Transactive Memory Systems Team Innovation

G Model
ENGTEC-1454; No. of Pages 12
J. Eng. Technol. Manage. xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Engineering and Technology

Management
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jengtecman
Transactive memory systems in research team innovation:

A moderated mediation analysis§
Vesa Peltokorpi a,*, Mervi Hasu b
a
Saitama University, Japan
b
Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, Finland
A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T
Article history: While transactive memory systems (TMS) have conceptually been linked to team
Received 8 November 2013 innovation, empirical support is still scarce. This study, by integrating team innovation and
Received in revised form 13 October 2015 TMS research, provides a moderated mediation model with a set of hypotheses that link
Accepted 25 November 2015
task orientation, TMS, and transformational leadership on innovation in research teams.
Data were derived from 124 research teams in Finland. Hierarchical regression and
Keywords:
moderated mediation analyses show that TMS partially mediate the positive relation
Task orientation
between task orientation and team innovation. Transformational leadership positively
Team innovation
Transactive memory systems moderated the relationship between TMS and team innovation. The theoretical
Transformational leadership contributions and practical implications of the findings are considered, and directions
Research team for future research are suggested.
ß 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Interest in team innovation has grown during the last three decades in line with increasing reliance on and recognition of
teams as the primary drivers of organizational innovation (see Anderson et al., 2014, for a review). Scholars focusing on team
innovation outcomes often assume that teams have diverse task information, and that certain team processes or emergent
states (i.e., shared psychological states that both influence and are influenced by team processes) facilitate the exchange of
such information (Anderson et al., 2014; Hülsheger et al., 2009). The ability of a team to innovate is therefore closely linked to
information held by its members and related team processes or emergent states. Team innovation is[7_TD$IF] often defined as ‘‘the
intentional introduction and application, within a role, group or organization of ideas, processes, products or procedures,
new to the relevant unit of adoption, designed to significantly benefit the individual, the group, the organization or wider
society’’ (West and Farr, 1990, p. 9). Team innovation is[1_TD$IF] distinguished from creativity by the implementation, as opposed to
mere generation of ideas (Anderson et al., 2014).
Among numerous theories describing how teams use information in performing their tasks, TMS theory has attracted
increasing attention (see Peltokorpi, 2008; Ren and Argote, 2011, for reviews). TMS can be defined as a set of diverse task
§
An earlier, abbreviated version of this study was published in the Academy of Management 2011 Annual Meeting best papers proceedings. We wish to
thank Kyle Lewis, Frances Milliken, Tomoki Sekiguchi, and Aarti Ramaswami for their comments on a previous version of this study and Laura Honkaniemi
for her research assistance. The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) Form 5X-Short is used with permission of Mind Garden, Inc., 1690 Woodside
Road Suite 202, Redwood City, CA 94061, USA.
* Corresponding author at: Saitama University, 255 Shimo-Okubo, Sakura-ku, Saitama City, Saitama 338-8570, Japan.
E-mail address: vesap@mail.saitama-u.ac.jp (V. Peltokorpi).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jengtecman.2015.11.001
0923-4748/ß 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Please cite this article in press as: Peltokorpi, V., Hasu, M., Transactive memory systems in research team innovation: A
moderated mediation analysis. J. Eng. Technol. Manage. (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jengtecman.2015.11.001
G Model
2 V. Peltokorpi, M. Hasu / Journal of Engineering and Technology Management xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
information held by different team members combined with a shared awareness of ‘‘who knows what’’ within the team
(Wegner, 1986). TMS theory suggests that teams of interdependent members, by dividing responsibility for different
expertise domains and using one another as external cognitive aids, are able to create a memory system that holds much
more information than any one of those individual members could retain alone. In well-functioning TMS, team members
understand who has what specialized task information (i.e., specialization), trust the credibility of that information (i.e.,
credibility), and organize this information efficiently (i.e., coordination) (Lewis, 2003). Task information diversity and TMS
development starts to increase as team members accept the responsibility as experts of different information domains and
other members recognize them as experts and start to rely on their expertise. Although TMS have conceptually been linked
to team innovation (Peltokorpi, 2008; Wegner, 1986; Zhu, 2009), empirical support is still scarce. The present study
examines such effect on team innovation in a sample of 124 research teams.
