In a sample of 62 research and development (R&D) teams, the authors examined transformational leadership as a moderator of the relationship of age, nationality, and educational background diversity with team outcomes. When levels of transformational leadership were high, nationality and educational diversity were positively related to team leaders' longitudinal ratings of team performance. These relationships were nonsignificant when transformational leadership was low. Age diversity was not related to team performance when transformational leadership was high, and it was negatively related to team performance when transformational leadership was low. Two mediated moderation effects help explain these findings. Transformational leadership moderated the relationship of the 3 examined diversity dimensions with the elaboration of task-relevant information, which in turn was positively associated with team performance. Moreover, transformational leadership moderated the relationship of the 3 diversity types with collective team identification, which in turn was positively related to the elaboration of task-relevant information. The authors discuss the theoretical and practical implications of these results. Overall, this study suggests that transformational leadership can foster the utilization of the potential, but frequently untapped, benefits entailed by both demographic and informational/cognitive team diversity. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2009 APA, all rights reserved).

No abstract

We develop a framework that provides a general theoretical rationale for the claim made by several authors that combining opposing action strategies fosters team innovation. We distinguish between open and closed strategies and posit that these are opposing but complementary in that each fosters one of two processes necessary for team innovation: open action strategies (e.g., delegative leadership) promote knowledge generation, and closed action strategies (e.g., directive leadership) enhance knowledge integration. We argue that each pole of a pair of opposing action strategies both energizes and detracts from elements of innovation. Thus, it could be expected that combining opposing action strategies leads to an impasse, as the negative effects of each strategy might offset the positive effects of the opposite strategy. There is currently no viable explanation in the literature for why this mutual neutralization may not occur. We aim to fill this gap by explicating why and how opposing action strategies, when implemented simultaneously, do not countervail each other's positive effects, but rather yield positive synergies that fuel team innovation.

No abstract

The ubiquitous hope among managers of new product development (NPD) teams that a cross-functional team composition may be a royal road to enhancing team innovations appears to be an illusion. Empirical analyses show positive as well as negative or nonsignificant relationships between crossfunctionality and team innovations. In this article, we integrate the extant literature and develop a process model that explains the contradictory empirical findings. We propose that introducing specific mediators and moderators enables improved predictions of the effects of cross-functionality on team innovations. In developing our model, which is primarily based on a conflict-theoretical perspective, we address theories of social categorization, identity and self verification, information/decision making, group problem solving, and innovativeness, respectively. Our process model explicates how (i.e., via what mediators) and when (i.e., in the presence of what moderators) cross-functionality enhances or impedes synergistic communication among team members, which in turn fosters team innovations. On the basis of this new model we discuss strategies for managing cross-functionality in NPD teams.