Group Information dependence problem

First among Equals: The Effect of Team Leader Characteristics

on the Internal Dynamics of Cross-Functional Product

Development Teams �

Shikhar Sarin and Gina Colarelli O’Connor

Drawing on the path-goal theory of leadership, the present study examines the effect

of team leader characteristics on an array of conflict resolution behavior, collab-

oration, and communication patterns of cross-functional new product development

(NPD) teams. A hierarchical linear model analysis based on a survey of 246 mem-

bers from 64 NPD teams suggests that participative management style and initi-

ation of goal structure by the team leader exert the strongest influence on internal

team dynamics. Both these leadership characteristics had a positive effect on func-

tional conflict resolution, collaboration, and communication quality within the NPD

team while discouraging dysfunctional conflict resolution and formal communica-

tions. Comparatively, team leader’s consideration, initiation of process structure,

and position had a surprisingly weak effect on internal team dynamics. Further, the

findings underscore the differential effects on various dimensions of team dynamics,

the importance of controlling for project and team characteristics, and the use of

multilevel modeling for studying nested phenomena related to NPD teams. Impli-

cations of these findings are discussed.

Introduction

R ecognizing the long-term competitive advan-

tage offered by successful new product

development (NPD), organizations are rely-

ing heavily on cross-functional teams to improve their

NPD processes (Barczak and Wilemon, 1992; Griffin,

1997; McDonough, 2000; Sarin and Mahajan, 2001;

Sarin and McDermott, 2003; Ulrich and Eppinger,

1995; Wind and Mahajan, 1997). Typically these

teams, composed of individuals drawn from a variety

of functional specialties within the organization, are

responsible for taking a product from conceptualiza-

tion to commercialization.

Growing popularity and anecdotal evidence notwith-

standing, the results achieved from the use of cross-

functional teams in NPD efforts have been decidedly

mixed (Barczak and Wilemon, 1989; Katzenbach and

Smith, 1993; Sarin and Mahajan, 2001). Among other

reasons, this lack of consistent success has been at-

tributed to poor project leadership, which often fails

to appreciate the diversity of cross-functional teams

and mismanages team dynamics—essential compo-

nents to the performance of any NPD team (Henke,

Krachenberg, and Lyons, 1993; Parker, 1994; Robbins

and Finley, 1995).

Effective project leadership has been identified as

one of the most important mechanisms not only for

managing team dynamics but also for steering the

teams successfully and efficiently through the new prod-

uct development process (McDonough and Griffin,

� The authors are grateful to Tony Di Benedetto for processing this

manuscript. They would also like to thank Robert Baron and Stacey Hills for their help on an earlier version of this manuscript.

Address correspondence to: Address correspondence to: Shikhar Sarin, College of Business and Economics, Boise State University, Boise, ID 83725. Tel.: (208) 426-2721. Fax: (208) 426-5384. E-mail: [email protected].

J PROD INNOV MANAG 2009;26:188–205 r 2009 Product Development & Management Association

1997). Team leaders coach team members, help de-

velop their capabilities, foster interactions and learning

within the team, and champion the team’s activities

to others in the organization (Ancona and Caldwell,

1992a; Barczak and Wilemon, 1992; McDonough and

Barczak, 1991; McDonough and Griffin, 1997; Sarin

and McDermott, 2003). Nurick Thamhain (2006) sug-

gest that effective project team leaders are social ar-

chitects who understand the interaction between

organizational and behavioral variables; suggesting

that such team leaders should be able to minimize

dysfunctional conflict and to foster a climate of active

participation.

Despite the focused attention from the academic

community, much of the past research in the NPD

literature is based largely on anecdotal data (e.g.,

Jassawalla and Sashittal, 2000), case studies (e.g.,

Hershock, Cowman, and Peters, 1994), or qualitative

data (e.g., Barczak and Wilemon, 1989; Donnellon,

1993). Although some studies (e.g., McDonough,

1993; Norrgren and Schaller, 1999) have explored

NPD team leadership empirically, these studies were

limited in their scope by the univariate analyses em-

ployed. Moreover, when empirical examinations were

undertaken, few studies controlled for the character-

istics of the team or the project, which could have

profound effects on how team leadership effects the

internal dynamics and performance of the NPD teams

(Ancona and Caldwell, 1992b; Griffin, 1979; Sarin and

Mahajan, 2001; Sarin and McDermott, 2003). The

NPD literature lacks a comprehensive and robust em-

pirical examination of the influence of team leadership

on the dynamics and performance of cross-functional

new product development teams. The present study

addresses this void in the NPD literature by empiri-

cally examining the effect of team leaders’ manage-

ment styles and position on an array of internal NPD

team dynamics. Such a comprehensive examination

is critical for understanding the inherent trade-offs

and synergies involved between various dimensions of

team dynamics.

Drawing on the path-goal theory of leadership

(e.g., Evans, 1970; House, 1971), this study focuses

on the team leader’s management style in terms of his

or her interactions with team members, style prefer-

ences for organizing work, and position and power in

the organization (Yukl, 1994). The effects of these

team leader characteristics on three broad areas of

internal team dynamics are examined: (1) conflict res-

olution behavior; (2) collaboration; and (3) commu-

nication behavior. In addition, the study controls for

key NPD team characteristics such as team size and

functional diversity and for project characteristics in-

cluding project length, complexity, and risk. Hierar-

chical linear modeling (HLM) is used to analyze the

data, which affords a number of analytical and inter-

pretive advantages over methods previously employed

in research on NPD teams.

Theoretical Background

Team Leader Characteristics

The team leader plays a pivotal role in setting the

work climate within the team, motivating team mem-

bers and affecting their behavior (Burke et al., 2006;

Norrgren and Schaller, 1999). Team leaders direct the

manner in which the NPD team presents itself and its

ideas to achieve personal and organizational goals

(Barczak and Wilemon, 1989; McDonough, 2000;

Sarin and McDermott, 2003).

Yukl (1994) suggests that leaders’ effectiveness is

derived from four sources: (1) the level of power and

influence possessed by the leader; (2) how the leader

interacts with others; (3) the leaders’ personal quali-

ties; and (4) the situation in which the leader is asked

to lead. Given their managerial controllability, this

research focuses on the first two sources of leader

effectiveness: (1) the NPD team leader’s power and

influence (as reflected by position in the organization);

and (2) interactions with the members of the NPD

team, as reflected by his or her management style

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES

Dr. Shikhar Sarin is the Kirk and Marsha Smith Professor of Mar-

keting at Boise State University. His research and teaching interests

include marketing strategy, new product development, marketing of

high-tech products, and electronic commerce. He has published in

the Journal of Marketing, Decision Sciences, Journal of the Academy

of Marketing Science, Journal of Product Innovation Management,

Industrial Marketing Management, Journal of Marketing Theory and

Practice, and Engineering Economist.

Dr. Gina Colarelli O’Connor is associate professor of marketing at

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute’s Lally School of Management and

Technology. She previously worked for McDonnell Douglas Cor-

poration and Monsanto Chemical Company. Her teaching and re-

search efforts focus on how large established firms link advanced

technology development to market opportunities, how they create

new markets, and how they develop sustainable capabilities for

breakthrough innovation. Dr. O’Connor has published more than

30 articles in refereed journals and is coauthor of the book Radical

Innovation, How Mature Firms Can Outsmart Upstarts (Harvard

Business School Press, 2000) and Grabbing Lightning: Building a

Capability for Breakthrough Innovation (Jossey-Bass, 2008).

TEAM LEADER CHARACTERISTICS AND INTERNAL DYNAMICS J PROD INNOV MANAG 2009;26:188–205

189

(Muczyk and Reimann, 1987; Sarin and McDermott,

2003). The path-goal theory of leadership (e.g., Evans,

1970; House, 1971) is used to help explain the

dynamics of these effectiveness dimensions.

The basic premise of the path-goal theory of lead-

ership is that a primary function of the leader involves

clarifying and outlining the kinds of paths and be-

haviors that will lead to goal attainment and valued

rewards (Griffin, 1979). Four distinct characteristics

or behaviors of the team leader related to his or her

management style can be identified based on this

framework (Antonioni, 1996; Burke et al., 2006;

Evans, 1970; House, 1971; Griffin, 1979; Yukl, 1994):

1. Participative leadership or participation: Participa-

tion is the degree to which the team leader invites

members’ involvement in the decision-making pro-

cess. Participative leaders consult with the mem-

bers of their teams, solicit their input, and take

these suggestions into account when making deci-

sions. Participation represents the way the leader

behaves toward others as well as his influence over

the team members.