More specifically, this study contributes to TMS and team innovation research in two ways. First, despite their existence
in and importance to knowledge-intensive teams (Lewis, 2003), this is one of the first studies that links TMS to team
innovation. To date, empirical evidence is limited to two studies suggesting that TMS has a positive impact on innovation in
charter school boards (Zhu, 2009) and a curvilinear impact on innovation in research teams (Peltokorpi and Hasu, 2014[2_TD$IF]).
While the focus in previous studies was limited to direct effects, we also take into account constructs that may enhance TMS
and moderate the effect between TMS and innovation in research teams. Second, related to our first contribution, this study
integrates TMS and team research to provide a moderated mediation model and a set of hypotheses that link task orientation,
TMS, and transformational leadership to research team innovation. We start by examining the mediating effect of TMS
between task orientation and team innovation. Task orientation refers to a team-level shared commitment to excellence in
task performance coupled with a climate which supports the adoption of improvements to established policies, procedures,
and methods (West, 1990). We also examine the moderating effect of transformational leadership between TMS and team
innovation. Transformational leaders move followers beyond their immediate self-interests through idealized influence,
inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration (Bass, 1985). Despite their importance in
research teams (Elkins and Keller, 2003), task orientation and team leadership have received scant attention in the TMS
literature (Peltokorpi, 2008; Ren and Argote, 2011).
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. The following section provides a review of TMS theory and of the literature
that link TMS, task orientation, and transformational leadership to research team innovation. The third section provides
hypotheses that link task orientation, TMS, and transformational leadership to research team innovation. The fourth section
presents the research sample and measures, and discriminant validity and aggregation analyses. The fifth section presents
the findings. The sixth section discusses theoretical contributions and practical implications of the findings, and limitations
and suggestions for future studies.
2. Conceptual framework
In team innovation research, a common presumption is that teams have diverse task information, and that certain team
processes or emergent states, such as task orientation (West, 1990) and transformational leadership (Bass, 1985), promote
the efficient flow and exchange of such information (Anderson et al., 2014; Hülsheger et al., 2009). In order to understand
how teams coordinate and use information in performing their tasks, scholars have proposed various theoretical
frameworks, such as TMS (Wegner, 1986) and team mental models (TMM) (see Mohammed et al., 2010, for a review). TMM
can be defined as organized mental representations of the key elements within a team’s relevant environment that are
shared across team members (Mohammed et al., 2010). While both of these cognitive constructs are important antecedents
of team performance (Mohammed et al., 2010; Peltokorpi, 2008), we focus in this paper on TMS because of its emphasis on
specialization and shared expertise awareness. More specifically, while TMM refer to knowledge structures or information
held in common, TMS refer to knowledge or information distribution within a team and shared awareness of ‘‘who knows
what’’ (Peltokorpi, 2008).
TMS are formed and function through the overlapping encoding, storage, and retrieval phases (Wegner, 1986). During the
encoding phase, team members learn ‘‘who knows what’’ by making, refining, and updating inferences about each other’s
expertise and interests. TMS can be formed in part because each team member accepts responsibility for certain task
expertise domain(s). In organizational teams, leaders can assign expertise domains explicitly (Peltokorpi and Manka, 2008).
Once each team member accepts the responsibility as domain experts, other team members are able to pass information to
them for processing and storage. Knowledge-intensive teams form differentiated TMS in which each member holds different
task information items (Liang et al., 1995). This specialization reduces knowledge overlaps, allowing teams to hold a greater
amount of task-related information. In well-functioning differentiated TMS, specialized task information needs to be credible
and well-coordinated (Lewis, 2003). Specialization refers to the level of memory differentiation within a team, credibility to
team members’ beliefs about the reliability of other members’ task information, and coordination to the ability of team
members to work together efficiently (Lewis, 2003). Transactive retrieval occurs when two or more team members
collaborate to retrieve uniquely held task information. Team members retrieve needed task information by identifying a
relevant domain expert through internally/externally held location information about who knows what (Kleinsmann et al.,
2010). This way, team members use each other as external memory aids.
