy to elaborate on our hypotheses. Analyses of a comprehensive set of data on the career histories of the top management teams of young biotechnology firms show that investor decisions are affected by the extent to which a firm's top management team has employment affiliations with prominent downstream organizations (e.g., pharmaceutical companies), with a diverse range of organizations, and upon the role experience of one key member of the top management team—the Chief Scientific Officer. We assess and find that these effects are not mediated by the prestige of a firm's lead underwriter. We conclude with a discussion of the implications of our study for strategy research on upper echelons and organizational legitimacy. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The Impact of Organizational Integration and Product Development Proficiency on Market Success

This research investigates three major hypotheses important to new product market success: the greater organizational integration during the development of new products, the greater the market success; the greater organizational integration during the development of new products, the greater new product development proficiency; and the greater new product development proficiency, the greater the market success. “Organizational integration” is defined as the degree of cooperation and communication between internal and external NPD “support” groups and NPD teams. “NPD process proficiency” is defined as how well new product development stages and the new product development process as a whole is performed. “New product market success” is represented by four measures: the degree to which profits and sales exceeded or fell short of what was expected, and the degree to which the new product was perceived to exceed or fall short of expectations related to entering existing and new markets. Information was obtained concerning the most and least successful new products of U.S. firms in the medical instruments, the electrical equipment, and the heavy construction equipment industries. The field survey approach was utilized in which surveys were mailed to recipients such as new product development managers who already had been designated by executives of the sample firms. Several important findings were uncovered during this research. Overall organizational integration was found to be significantly associated with new product market success. Internal integration, the coordination between new product development teams and functional departments, was found to be significantly related to product market success. A significant relationship between new product development proficiency during the NPD “post-launch stage” and the degree of integration between an NPD team and external NPD organizations, such as customers and suppliers, was detected. During the post-launch stage, new product development proficiency also was found to be significantly related to new product market success. These findings suggest several important implications for new product development managers and scholars.     

What Makes a Family Firm Innovative? CEO Risk‐Taking Propensity and the Organizational Context of Family Firms

Investigating the new product portfolio innovativeness of family firms connects two important topics that have recently received considerable attention in innovation and family firm research. First, new product portfolio innovativeness has been identified as a critical determinant of firm performance. Second, research on family firms has focused on the questions of if and why family firms are more or less innovative than other organizational forms. Research investigating the innovativeness of family firms has often applied a risk‐oriented perspective by identifying socioemotional wealth (SEW) as the main reference that determines firm behavior. Thus, prior research has mainly focused on the organizational context to predict innovation‐related family firm behavior and neglected the impact of preferences and the behavior of the chief executive officer (CEO), which have both been shown to affect firm outcomes. Hence, this study aims to extend the previous research by introducing the CEO's disposition to organizational context variables to explain the new product portfolio innovativeness of small and medium‐sized family firms. Specifically, this study explores how the organizational context (i.e., ownership by top management team [TMT] family members and generation in charge of the family firm) of family firms interacts with CEO risk‐taking propensity to affect new product portfolio innovativeness. Using a sample of 114 German CEOs of small and medium‐sized family firms operating in manufacturing industries, the results show that CEO risk‐taking propensity has a positive effect on new product portfolio innovativeness. Moreover, the analyses show that the organizational context of family firms impacts the relationship between CEO risk‐taking propensity and new product portfolio innovativeness. Specifically, the relationship between CEO risk‐taking propensity and new product portfolio innovativeness is weaker if levels of ownership by TMT family members are high (high SEW). Additionally, the effect of CEO risk‐taking propensity on new product portfolio innovativeness is stronger in family firms at earlier generational stages (high SEW). This result suggests that if SEW is a strong reference, family firm‐specific characteristics can affect individual dispositions and, in turn, the behaviors of executives. Therefore, this study helps extend the knowledge on the determinants of new product portfolio innovativeness of family firms by considering an individual CEO preference and the organizational context variables of family firms simultaneously.