2. Supportive leadership or consideration: Consider-

ation is the degree to which the team leader is

friendly and approachable and demonstrates inter-

est in the well-being of the team members. It indi-

cates his or her respect for others and conveys cues

about his or her own personal qualities. By treating

others with respect considerate team leaders create

a pleasant work environment.

3. Achievement-oriented leadership or initiation of goal

structure: Goal structuring is the degree to which

the team leader conveys to the members what out-

come or objective is expected of them. By goal

structuring team leaders set challenging goals for

the team members, expecting them to assume re-

sponsibility and perform to their highest level.

Through the use of such behavior team leaders

show confidence that the members of the team will

put forth the level of effort necessary to attain the

goals set for them.

4. Directive leadership or initiation of process struc-

ture: Process structuring is the degree to which the

team leader organizes and directs the activities of

team members. Process structuring by team leaders

gives specific guidance to the team members re-

garding what needs to be done and how it should

be done. The team leader schedules the work to be

done, lays out the rules and regulations to be fol-

lowed, and maintains standards of performance.

Finally, an additional source of team leaders’ effec-

tiveness identified by Yukl (1994) is considered: the

level of power/influence possessed by the leader:

5. Team leader’s position: The team leader’s position

is a measure of the formal as well as informal

power and influence enjoyed by the team leader

within the organization. Team leaders in high po-

sition enjoy a high stature in the organization and

are well respected for their management or techni-

cal skills. Such leaders tend to be politically savvy

and well networked within the organization. As a

result they are able to acquire needed resources, to

promote the team’s project within the organiza-

tion, and to shield the team from unwanted inter-

ference and pressures when needed.

Following Sarin and McDermott (2003), these five

team leader characteristics were considered because

they are not only managerially controllable but also

are strongly supported by established theoretical

frameworks (Evans, 1970; House, 1971; Yukl, 1994).

Internal Dynamics of NPD Teams

Healthy internal dynamics are essential for effective

cross-functional NPD teams and, consequently, for

the successful development of new products (e.g.,

Burke et al., 2006). Specifically, the conflict resolu-

tion behaviors (e.g., Pinto, Pinto, and Prescott, 1993;

Song, Xie, and Dyer, 2000), collaboration (e.g., Jassa-

walla and Sashittal, 1998; Pinto et al., 1993), and com-

munication behaviors (e.g., Ancona and Caldwell,

1992b; Griffin and Hauser, 1992) of cross-functional

NPD teams have been shown to have a tremendous

impact on their performance. However, the misman-

agement of these internal dynamics is among the most

often cited barriers to effective NPD team functioning

(Henke et al., 1993). In the present study three types

of internal team dynamics is considered: (1) conflict

resolution strategies; (2) collaboration; and (3) com-

munication behaviors.

Conflict resolution strategies. Individuals from

different functional backgrounds develop different

thought worlds and perspectives (Dougherty, 1992;

Maltz and Kohli, 1996; Sarin and McDermott, 2003).

Besides developing different worldviews, differences

can also result from variety in procedures or termi-

nology followed by each functional area, differences in

information processing techniques used, or differences

190 J PROD INNOV MANAG 2009;26:188–205

S. SARIN AND G. C. O’CONNOR

in task/role ambiguity tolerated (Kolb and Rubin,

1990). These differences may create conflict, which is

inherent in all cross-functional teams (Parker, 1994;

Sarin and Mahajan, 2001). It is not the existence of

conflict, per se, but rather the mechanisms used to

resolve it that is of interest in terms of the effective

functioning of NPD teams (Amason, 1996; Pinto

et al., 1993).

Research on conflict management (e.g., Blake and

Mouton, 1964; Song et al., 2000; Thomas, 1977) iden-

tifies different mechanisms for resolving conflicts:

� Confronting: open discussion of the disagreement. � Compromising: mutual bargaining amongst the

disagreeing parties; smoothing, meaning building

on the areas of agreement.

� Forcing: the coercive imposition of a solution by an individual or a group on others.

� Withdrawal: refusal to deal with the conflict. Cross-functional NPD teams may exhibit all of

these forms of conflict resolution to varying de-

grees.

Amason (1996) suggests that depending on how it is

resolved, conflict can either be functional (productive)

or dysfunctional (disruptive). Dysfunctional forms of

conflict resolution such as forcing or withdrawal com-

pel one disagreeing party to concede, either involun-

tarily or under duress, to eliminate further conflict.

Such a win–lose situation is ineffective and can de-

crease team morale, productivity, and satisfaction

(Muczyk and Reimann, 1987; Thomas, 1977). The

preferred or more functional mechanisms for resolv-

ing conflict include confronting, compromising, and

smoothing. These may enhance team operations by

bringing together the ideas of all parties and may aid

in reaching a solution that satisfies or benefits all par-

ties involved in the conflict (Kolb and Rubin, 1990;

Song et al., 2000; Thamhain and Nurick, 1994).

Collaboration. Collaboration is defined as the de-

gree to which the members of the NPD team work

together to accomplish specific tasks (Jassawalla and

Sashittal, 1998; Pinto et al., 1993). Collaboration is

indicative of effective team dynamics and an anteced-

ent to improved team performance (Ancona and

Caldwell, 1992a; Pinto et al., 1993). Although some

researchers (e.g., Thomas, 1977) consider collabora-

tion as yet another form of functional conflict reso-

lution strategy, others (e.g., Jassawalla and Sashittal,

1998; Pinto et al., 1993) suggest that it as a much

broader construct indicative of general integrative and

supportive interpersonal cooperation among team

members. Though some overlap is expected with func-

tional conflict resolution strategies, collaboration is

considered to be a distinct but related component of

the internal dynamics of NPD teams.

Communication. Poor communication among

team members has long been considered a detriment

to effective operation (Wilemon and Thamhain, 1983;

Henke et al., 1993), whereas effective communication

among team members has been linked to greater NPD

productivity and performance (Ancona and Caldwell,

1992b; Griffin and Hauser, 1992). Much of the focus

in the extant literature has been on the frequency of

communication between team members, with the gen-

eral consensus being that higher communication

frequency is positively associated with NPD perfor-

mance (e.g., Ancona and Caldwell, 1992b; Gladstein,

1984). Maltz (2000), however, notes that there is an

inherent and erroneous assumption in the NPD liter-

ature that all types of cross-functional communication

are equally important or that increased communica-

tion frequency equals good information quality.

Meanwhile, the focus on communication frequency

has resulted in other important dimensions of com-

munication remaining underexplored (Maltz, 2000;

Van de Ven and Ferry, 1980).

Although important, frequency is not the only rel-

evant aspect of NPD team communication that needs

to be considered. Team communication is a broad

concept that encompasses additional attributes. For

example, communication quality has been suggested

as a critical element in improving communication

(Bauer and Green, 1996), especially across different

functional areas (Maltz, 2000). Communication qual-

ity can be measured in terms of its accuracy, clarity,

detail, relevance, and timeliness (Van de Ven and

Ferry, 1980).

Similarly, information exchanges take place not

only through formally designated channels (e.g.,

meetings, memos, letters) but also through informal

mechanisms (e.g., impromptu meeting, hall talk)

(Maltz and Kohli, 1996; Van de Ven and Ferry,

1980). Maltz and Kohli (1996) suggest that although

informal communication may be more timely, formal

communication tends to be more accurate and detail

oriented. Therefore, in instances where speed and in-

novation are important, more informal channels of

communication may be desirable, whereas in other

cases where adherence to budget and schedule and

product quality are important, more formal channels

TEAM LEADER CHARACTERISTICS AND INTERNAL DYNAMICS J PROD INNOV MANAG 2009;26:188–205

191

of communication might be preferable. As such, com-

munication formality may be regarded as another

appropriate indicator of team interaction and com-

munication (Kezsbom, 2000).

What is needed in the literature is an examination

of a broad set of leader characteristics on a compre-

hensive array of conflict resolution behaviors, collab-

oration, and communication behaviors of NPD teams

to gain insights that can translate to actionable pre-

scriptions for NPD managers. Particularly, the simul-

taneous consideration of a variety of internal dynamics

can help understand how the characteristics of the

NPD team leaders differentially affect various aspects

of internal team dynamics.

Conceptual Framework

The conceptual framework proposed in this study

is shown in Figure 1. The following section discusses

the effects of specific team leader characteristics

on the internal dynamics of cross-functional NPD

teams.

The Effect of Team Leader Participation and Consideration on Internal Team Dynamics

Participation and consideration are perhaps the most

visible indicators of a team leader’s management style.

Participative team leaders consult their team mem-

bers, solicit their input, and involve them in the deci-

sion-making process (Antonioni, 1996; Burke et al.,

2006; Evans, 1970; House, 1971; Griffin, 1979; Yukl,

1994). Thomas (1977) suggests that the key to resolv-

ing conflicts in a group is to understand the underly-

ing power structure within the group. A participative

team leader creates an environment in which power is

dispersed more evenly among the team members.

