How do autonomy, cohesion and integration of teamwork impact the dynamic capability?

Knowledge-Oriented Leadership, Team Cohesion, and Project Success: A Conditional Mechanism

“…Further, the mechanisms defining this relationship have not been adequately examined. Team cohesion promotes dynamic capability processes such as absorption, generation, storage, and adaptation of knowledge (Gonzalez & de Melo, 2019). However, team cohesion as a knowledge management mechanism and the relevant boundary conditions influencing project success remain less researched.…”

Innovative performance of project teams: the role of organizational structure and knowledge-based dynamic capability

“…Previous researches contribute to the theory by studying the relationship between organizational structure and team performance (Walheiser et al , 2021; Chión et al , 2019; Burcharth et al , 2015; Chen et al , 2010; Damanpour, 1991) and the impact of dynamic capability on project team innovative performance (Ali et al , 2019; Zotoo et al , 2020; Gonzalez and Melo, 2021); however, there is a gap in the literature as to studies that simultaneously address two antecedents of project team performance: knowledge-based dynamic capability and organizational structure. This study extends the contribution of previous works by proposing that the capability of a project team to absorb external knowledge and to coordinate, create and combine internal knowledge is a critical factor for increasing innovative performance.…”

“…This study uses the partial least square – structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) technique for data analysis, using the Smart-PLS software (version 3.0). PLS-SEM is a technique widely used in management studies, including several studies on dynamic capability, teamwork, organizational structure and innovative performance (Gonzalez and Melo, 2021; Gonzalez and Melo, 2019; Ali et al , 2020; Chión et al , 2019). Hair et al (2013) highlight PLS-SEM because it is a technique with less restrictions in terms of data normality, and it is also applied to smaller samples when compared to SEM.…”

“…Jansen et al (2005), Damanpour (1991) and Walheiser et al (2021) analyze the relationship between formalization and processes related to organizational knowledge and point out that following formal rules and procedures prevent team members to research and look for new ways to perform tasks. In addition, Gonzalez and Melo (2021) e Van den Bosch et al (1999) argue that formalization limits employees' awareness of possible performance gaps that their organizations or teams present. In this context, individuals are instructed to follow formal rules and not challenge current standards, eliminating the potential for knowledge absorption:…”

“…The literature suggests that dynamic capability and innovative performance should be viewed as dependent variables, as they are supported by the firm's ability to organize and structure its individuals and processes to generate and renew its knowledge (Liu et al , 2019). Several authors have investigated the antecedents of dynamic capability and innovative performance, including cultural factors (Mazur and Zaborek, 2016; Calabuig et al , 2018; Gonzalez and Melo, 2019), the development of human resources (Gonzalez and Melo, 2021; Jones and Knoppen, 2018), contextual factors (Lin et al , 2020; Islam et al , 2014; Kozlowski and Ilgen, 2006), the leadership style (Inamizu et al , 2014) and the organizational structure (Walheiser et al , 2021; Ali et al , 2019). However, there is a gap in the literature of studies that assess the impact of organizational structure on team innovative performance within the scope of industrial companies, investigating the mediating role played by dynamic capability.…”