Autonomy and teamwork in innovative projects

The use of teams that incorporate autonomy in their designs continues to be an important element of many organizations. However, prior research has emphasized projects with mostly routine tasks and has assumed that autonomy resides primarily with a team leader. We investigate how two aspects of team autonomy are related to teamwork quality, a multifaceted indicator of team collaboration (Hoegl & Gemuenden, 2001). Specifically, we hypothesize that team-external influence over operational project decisions is negatively related to teamwork quality, while team-internal equality of influence over project decisions is positively related to teamwork quality. Testing our hypotheses on responses from 430 team members and team leaders pertaining to 145 software development teams, results support both predictions. Acknowledging the possible benefits of certain types of external influence (e.g., constructive feedback), the findings demonstrate that team-external managers of innovative projects should generally refrain from interfering in team-internal operational decisions. Likewise, the study shows that all team members should share decision authority, recognizing that their contributions to team discussion and decision making may well differ given differences in experience and expertise. © 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

[1]  M. Hoegl,et al.  When teamwork really matters: task innovativeness as a moderator of the teamwork–performance relationship in software development projects , 2003 .

[2]  Robert F. Easley,et al.  Relating Collaborative Technology Use to Teamwork Quality and Performance: An Empirical Analysis , 2003, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[3]  M. Hoegl,et al.  Teamwork Quality and the Success of Innovative Projects , 2001 .

[4]  L. Sproull,et al.  Coordinating Expertise in Software Development Teams , 2000 .

[5]  Claus W. Langfred.  The paradox of self‐management: individual and group autonomy in work groups , 2000 .

[6]  Rajesh Sethi,et al.  Superordinate identity in cross-functional product development teams: Its antecedents and effect on new product performance , 2000 .

[7]  Hélène Sicotte,et al.  Integration mechanisms and R&D project performance☆ , 2000 .

[8]  Bradley L. Kirkman,et al.  Beyond Self-Management: Antecedents and Consequences of Team Empowerment , 1999 .

[9]  Nathan Bennett,et al.  Does Work Group Cohesiveness Affect Individuals' Performance and Organizational Commitment? , 1998 .

[10]  J. Colquitt,et al.  KNOWLEDGE WORKER TEAM EFFECTIVENESS: THE ROLE OF AUTONOMY, INTERDEPENDENCE, TEAM DEVELOPMENT, AND CONTEXTUAL SUPPORT VARIABLES , 1997 .

[11]  D. Gerwin,et al.  Withdrawal of team autonomy during concurrent engineering , 1997 .

[12]  D. Gerwin,et al.  Authorizing processes changing team autonomy during new product development , 1997 .

[13]  Gerald E. Ledford,et al.  A HIERARCHICAL CONSTRUCT OF SELF‐MANAGEMENT LEADERSHIP AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO QUALITY OF WORK LIFE AND PERCEIVED WORK GROUP EFFECTIVENESS , 1997 .

[14]  Dennis J. Devine,et al.  A Meta-Analysis of Cohesion and Performance , 1995 .

[15]  R. A. Cooke,et al.  The Impact of Group Interaction Styles on Problem-Solving Effectiveness , 1994 .

[16]  B. Mullen,et al.  The relation between group cohesiveness and performance: An integration. , 1994 .

[17]  Robert C. Ford,et al.  Cross-Functional Structures: A Review and Integration of Matrix Organization and Project Management , 1992 .

[18]  K. Clark,et al.  Organizing and Leading “Heavyweight” Development Teams , 1992 .

[19]  John Cordery,et al.  Attitudinal and Behavioral Effects of Autonomous Group Working: A Longitudinal Field Study , 1991 .

[20]  Anson Seers,et al.  Team-member exchange quality: a new construct for role-making research , 1989 .

[21]  H. P. Sims,et al.  Leading Workers to Lead Themselves: The External Leadership of Self-Managing Work Teams. , 1987 .

[22]  T. Wall,et al.  Outcomes of Autonomous Workgroups: A Long-Term Field Experiment , 1986 .

[23]  Richard L. Daft,et al.  Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design , 1986 .

[24]  Eric Trist,et al.  Paradigms for Societal Transition , 1986 .

[25]  D. L. Gladstein.  Groups in context: A model of task group effectiveness. , 1984 .

[26]  D. Tjosvold.  Cooperation Theory and Organizations , 1984 .

[27]  W. B. Zachary,et al.  Managing creative individuals in high-technology research projects , 1984, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management.

[28]  L. James,et al.  Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. , 1984 .

[29]  E. Miller.  Socio-Technical Systems in Weaving, 1953-1970: A Follow-up Study , 1975 .

[30]  Hans-Georg Gemünden,et al.  Interteam Coordination, Project Commitment, and Teamwork in Multiteam R&D Projects: A Longitudinal Study , 2004, Organ. Sci..

[31]  Richard A. Guzzo,et al.  Teams in organizations: recent research on performance and effectiveness. , 1996, Annual review of psychology.

[32]  J. Hackman,et al.  The design of work teams , 1987 .

[33]  R. Katz,et al.  Investigating the Not Invented Here (NIH) syndrome: A look at the performance, tenure, and communication patterns of 50 R & D Project Groups , 1982 .