Such power equity limits the ability of individuals or

subgroups to unduly dominate the conflict resolution

process in the team at the expense of others, thereby

creating a more open and productive approach to

resolving conflicts as they occur (Burke et al., 2006;

Norrgren and Schaller, 1999). Participation sets the

tone in which the leader exerts his or her influence

over the team and has been shown to be positively

related to learning within NPD teams (Sarin and

McDermott, 2003). Thus participative leadership in

NPD teams should therefore be positively related to

the use of functional conflict resolution strategies and

negatively related to the use of dysfunctional conflict

resolution strategies within the team.

Studies of high-involvement leadership suggest that

when leaders delegate decision-making authority,

team members become more actively engaged in dis-

cussions and communication among them improves

(Kidd and Christy, 1961; Wilemon and Thamhain,

1983). In contrast, low-involvement or autocratic

leaders discourage team members from actively

communicating and participating in team activities

(Bolman and Deal, 1993; Stewart and Manz, 1995).

When a team leader actively engages team mem-

bers in the decision-making process, members have an

opportunity to make a contribution to how a new prod-

uct development project should proceed (McDonough,

2000). As they seek to make their contributions in a

well-informed manner, the relevance and reliability of

the information exchanged increases (Kidd and

Christy, 1961; Peterson, 1997), increasing the com-

munication and cooperation within the team (Maltz,

2000). Participation by the team leader sets a more

inclusive work environment, which encourages team

members to interact with each other using informal

rather than formal channels of communication.

Therefore participative behavior by team leaders is

likely to be related to greater frequency and quality of

communication within NPD teams and greater team

collaboration. Greater participation is also likely to

be associated with the use of less formal channels of

communication.

Considerate team leaders demonstrate concern and

interest for the well-being of their team members.

They are friendly and approachable and treat others

with respect. In so doing, they not only convey cues

about their own personal qualities but also create a

pleasant work environment in general (Antonioni,

1996; Burke et al., 2006; Evans, 1970; House, 1971;

Conflict Resolution Behavior

• Confronting • Compromising • Smoothing • Forcing • Withdrawal

Collaboration

Communication Behavior

• Frequency • Formality • Quality

Participation

Consideration

Initiation of Goal Structure

Initiation of Process Structure

Team Leader Position

Figure 1. Conceptual Framework of the Effect of Team Leader

Characteristics on the Internal Dynamics of NPD Teams

192 J PROD INNOV MANAG 2009;26:188–205

S. SARIN AND G. C. O’CONNOR

Griffin, 1979; Yukl, 1994). By being perceived as

approachable and empathetic, a considerate team

leader creates an environment of psychological safety

that encourages team members to openly voice dis-

senting opinions without fear of reprisal or backlash

(Edmondson, 1999). This allows the team members to

pursue constructive approaches to settling disagree-

ments within the team (Burke et al., 2006; Norrgren

and Schaller, 1999; McDonough, 2000). Thus team

leader consideration is expected to be positively re-

lated to collaboration and the use of functional con-

flict resolution strategies and negatively related to the

use of dysfunctional conflict resolution strategies

within NPD teams.

Additionally, due to the cultural norms set by his

or her own behavior as a model, considerate team

leaders encourage more frequent communication, fos-

ter a nurturing environment, and instill a willingness

among team members to listen to one another. As a

result, team communication tends to be more honest,

spontaneous, and unstructured (Peterson, 1997). Thus

consideration by NPD team leaders is expected to be

positively related to communication frequency and

quality and negatively related to the formality of in-

ternal communication.

The Effect of Initiation of Goal and Process Structure on Internal Team Dynamics

In general, initiation of structure is conceptualized as

the degree to which supervisors assign tasks, prescribe

behaviors, and focus actions and expectations toward

process performance or goal achievement. In the

NPD context, initiation of structure is often used to

influence team member behavior and performance via

the work environment (Antonioni, 1996; Porter and

Lilly, 1996). Extant literature (e.g., Cleland, 1999;

Teas, 1981, 1983) suggests that initiation of structure

can take two distinct forms: (1) structuring that is

focused on outlining the goals and expectations of the

end result of the project (goal structuring); and (2)

structuring that is focused on outlining the activities

and behaviors for achieving the desired results (pro-

cess structuring).

Goal structuring is defined as the degree to which

the team leader conveys to the members what out-

come or objective is expected of them. In so doing, the

team leader sets challenging goals for the team mem-

bers and expects them to take responsibility for de-

livering on those goals (Antonioni, 1996; Burke et al.,

2006; Evans, 1970; House, 1971; Griffin, 1979; Yukl,

1994). By engaging in goal structuring, the team

leader demonstrates confidence that the members of

the team will perform to a high level and will put forth

the effort necessary for attaining the goals outlined

(Teas, 1981, 1983).

A clear exposition of expectations and expected

outcomes by the team leader helps focus the team on

a superordinate goal and helps the team members

develop a stronger sense of the team mission and

identity (Antonioni, 1996; McDonough, 2000; Sethi,

2000). Such goal structuring encourages team mem-

bers to share problems and to work cooperatively to-

ward the common overarching goal (McDonough,

2000), creates a learning environment within the team

(Sarin and McDermott, 2003), and encourages func-

tional conflict resolution strategies over dysfunctional

ones (Antonioni, 1996). Thus initiation of goal struc-

ture by the team leader is expected to be positively

related to collaboration and the use of functional con-

flict resolution strategies and negatively related to the

use of dysfunctional conflict resolution strategies

within the NPD team.

By explicitly stating goal expectations, team leaders

empower members to seek information related to

their own activities, to confer with others to achieve

their objectives (Bolman and Deal, 1993), and to by-

pass traditional and more formal channels of com-

munication, if necessary (Sarin and McDermott,

2003). Antonioni (1996) suggests that implementation

of a goal-focused structure is likely to increase pro-

ject-related communication. Therefore, initiation of

goal structure by the team leader is expected to be

positively related to the frequency and quality and

negatively related to the formality of internal com-

munication within the NPD teams.

Process structuring, on the other hand, is defined as

the degree to which the team leader organizes and di-

rects the activities of team members, by giving them

specific guidance as to what needs to be done and how

it should be done (Antonioni, 1996; Burke et al., 2006;

Evans, 1970; House, 1971; Griffin, 1979; Yukl, 1994).

Initiating of process structure involves scheduling of

the work to be done, clarifying the rules and regula-

tions to be followed, and maintaining performance

standards (Teas, 1981, 1983).

While process structuring ensures that the behav-

iors and activities of the team members are in sync

with project goals, it can limit opportunities for new

direction (Floyd, 1992). Excessive structuring of pro-

cesses can undermine the flexible, autonomous, and

TEAM LEADER CHARACTERISTICS AND INTERNAL DYNAMICS J PROD INNOV MANAG 2009;26:188–205

193

decentralized nature of the team approach to NPD,

innovation, and creativity (McDonough, 2000; Par-

ker, 1994). However, a lack of process structure can

create ambiguity about the roles, activities, and re-

sponsibilities of team members, leading to confusion

and chaos (Wilemon and Thamhain, 1983). A lack of

structure regarding workable plans and daily activities

of the NPD team increases the potential for conflict

and dysfunctional conflict resolution (Porter and

Lilly, 1996). Therefore, initiation of process structure

is expected to be positively related to collaboration

and the use of functional conflict resolution strategies

and negatively related to the use of dysfunctional con-

flict resolution strategies within NPD teams.

Process structuring favors a management style that

is more definite and focused on achieving positive

results through a process of formal delineation (Pe-

terson, 1997). Many team leaders see such a directive

management style as an approach to reducing the un-

certainty inherent in the NPD process. Tightly struc-

tured organizational environments make interactions

within groups less frequent, less spontaneous, and

more formal (Carzo 1963). However, Maltz and Kohli

(1996) indicate that with greater formality, informa-

tion becomes more reliable, more accountable, and

more relevant, improving the quality of communica-

tion. Therefore, initiation of process structure by

the team leader is expected to be positively related

to the quality and formality and negatively related to

the frequency of internal communication in NPD

teams.

The Effect of Team Leader Position on Internal Team Dynamics

The team leader’s position within the organization

indicates the level of power and influence he or she

enjoys (Sarin and McDermott, 2003). The team lea-

der’s position may serve as a legitimizing force for the

team’s activities (Gilmore, 1982). A higher level of

perceived power may also enhance the trust team

members have in their leader (Maltz and Kohli,

1996). Thus, a team leader with greater position

power is likely to be viewed as someone who can get

things accomplished on behalf of the team. Given the

time constraints placed on them, these leaders create a

learning environment within the team by delegating

authority and decision making to team members

(Sarin and McDermott, 2003). This is not only likely

to result in increased interactions between team mem-

bers but may also encourage the team to operate in a

more collaborative manner.

The stature and political clout of team leaders in

high positions suppresses distracting activities and

helps focus the team on the job at hand (Sarin and

McDermott, 2003). However, a high position in the

organization limits the availability of these team lead-

ers for informal interactions. As such the communi-

cation within the team is expected to take a more

formal tone when team leaders hold more senior-level

positions. Much of the interactions are likely to occur

in a planned rather than spontaneous manner. Thus

the team leader’s position is expected to be positively

related not only to collaboration but also to the fre-

quency and formality of the communication within

the NPD team.

Control Variables

Extant literature suggests that in addition to the char-

acteristics of the team leader, the internal dynamics of

the NPD team are likely to be effected by the char-

acteristics of the team itself. Clearly, the management

styles that work well for small teams are not as likely

to succeed for larger ones. Similarly, the functional

makeup (diversity) and size of the team are well

known to influence the internal dynamics of NPD

teams. Therefore following earlier research on NPD

teams (e.g., Ancona and Caldwell, 1992b; Sarin and

McDermott, 2003), size and functional diversity of the

team are controlled for in this study. Similarly project

characteristics such as length, complexity, and risk

have been identified as having a significant impact on

the internal dynamics and performance of the NPD

teams (e.g., Sarin and Mahajan, 2001; Sarin and

McDermott, 2003) and are therefore added as con-

trol variables as well.

Methodology

Study Context, Sample Selection, and Data Collection

This study was conducted as part of a larger examin-

ation of NPD teams. Given their extensive use of

cross-functional teams in new product development

activities, the high-tech industries were chosen as a

context for this study (Ancona and Caldwell, 1992a,

1992b; Sarin and Mahajan, 2001; Sarin and McDer-

mott, 2003). Data were collected in two phases. In

194 J PROD INNOV MANAG 2009;26:188–205

S. SARIN AND G. C. O’CONNOR

Phase I, in-depth qualitative field interviews were con-

ducted with team members and managers of nine

Fortune 1000 companies. These data were used to

better understand the issues involved and to help de-

velop measures for constructs where scales were not

available in the literature. In Phase II, a survey in-

strument was used to collect data collected from

13 divisions of six Fortune 1000 firms to test the

model proposed in Figure 1. The revenues of the par-

ticipating divisions ranged from $100 million to more

than $1 billion. Four of these six organizations were

drawn from Phase I organizations. The remaining five

organizations were unable to participate due to either

the sensitivity of new product information or lack of

time. Therefore, two new organizations were recruited

to participate in Phase II of the study.

Through personal contacts and referrals, a key li-

aison was identified in each organization and was

asked to identify both successful and unsuccessful

NPD projects for possible inclusion in the study. To

be included in the study, projects were required to

meet three criteria. First, to control for noise due to

interorganizational factors, only intraorganizational

NPD projects were considered. Second, only NPD

projects with products bound for the open market

were considered. Third, projects introduced only

within the previous 12 months or at an advanced stage

of development were considered. In the final sample,

survey data were collected from 246 members of

64 cross-functional new product development teams.

The average duration of the sampled NPD projects

was 24 months. Size of the project teams ranged from

3 to 22, with the average team consisting of a little

more than 7 members. Responses were obtained from

individuals representing various functional back-

grounds and hierarchical levels.

Measures

Wherever possible, existing scales were used to mea-

sure the constructs outlined in the study. In cases

where no existing scales were available, measures were

adapted from the literature or the closest applicable

scales. The operational definitions and scale items

used to measure the constructs in this study are pre-

sented in the Appendix. Unless otherwise stated, all

constructs were measured using multi-item five-point

Likert scales (1 5 strongly disagree, 5 5 strongly

agree). The conflict resolution strategies were mea-

sured using a five-point Likert-type scale, where re-

spondents indicated the extent to which one or more

members of their team carried out listed activities

(1 5 very infrequently, 5 5 very frequently). Functional

diversity of the team was measured using an entropy

index developed by Ancona and Caldwell (1992b).

Standard procedures were used to refine the scales

and to assess their psychometric properties (Nunnally,

1978). First, exploratory factor analyses were used to

establish the unidimensionality of each scale. Second,

the internal consistency of each scale was assessed

using Cronbach’s alpha. Last, confirmatory factor

analyses were used to establish the convergent and

discriminant validity of the scales using procedures

outlined in the literature (Venkatraman, 1989).

The reliability coefficients for the scales are also pre-

sented in the Appendix. All scales (except two) dem-

onstrated satisfactory psychometric properties. The

reliability coefficients for initiation of goal structure

(.66) and smoothing (.62) were below the .70 threshold

recommended by Nunnally (1978). However, consis-

tent with past studies (e.g., Sarin and Mahajan, 2001;

Sarin and McDermott, 2003) coefficients in this range

were considered close enough to be acceptable.

Model Description and Analysis

Traditionally research on NPD teams has analyzed

either the data at the individual level or aggregated

responses from the team members to obtain a team-

level response. While analyzing nested data at the in-

dividual level ignores the interdependence between

observations, averaging individual responses loses

valuable variation at the lower level (Kreft and de

Leeuw, 1990). For nested data, such as NPD teams,

analyses using hierarchical linear modeling (HLM)

provide a more accurate perspective (Kreft and de

Leeuw, 1998; Sarin and McDermott, 2003).

The HLM methodology is particularly well suited

to analyzing nested data in which microlevel obser-

vations (e.g., individuals) are present within macro-

level observations (e.g., group/team) (Kreft and de

Leeuw, 1998; Hoffman, Griffin, and Gavin, 2000).

HLM allows one to investigate both lower-level and

higher-level variance in the outcome variable while

maintaining the appropriate level of analysis for the

independent variables (Hoffman et al., 2000, p. 471;

Klein and Kozlowski, 2000). In the two-level HLM

analysis used in this study, the lower level of analysis

(individual team member) is referred to as Level 1

(L1), and the higher level of analysis (team) is referred

to as Level 2 (L2).

TEAM LEADER CHARACTERISTICS AND INTERNAL DYNAMICS J PROD INNOV MANAG 2009;26:188–205

195

To test the model in Figure 1, each dimension of

internal team dynamic (e.g., confronting, collabora-

tion, communication quality) was regressed on to the

five team leader characteristics while controlling for

team characteristics (i.e., size and functional diversity)

and project characteristics (i.e., complexity, risk, and

length). The level of analysis of each independent

variable was determined by decomposing the total

variance of the construct into its within- and between-

group components using intraclass coefficients (ICC).

ICC is described as the ratio of between-group vari-

ance in construct to its total variance and has impli-

cations for the level at which a particular construct

may be analyzed (Hoffman et al., 2000).

Though there are few hard and fast standards to

determine an acceptable level of aggregation (Klein

et al., 2000, p. 518), aggregation to the higher level is

justified if a significant amount of the variance in the

constructs lies between groups (Klein and Kozlowski,

2000). Using this rule of thumb, independent variables

with 90% or more of their variance within groups

(i.e., ICCo.10) were estimated at the individual level (L1), whereas those with at least 10% of the total vari-

ance between groups (i.e., ICC � .10) were estimated at the group level (L2). Table 1 shows the intraclass

coefficient and level of analysis for the independent

and control variables used in this study. Based on the

ICCs, all independent and control variables were ag-

gregated to the group level, with the exception of the

initiation of goal and process structure variables.

Results

Results (unstandardized coefficients) of the HLM

analysis presented in Table 2 show strong support

for the conceptual model proposed in Figure 1. Over-

all, it was found that after controlling for team and

project characteristics, the team leader’s characteris-

tics explain a significant amount of variance in the

internal dynamics of the team, especially in the con-

fronting (.39), collaboration (.65), communication

quality (.42), and formality (.52) outcome variables.

Of the characteristics examined in this study, part-

icipative behavior and initiation of goal structure by

the team leader appear to have the most influence on

the internal dynamics of NPD teams. In particular

and as expected, team leader participation has a

strong positive relationship with functional conflict

resolution behaviors such as confronting (g 5 .38, p � .001) and smoothing (g 5 .30, p � .001) and a strong negative relationship with dysfunctional con-

flict resolution behaviors like forcing (g 5 � .34, p � .001) and withdrawal (g 5 � .33, p � .01). NPD teams with participative leaders also displayed greater

collaboration (g 5 .31, p � .001), communication fre- quency (g 5 .16, p � .01), and quality (g 5 .22, p � .001). Also consistent with expectations, part- icipative behavior was seen to lead to less formal

communication within the team (g 5 � .06, p � .05). In contrast to past research (e.g., Antonioni, 1996;

McDonough, 2000; Norrgren and Schaller, 1999) the

present study’s results indicate that, after controlling

for team and project characteristics, the influence ex-

erted by team leader consideration on the internal

team dynamics was surprisingly weak. Consideration

was positively related to functional conflict resolution

behaviors like confronting (g 5 .11, p � .05) and com- promising (g 5 .15, p � .001) but little else. Further, members of teams led by considerate team leaders

were likely to communicate with one another less fre-

quently (g 5 � .01, p � .01). Similar weak effects were seen for the initiation of

process structure by the team leader. Although previ-

ous research differed on the expected directionality of

the influence of process structure (e.g., Antonioni,

1996; McDonough, 2000; Parker, 1994; Peterson,

1997; Porter and Lilly, 1996; Wilemon and Thamh-

ain, 1983), they nonetheless predicted a significant

effect on team dynamics. However, as in the case of

consideration, it was found that after accounting for

team and project characteristics, the influence exerted

by the initiation of process structure by the team

leader was surprisingly sparse. Process structure was

positively related to compromising (g 5 .11, p � .05) and communication formality (g 5 .03, p � .05); it did not have a significant effect on any other aspect of the

internal dynamics of NPD teams.

Table 1. Intraclass Coefficients (ICC) and Level of Anal- ysis of the Independent and Control Variables

Variable ICC Level of Analysis

Participation .107 L2 Consideration .203 L2 Goal Structure .074 L1 Process Structure .004 L1 Leader Position .211 L2 Team Size .187 L2 Functional Diversity .643 L2 Project Length .257 L2 Project Complexity .277 L2 Project Risk .300 L2

196 J PROD INNOV MANAG 2009;26:188–205

S. SARIN AND G. C. O’CONNOR

T a b le 2 . E ff e c t o f T e a m

L e a d e r C h a ra c te ri st ic s o n th e In te rn a l D y n a m ic s o f N P D

T e a m s: R e su lt s o f H ie ra rc h ic a l L in e a r M o d e li n g A n a ly si sa

In d e p e n d e n t V a ri a b le s

(d f)

D e p e n d e n t V a ri a b le s

F u n c ti o n a l C o n fl ic t R e so lu ti o n

D y sf u n c ti o n a l C o n fl ic t

R e so lu ti o n

In te rn a l C o m m u n ic a ti o n B e h a v io r

C O N F R O N T

C O M P R O M IS IN

G S M O O T H IN

G C O L L A B O R A T IO

N F O R C IN

G W IT

H D R A W A L

Q U A L IT

Y F R E Q U E N C Y

F O R M A L IT

Y

In te rc e p t (6 3 )

.5 9 �

1 .3 0 � �

.9 6 � �

1 .2 5 � � �

5 .0 7 � � �

4 .9 8 � � �

1 .4 2 � � �

1 .1 1 � � �

.8 1 � � �

P A R T IC

IP A T IO

N (6 3 )

.3 8 � � �

.0 9

.3 0 � � �

.3 1 � � �

� .3 4 � � �

� .3 3 � �

.2 2 � � �

.1 6 � �

� .0 6 �

C O N S ID

E R A T IO

N (6 3 )

.1 1 �

.1 5 �

.0 7

.0 5 z

� .0 6

� .1 1

.0 7 z

� .0 1 � �

.0 0 2

G O A L S T R U C T U R E

(2 3 5 )

.1 5 � �

.0 5

.1 6 �

.1 8 � � �

� .2 3 � �

� .2 8 � �

.1 9 � � �

.0 6

� .0 3 �

P R O C E S S

S T R U C T U R E (2 3 5 )

.0 4

.1 1 �

.0 7

.0 1

� .0 0 2

.0 7

0 .0 1

.0 1

.0 3 �

L E A D E R

P O S IT

IO N

(6 3 )

.0 8

.0 3

.1 0

.0 7 �

� .1 1

� .0 4

.0 3

.0 2

.0 5 � �

C o n tr o l V a ri a b le s

T e a m

S iz e ( 6 3 )

� .0 0 2

.0 1 �

.0 1 �

.0 0 4 �

.0 0 4

� .0 0 1

0 .0 0 4

0 .0 2 �

.0 1 � �

F u n c ti o n a l D iv e rs it y ( 6 3 )

� .0 1

� .0 5

� .0 8

� .0 2

� .0 0 1

.1 8 �

� .0 7

.1 9 �

.0 3

P ro je c t L e n g th

( 6 3 )

.0 0 1

.0 1 � � �

� .0 1 � � �

� .0 0 2 z

.0 0 4 z

.0 1 �

.0 0 2 z

� .0 0 6 � � �

� .0 0 0 3

P ro je c t C o m p le x it y ( 6 3 )

.1 8 � � �

� .0 6

.1 2 � �

.0 9 � �

� .1 6 � �

� .1 4 �

.0 3

.1 4 � �

.0 1

P ro je c t R is k ( 6 3 )

� .1 0 �

.1 6 � �

� .1 0 �

.0 1

.1 5 � �

.0 7 z

.0 8 � �

� .0 3

� .0 4 � �

D E V IA

N C E

E X P L A IN

E D

0 .3 9

0 .1 4

0 .2 9

0 .6 5

0 .1 7

.1 9

0 .4 2

0 .1 0

0 .5 2

a U n st a n d a rd iz e d c o e ffi c ie n ts . L e v el

1 , n

5 2 4 6 . L e v el

2 , n

5 6 4 .

� � � p �

.0 0 1 ;

� � p �

.0 1 ;

� p �

.0 5 ;

z p �

.1 0 .

TEAM LEADER CHARACTERISTICS AND INTERNAL DYNAMICS J PROD INNOV MANAG 2009;26:188–205

197

Initiation of goal structure by the team leader, on

the other hand, exhibits a significant effect on multiple

dimensions of internal team dynamics. Goal structur-

ing was positively related to functional conflict reso-

lution behaviors such as confronting (g 5 .15, p � .01) and smoothing (g 5 .16, p � .05) and was negatively related to dysfunctional conflict resolution behaviors

like forcing (g 5 � .23, p � .01) and withdrawal (g 5 � .28, p � .01). Initiation of goal structure was positively related to communication quality (g 5 .19, p � .001) and collaboration (g 5 .18, p � .001) within the team and was negatively related to communica-

tion formality (g 5 � .03, p � .05). As in the case of consideration and process struc-

ture, team leader position also exhibited a surprisingly

weak influence on the internal dynamics of NPD

teams. Team leader position had a positive effect on

collaboration (g 5 .07, p � .05) and communication formality (g 5 .05, p � .05) but did not affect any other dimension of team dynamics in a significant

manner. Finally, results presented in Table 2 demon-

strate the importance of controlling for the team and

project characteristics, when examining team dynam-

ics. In particular, project characteristics like risk, com-

plexity, and length had statistically significant effects

on multiple dimensions of internal team dynamics.

The implications of these results are discussed next.

Discussion and Implications

Although the critical influence of team leader and

team dynamics on the performance of NPD teams is

well established, the literature lacks a comprehensive

examination of how the team leader affects internal

team dynamics. Drawing on the path-goal theory, the

objective of this study was to offer an empirical ex-

amination of the effect of five managerially control-

lable team leader characteristics on the internal

dynamics of cross-functional NPD teams. The results

offer strong support for the basic premise of this

stud—in the sense that the team leader stands out as

first among equals.

These findings indicate that participation and goal

structuring exert the most significant and ubiquitous

influence on the internal dynamics of cross-functional

NPD teams. Rather than the interpersonal character-

istics like friendliness, the most influential team leader

characteristics revolved around the tasks of NPD

teams. Most influential team leaders actively involved

the members of their teams in decision making and

helped set goals and expectations for the team. How-

ever, attempts by the team leaders to structure the

activities and behaviors of the team members do not

show a significant effect on the team’s dynamics. This

suggests that team leaders have to walk a tightrope in

terms of providing structure. Team leaders need to

motivate the members by providing superordinate

goals and helping set high expectations. But then

team leaders need to trust the team member to per-

form their job and to leave them alone to figure out

the best way to achieve these overarching goals. Any

attempts to micromanage the process by prescribing

behaviors and activities were ineffective in influencing

the dynamics of the team.

The overall pattern of results underscores four im-

portant issues and contributions of this study. First,

internal dynamics of NPD teams are multifaceted,

and the different dimensions are impacted differen-

tially by the characteristics of the team leaders. There

are inherent trade-offs involved between the underly-

ing dimensions of internal dynamics that may warrant

a more nuanced approach than previously employed

in the study of internal dynamics of NPD teams. In-

stead of examining one or two dimensions in isola-

tion, this study employs a more comprehensive

approach to internal dynamics by examining a wide

array of underlying dimensions that acknowledge

their differential effects and the trade-offs involved

therein.

For example, these findings suggest that team

leader characteristics account for a significant amount

of variance in collaboration, communication formal-

ity, communication quality, and confronting within

teams. Other team dynamics such as communication

frequency, compromising, forcing, and withdrawal

are not as strongly influenced by the team leader.

Second, the results demonstrate that the character-

istics of the project and the team have a significant

and pervasive influence on the internal dynamics of

NPD teams. Therefore, it is critical to control for

these characteristics (especially team size and project

characteristics like risk, complexity, and length) to

avoid spurious effects. Accounting for variance due to

team and project characteristics ensures that the

effects being observed are attributable solely to the

phenomena under investigation, such as team leader

characteristics in the context of this study.

Third, the results indicate that after controlling for

project and team characteristics, the effect of leader

characteristics on the dynamics of the team are differ-

ent from those reported in earlier studies. Some leader

198 J PROD INNOV MANAG 2009;26:188–205

S. SARIN AND G. C. O’CONNOR

characteristics (i.e., consideration, initiation of pro-

cess structure, and team leader position) that were re-

ported to be influential in past research appear to be

less so in the present study. On the other hand, team

leader characteristics like participation and initiation

of goal structure seem to have much more pro-

nounced effects on internal team dynamics.

Specifically, these results indicate that participative

behavior by the team leader encourages functional

conflict resolution strategies like confronting and

smoothing and discourages dysfunctional conflict res-

olution behaviors like forcing of solutions or with-

drawal from conflict. Participative team leaders foster

an environment where members of the NPD team

collaborate more and communicate with each other

more frequently and less informally. Moreover, a

participative management style improves the quality

of communication within the team. When a team

leader consults with members of his or her team, so-

licits their input, and involves them in the decision-

making process, it creates a level of trust within the

team that causes team members to respond by taking

ownership and responsibility for the project out-

comes. As a result, team members engage in behav-

iors that are most likely to benefit the team and its

mission.

Consideration by team leaders was found to have a

weaker than expected effect, significantly impacting

only three dimensions of internal dynamics examined.

Consideration was positively related to functional

conflict resolution strategies like confronting and

compromising but had a surprisingly negative effect

on the frequency of communication within the team.

When a team leader demonstrates concern for the

feelings and well-being of his or her team members,

members may respond with equal consideration to the

team leader and, more importantly, to one another.

As a result, they may be more likely to attempt to

solve problems through compromise and negotiation

so as to account for the feelings and concerns of each

team member.

Several explanations are possible for the surprising

negative relationship between consideration and com-

munication frequency. It is possible that considerate

behavior by the team leader may be mistaken for

complacency and may fail to convey a sense of ur-

gency regarding the task at hand. The team leader’s

informal, friendly demeanor may either be taken ad-

vantage of or may be subtly misinterpreted by the

team to mean that relaxing on clearly articulating task

oriented communication is acceptable. Especially if

these team leaders are seen as too nice to censure un-

responsive behavior by the team members, they risk

being taken for granted. Alternatively, a decrease in

communication frequency could be indicative of a

lack of residual conflict within the team, resulting

from the harmony created by such leaders.

Equally surprising is the weak influence exerted by

initiation of process structure on team dynamics.

With the exception of compromising conflict resolu-

tion approaches and communication formality, pro-

cess structure was found to have almost no influence

on any other dimension of conflict resolution and

communication behaviors (or team collaboration).

This is probably because when team leaders structure

processes by which specific outcomes are to be

achieved, they can insist on compromises and can

specify communication formats and channels. Beyond

that, however, the use of process structuring appears

to have no effect on team outcomes.

Goal structuring, on the other hand, was the sec-

ond most influential team leader characteristic exam-

ined in this study. Initiation of goal structure by the

team leader had almost identical effect to that of par-

ticipation on conflict resolution behaviors and collab-

oration. Goal structuring improves confronting,

smoothing, and collaborative behaviors within the

team, while discouraging dysfunctional conflict reso-

lution behavior. The results indicate that goal struc-

turing by the team leader increases the quality of the

communication within the team and at the same time

makes it more informal. These results suggest that by

identifying a specific outcome for the team to achieve,

team leaders unify the members behind a common

goal and increase the likelihood that team members

will try their best to collaborate with each other to

achieve the desired end result rather than forcing so-

lutions on one another. Focusing the team’s attention

on end results also helps develop an open style of

conflict resolution in the team rather than one of

avoidance, as there is a need to see the desired out-

come achieved. This goal focus also promotes an in-

crease in the quality of communication among team

members, as they attempt to gather the best informa-

tion available to reach their end result.

After controlling for team and project characteris-

tics, the effects of team leader position on internal

team dynamics were weaker than suggested by prior

research. The team leader’s position has a significant

and positive relationship with only two outcomes:

collaboration and communication formality. These

results suggest that, by virtue of their stature and

TEAM LEADER CHARACTERISTICS AND INTERNAL DYNAMICS J PROD INNOV MANAG 2009;26:188–205

199

management skill, such leaders may be able to bring

the team members to collaborate to a greater degree.

Given their relative position in the organization, how-

ever, more layers of management are likely to exist

between the leader and the members of the team,

thereby increasing the number of steps in the channel

of communication. This sets the tone to formalize

communication processes and interactions within the

team.

Finally, the present study employs HLM to analyze

the data and test the proposed model. HLM offers a

significant improvement over past research by taking

into account variances both at the individual as well

as group level in the constructs to test a multilevel

model of the proposed framework.

Though the present study examines the effect of

team leader characteristics on internal team dynamics,

research (e.g., Ancona and Caldwell, 1992a) points

to an equally significant role played by external inter-

action of NPD teams. Future extensions of this re-

search might examine how the team leader affects the

external dynamics of NPD teams, how team leader

characteristics affect specific dimensions of NPD per-

formance, and how the contextual effect of team and

project characteristics affect the leader—performance

relationship. There is clearly a fruitful path of explo-

ration ahead to help NPD team leaders understand

the impact of their management styles on team dy-

namics and subsequent outcomes.

References

Amason, A.C. (1996). Distinguishing the Effects of Functional and Dysfunctional Conflict on Strategic Decision Making: Resolving a Paradox for Top Management Teams. Academy of Management Journal 39(1):123–148.

Ancona, D.G. and Caldwell, D.F. (1992a). Bridging the Boundary: External Activity and Performance on Organizational Teams. Administrative Science Quarterly 37:634–665 (December).

Ancona, D.G. and Caldwell, D.F. (1992b). Demography and Design: Predictors of New Product Team Performance. Organization Sci- ence 3(3):321–341.

Antonioni, D. (1996). How to Lead and Facilitate Teams. Industrial Management 38(6):22–24.

Aram, J.D., Morgan, C., and Esbeck, E. (1971). Relation of Colla- borative Interpersonal Relationships to Individual Satisfaction and Organizational Performance. Administrative Science Quarterly 16(3):289–296.

Barczak, G. and Wilemon, D.L. (1989). Leadership Differences in New Product Development Teams. Journal of Product Innovation Man- agement 6:259–267.

Barczak, G. and Wilemon, D.L. (1992). Successful New Product De- velopment Team Leaders. Industrial Marketing Management 21(1):61–68.

Bauer, T.N. and Green, S.G. (1996). Development of Leader-Member Exchange: A Longitudinal Test. Academy of Management Journal 39(6):1538–1567.

Blake, R.R. and Mouton, J.S. (1964). The Managerial Grid. Houston: Gulf Publishing Company.

Bolman, L. and Deal, T. (1993). What Makes a Team Work? In: Self-Managed Teams: Creating the High Performance Workplace, Special Report of the American Marketing Association.

Burke, C.S., Stagl, K.C., Klein, C., Goodwin, G.F., Salas, E., and Halpin, S. (2006). What Type of Leader Behaviors Are Functional in Teams? A Meta Analysis. Leadership Quarterly 17:288–307.

Carzo, R.J. (1963). Some Effects of Organizational Structure on Group Effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 7(4):393–424. (March).

Cleland, D.I. (1999). Project Management, Strategic Design and Im- plementation, (3d ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Dougherty, D. (1992). Interpretive Barriers to Successful Product Innovation in Large Firms. Organization Science 3(2):179–202.

Donnellon, A. (1993). Cross Functional Teams in Product Develop- ment: Accommodating the Structure to the Process. Journal of Product Innovation Management 10:377–392.

Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams. Administrative Science Quarterly 44:350–383.

Evans, M. (1970). The Effects of Supervisory Behavior on Path-Goal Relationship. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 5:277–298.

Floyd, R. (1992). The Art of War and the Art of Management. Indus- trial Management 34(5):25–26.

Gilmore, T.N. (1982). Leadership and Boundary Management. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 18(3):343–356.

Gladstein, D.L. (1984). Groups in Context: A Model of Task Group Effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly 29:499–517.

Griffin, R.W. (1979). Task Design Determinants of Effective Leader Behavior. Academy of Management Review 4(2):215–224.

Griffin, A. (1997). PDMA Research on New Product Development Practices: Updating Trends and Benchmarking Best Practices. Journal of Product Innovation Management 14(4):429–458.

Griffin, A. and Hauser, J.R. (1992). Patterns of Communication among Marketing, Engineering, and Manufacturing—A Compar- ison between Two New Product Teams. Management Science 38:360–373.

Henke, J.W., Krachenberg, A.R., and Lyons, T.F. (1993). Cross-Func- tional Teams: Good Concept, Poor Implementation. Journal of Product Innovation Management 10:216–229.

Hershock, R.J., Cowman, C.D., and Peters, D. (1994). From Experi- ence: Action Teams that Work. Journal of Product Innovation Man- agement 11:95–104.

Hoffman, D.A., Griffin, M.A., and Gavin, M.B. (2000). The Applica- tion of Hierarchical Linear Modeling to Organizational Research. In: Multilevel Theory, Research, and Methods in Organi- zations: Foundations, Extensions, and New Directions, ed. K.J. Klein, and S.W.J. Kozlowski. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc., 467–511.

House, R.J. (1971). A Path-Goal Theory of Leader Effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly 16(3):321–332.

Howat, G. and London, M. (1980). Attribution of Conflict Manage- ment Strategies in Superior-Subordinate Dyads. Journal of Applied Psychology 65(2):172–175.

Jassawalla, A.R. and Sashittal, H.C. (2000). Strategies of Effective New Product Team Leaders. California Management Review 42(2):34–51.

Katzenbach, J.R. and Smith, D.K. (1993). The Discipline of Teams. Harvard Business Review 71(2):111–120 (March–April).

Kezsbom, D.S. (2000). Creating Teamwork in Virtual Teams. Cost Engineering 42(10):33–36.

200 J PROD INNOV MANAG 2009;26:188–205

S. SARIN AND G. C. O’CONNOR

Kidd, J.S. and Christy, R.T. (1961). Supervisory Procedures and Work-Team Productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology 45(6): 388–392.

Klein, K.J., and Kozlowski, S.W.J. (Eds.) (2000). Multilevel Theory, Research, and Methods in Organizations: Foundations, Extensions, and New Directions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc.

Klein, K.J., Bliese, P., Kozlowski, S., Dansereau, F., Gavin, M., Griffin, M., et al. (2000). Multilevel Analytical Techniques: Com- monalities, Differences and Continuing Questions. In: Multilevel Theory, Research, and Methods in Organizations: Foundations, Ex- tensions, and New Directions, ed. K.J. Klein, and S.W.J. Kozlowski. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc., 512–553.

Kolb, D.A. and Rubin, I.M. (1990). Organizational Psychology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall Publications.

Kreft, I. and de Leeuw, J. (1998). Introducing Multilevel Modeling. London: Sage Publications.

Maltz, E. (2000). Is All Communication Created Equal? An Investi- gation into the Effects of Communication Mode on Perceived In- formation Quality. Journal of Product Innovation Management 17(2):110–127.

Maltz, E. and Kohli, A.K. (1996). Market Intelligence Dissemination across Functional Boundaries. Journal of Marketing Research 33:47–61 (February).

McDonough III, E.F. (1993). Faster New Product Development: In- vestigating the Effects of Technology and Characteristics of the Project Leader and Team. Journal of Product Innovation Manage- ment 10:241–250.

McDonough III, E.F. (2000). Investigation of Factors Contributing to the Success of Cross-Functional Teams. Journal of Product Inno- vation Management 17:221–235.

McDonough III, E.F. and Barczak, G. (1991). Speeding Up New Product Development: The Effects of Leadership Style and Source of Technology. Journal of Product Innovation Management 9:44–52.

McDonough III, E.F. and Griffin, A. (1997). Matching the Right Or- ganizational Practices to a Firm’s Innovation Strategy: Findings from the PDMA’s Best Practices Research. PDMA Research Con- ference Presentation, October.

Muczyk, J.P. and Reimann, B.C. (1987). The Case for Directive Lead- ership. Academy of Management Review 12:637–647.

Norrgren, F. and Schaller, J. (1999). Leadership Style: Its Impact on Cross-Functional Product Development. Journal of Product Inno- vation Management 16:377–384.

Nunnally, J.C. (1978). Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Nurick, A.J. and Thamhain, H.J. (2006). Developing Multinational Project Teams. In: Global Project Management Handbook: Plan- ning, Organizing and Controlling International Projects, (2d ed.), ed. D.L. Cleland and R. Gareis. New York: McGraw Hill, 5.2–5.17.

Parker, G.M. (1994). Cross-Functional Teams: Working With Allies, Enemies, and Other Strangers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Pub- lishers.

Peterson, R.S. (1997). A Directive Leadership Style in Group Decision Making Can Be Both a Virtue and Vice: Evidence from Elite and

Experimental Groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 72:1107–1121.

Pinto, M.B., Pinto, J.K., and Prescott, J.E. (1993). Antecedents and Consequences of Project Team Cross-Functional Cooperation. Management Science 39(10):1281–1297.

Porter, T.W. and Lilly, B.S. (1996). The Effects of Conflict, Trust, and Task Commitment on Project Team Performance. International Journal of Conflict Management 7(4):361–376.

Robbins, H. and Finley, M. (1995). Why Teams Don’t Work: What Went Wrong and How to Make it Right. Princeton, NJ: Peterson’s/ Pacesetter Books.

Sarin, S. and Mahajan, V. (2001). The Effect of Reward Structures on the Performance of Cross-Functional Product Development Teams. Journal of Marketing 65(2):35–53.

Sarin, S. and McDermott, C. (2003). The Effect of Team Leadership on the Learning and Performance of Cross-Functional Product Development Teams. Decision Sciences 34(4):707–739.

Sethi, R. (2000). Superordinate Identity in Cross-Functional Product Development Teams: Its Effect on New Product Performance and Its Antecedents. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 28:330–344 (Summer).

Song, X.M., Xie, J., and Dyer, B. (2000). Antecedents and Conse- quences of Marketing Managers’ Conflict-Handling Behaviors. Journal of Marketing 64(1):50–66.

Stewart, G.L. and Manz, C.C. (1995). Leadership for Self-Managing Work Teams: A Typology and Integrative Model. Human Relations 48(7):747–770.

Teas, R.K. (1981). An Empirical Test of Models of Salesperson’s Job Expectancy and Instrumentality Perceptions. Journal of Marketing Research 18:209–226 (May).

Teas, R.K. (1983). Supervisory Behavior, Role Stress, and the Job Satisfaction of Industrial Salespeople. Journal of Marketing Research 20:84–91 (February).

Thomas, K.W. (1977). Toward Multi-dimensional Values in Teaching: The Example of Conflict Behaviors. Academy of Management Review 2(3):484–490.

Ulrich, K.T. and Eppinger, S.D. (1995). Product Design and Develop- ment. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.

Van de Ven, A. and Ferry, D.L. (1980). Measuring and Assessing Organizations. New York: Wiley.

Venkatraman, N. (1989). Strategic Orientation of Business Enterprises: The Construct, Dimensionality and Measurement. Management Science 35(8):942–961.

Wilemon, D. and Thamhain, H. (1983). Team Building in Project Management. Project Management Quarterly June, 73–80.

Wind, J. and Mahajan, V. (1997). Issues and Opportunities in New Product Development: An Introduction to the Special Issue. Journal of Marketing Research 34:1–12 (February).

Yukl, G. (1994). Leadership in organizations, (3d ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

TEAM LEADER CHARACTERISTICS AND INTERNAL DYNAMICS J PROD INNOV MANAG 2009;26:188–205

201

Appendix. Construct Definitions and Measures

Construct Definition Items Adapted From

Participation

(4 items, a 5 .81)

The degree to which the team leader is perceived to be friendly, approachable, and democratic in his/her interactions with the team members.

� Team members can exert influence regarding how the team should function. � Team members can influence decisions of the team leader regarding things concerning the team. � Our team leader frequently asks the team members for their opinion when a problem comes up that involves the project. � Our team leader frequently makes decisions concerning the team, without consulting the team members. [R]

Sarin and McDermott (2003), Teas (1981, 1983)

Consideration

(5 items, a 5 .83) The degree to which the team leader is friendly and approachable, and demonstrates interest in the well being of the team members.

� Our team leader is friendly and approachable. � Our team leader gives advance notice of changes. � Our team leader makes my job pleasant. � Our team leader does little things to make it pleasant to be a member of this team. � Our team leader treats all members of the team as his/her equal.

Sarin and McDermott (2003), Teas (1981, 1983)

Initiation of

Goal Structure

(3 items, a 5 .66)

The degree to which the team leader lets the team members know their outcome objectives and expectations.

� Our team leader lets the team know what is expected of them. � Our team leader makes his/her attitudes clear to the team members. � Our team leader makes sure that his/her part in the team is understood by the team members.

Sarin and McDermott (2003), Teas (1981, 1983)

Smoothing

(3 items, a 5 .62)

The frequency with which conflicts are resolved by building on the areas of agreement.

� Common areas of agreement are emphasized. � Real issues in the disagreement may not be addressed. [R] � Areas of agreement between the conflicting parties are emphasized.

Blake and Mouton (1964), Howat and London (1980)

Initiation of

Process

Structure

(5 items, a 5 .72)

The degree to which the team leader organizes and directs the activities of the team members.

� Our team leader encourages the use of uniform procedures. � Our team leader decides what shall be done and how it will be done. � Our team leader schedules the work to be done. � Our team leader maintains definite standards of performance. � Our team leader asks the team members to follow standard rules and regulations.

Sarin and McDermott (2003), Teas (1981, 1983)

Team Leader

Position

(6 items, a 5 .76)

A measure of the formal as well as the informal power and influence enjoyed by the team leader within the organization.

� Our team leader is well respected in the organization for his/her management skills. � Our team leader is well respected in the organization for his/her technical skills. � Our team leader is widely ‘networked’ in the organization. � Our team leader occupies a high position in the organization. � Our team leader enjoys authority in our organization. � Our team leader has significant decision- making responsibility in our organization.

Sarin and McDermott (2003), Teas (1981, 1983)

Confronting

(6 items, a 5 .87)

The frequency with which conflicts are resolved by openly discussing the disagreement and trying to resolve the problem.

� Problems are openly discussed/confronted. � A rational approach is adopted to resolve the disagreements. � Conflicts are resolved by focusing on the issues.

Blake and Mouton (1964), Howat and London (1980)

202 J PROD INNOV MANAG 2009;26:188–205

S. SARIN AND G. C. O’CONNOR

Appendix. (Contd.)

Construct Definition Items Adapted From

� Different alternative approaches of solving the problem are evaluated. � The best alternative is selected as the solution in resolving the disagreement. � The problem is confronted until the conflict is resolved.

Compromising

(3 items, a 5 .72)

The frequency with which conflicts are resolved by mutual bargaining amongst the disagreeing parties.

� There is bargaining between conflicting parties. � There is a search for solutions which will bring some degree of satisfaction to the conflicting parties. � Conflicting parties give in a little to get a little.

Blake and Mouton (1964), Howat and London (1980)

Forcing

(5 items, a 5 .88)

The frequency with which conflicts are resolved by the forceful imposition of a solution by an individual (or subgroup) over another individual (or subgroup).

� Acceptance of one viewpoint is forced at the expense of others. � Resolution of the conflict is characterized by competitiveness. � Solution(s) are forced, to the deterioration of the team climate. � Resolution of the conflict is characterized by win/lose behavior. � Solutions are forced, to the resentment of some team members.

Blake and Mouton (1964), Howat and London (1980)

Collaboration

(11 items, a 5 .88)

The degree to which the members of the team work together to accomplish specific tasks.

� When dealing with a task-related problem, our team seems to be most concerned with finding the best solution. � Interpersonal relationships within the team are such that members know that other members will provide support/ encouragement. � When an approach to solving a problem fails, our team focuses on learning from the failure. � The nature of interpersonal relationships in this team is such that others will often act to your disadvantage. [R] � When team members work jointly on problems, they tend to build on each other’s ideas. � After a disagreement in the team, everyone gets on with their respective jobs. � Team members regularly share project/ team-related information with each other. � In carrying out their assignments, team members act as consultants to each other. � When someone on the team makes an error, others try and help him/her. � In dealing with each other, team members openly discuss what they think/feel. � In interactions with team members, it is acceptable to ask questions about anything one doesn’t understand.

Pinto, Pinto, and Prescott (1993), Aram, Morgan, and Esbeck (1971)

Withdrawal

(4 items, a 5 .83)

The frequency with which conflicts are resolved by using an avoidance approach, i.e., by not dealing with the conflict altogether.

� Members refrain from arguing about an issue causing a conflict. � There is avoidance of a conflicting issue. � The team does not deal with the disagreement. � There is a tendency to avoid rocking the boat.

Blake and Mouton (1964), Howat and London (1980)

TEAM LEADER CHARACTERISTICS AND INTERNAL DYNAMICS J PROD INNOV MANAG 2009;26:188–205

203

Appendix. (Contd.)

Construct Definition Items Adapted From

Internal

Communication

Frequency and

Formality

(13 items composite scale,a 5 NA)

Frequency is the number of communication events between the respondent(s) and other members of their team over an average three-month period. Formality is the ratio of formal to informal communication events. Formal communication events are denoted by an [F] and informal by an [IF].

Respondents were asked to indicate how frequently they communicate using the following the mechanisms over an average three month period (1 5 Once or less, . . ., 5 5 More than once per day): � Written Communication Memos [F]; Reports [F]; Fax Machine [F] � Oral Communication Formal Group Meetings [F] Scheduled One-to-One Meetings (Face-to- Face) [F] Impromptu Face-to-Face Meetings (e.g., in the hall) [IF] Scheduled One-to-One Phone Conversations [F] Impromptu One-to-One Phone Conversations [IF] Voice Mail [F] Teleconferencing [F] � Electronic Communication E-mail consisting of text only [F] E-mail consisting of text w/graphics and/or spreadsheets [F] Electronic Group Conferencing [F]

Van de Ven and Ferry (1980), Maltz and Kohli (1996)

Team Size

(1 item; a 5 NA) The number of members who form the core/primary part of the product development team.

� Please indicate the number of members who form the core/primary part of your product development team: ______

Ancona and Caldwell (1992b)

Project Length

(1 item; a 5 NA) A measure of the duration of the project (in months)

� Please indicate the number of months that elapsed (or will have elapsed) between the time that this product was first formally approved, and the time that it was (or will be) finally introduced/launched in the market: ________

Sarin and Mahajan (2001)

Internal

Communication

Quality

(10 items, a 5 .90)

Quality is a measure of the communication within the team along the dimensions such as: accuracy, clarity, detail congruence, relevance, ease and timeliness.

� Information exchanged was reliable. � Information exchanged was easy to comprehend. � Information exchanged was detailed enough to be useful. � Communication exchanged included topics which were of relevance to both the sender as well as receiver of the communication. � Communication exchanged made it difficult to get ideas across. � Information exchanged was current. � The communication/information exchanged was accurate � The information exchanged was ‘actionable’. � It was difficult to get in touch with members of the team. � Communication exchanged included topics which were of interest to both the sender as well as receiver of the communication.

Maltz (2000), Van de Ven and Ferry (1980)

204 J PROD INNOV MANAG 2009;26:188–205

S. SARIN AND G. C. O’CONNOR

Appendix. (Contd.)

Construct Definition Items Adapted From

Functional

Diversity

(1 item; a 5 NA)

The degree of functional heterogeneity in the team.

Please indicate how many members of your product team belong to the following functional areas: � Marketing: _______ � Manufacturing: _______ � Engineering: _______

Ancona and Caldwell (1992b)

An entropy based index was used to calculate functional diversity (H):

H¼s � X

Pi � ðln PiÞ Where, P 5 fractional share of team members assigned to marketing, manufacturing, and engineering. S 5 the number of functional areas that can potentially be represented.

Project Risk

(4 item; a 5 .88) The magnitude of failure associated with the project.

� Our organization has a lot riding on this project. � Poor market performance by this product will have serious consequences for our business. � Our organization has made a significant investment in the development of this product. � The outcome of this project has high strategic value for our organization.

Sarin and Mahajan (2001)

Project

Complexity

(5 item; a 5 .86)

The degree to which the development process was complicated and difficult.

� The product developed by our team was technically complex to develop. � Our team had to use non-routine technology to develop the product. � The development process associated with the product was relatively simple. [R] � Development of this product required pioneering innovation. � The product developed by our team is/was complex.

Sarin and Mahajan (2001)

TEAM LEADER CHARACTERISTICS AND INTERNAL DYNAMICS J PROD INNOV MANAG 2009;26:188–205

205