TMS are argued to enhance to team innovation (Peltokorpi, 2008; Wegner, 1986; Zhu, 2009). Common in these arguments
are the benefits related with increased specialization, as well as shared awareness of distributed expertise and novel
G Model
V. Peltokorpi, M. Hasu / Journal of Engineering and Technology Management xxx (2015) xxx–xxx 3
combinations of different, but complementary information items held by different team members. Importantly, TMS theory
suggests that discussions among members of differentiated TMS produce creative, innovative outputs (Wegner, 1986).
Through these discussions, differentiated but complementary task information items held by different members can
be combined in novel ways. Teams with well-functioning TMS are further identified to have more accurate and extensive
awareness of members’ expertise and such teams are in a better position to envision how members’ expertise can be
synthesized in novel ways than teams with inefficient TMS (Gino et al., 2010). While shared expertise awareness is
important, it is not sufficient condition for teams to maximize their innovative potential. Team members also need to
coordinate their activities efficiently and trust that information held by other members is credible (Zhu, 2009). Taken
together, scholarly arguments suggest that teams with well-functioning differentiated TMS become gradually more
innovative because of increased specialization and utilization of diverse specialization.
While scholars have emphasized the importance of increased specialization and TMS processes that promote the
exchange and combination of diverse task information (Lewis, 2003), research that explicitly links TMS to team innovation is
still scarce. To date, empirical evidence on the impact of TMS on team innovation is limited to two studies, showing (1) that
TMS has a direct positive direct impact on innovation charter school boards[8_TD$IF] (Zhu, 2009), and (2) that TMS has a curvilinear
impact on innovation in research teams (Peltokorpi and Hasu, 2014). Because the focus in these studies was limited to the
TMS-team innovation linkage, little is known about the constructs enhancing TMS and moderating the TMS-innovation
linkage in research teams. Little can also be extrapolated from previous studies because the study in research teams took into
account only TMS and team innovation constructs and because charter school boards differ from research teams in various
ways. In contrast to the school boards composed of parents of children attending the school, teachers employed by the
school, and the local community members (Zhu, 2009), members of research teams have specialized knowledge gained
through formal education and experience relevant to their tasks (Bain et al., 2001). In contrast to broad task responsibilities
in the school boards, research teams are formed to produce scientific and technical innovations (Henttonen, 2010). While the
members of the charter boards met on a monthly basis (Zhu, 2009), the members of research teams in our study interact on
daily basis and work in close proximity. In contrast to self-managed school boards, research teams also often have formal
leaders (Elkins and Keller, 2003).
Integrating research on TMS and team innovation and taking into account factors that influence research teams, we focus[9_TD$IF]
in this study on task orientation and transformational leadership. While other team processes or emergent states may also
affect TMS and team innovation, we take into account these two factors due to their relevance in research teams and
appearance in the TMS and team innovation literature. Among the four climate factors of team innovation (i.e., participative
safety, support for innovation, task orientation, and vision) (West, 1990), task orientation is important in research teams
because it guides the search for the most elegant, effective or parsimonious solution to the team’s innovative task (Bain et al.,
2001). With a high level of team task orientation, the team’s members are motivated to work harder and are more likely to
overcome obstacles during the innovation process (Somech and Drach-Zahavy, 2013). Task oriented teams also reflect on the
team’s objectives and strategies, and critically evaluate each other’s work to improve team innovative outcomes (West and
Anderson, 1996). In support to these conceptualizations, field studies show that task orientation enhances team innovation
(Bain et al., 2001; Burningham and West, 1995; De Dreu, 2007; West and Anderson, 1996).
In leadership research, a distinction is often made between transformational leadership and transactional leadership (as
behaviors aiming to monitor and control employees through rational or economic means) (Judge and Piccolo, 2004).
Transformational leaders are theorized (Bass, 1985) and empirically shown (Judge and Piccolo, 2004) to exhibit idealized
influence, arouse inspirational motivation, provide intellectual stimulation, and treat their followers with individualized
consideration. Idealized influence is the degree to which the leader behaves in admirable ways that cause followers to
identify with the leader. Inspirational motivation is the degree to which leaders articulate an appealing vision and behave in
ways that motivate those around them by providing meaning and challenge to their followers’ work. Intellectual stimulation
is the degree to which leaders stimulate their followers’ effort to be innovative and creative by questioning assumptions,
reframing problems, and approaching old situations in new ways. Individual consideration refers to the degree to which
leaders pay attention to each individual’s need for achievement and growth by acting as a coach or mentor. While meeting
the emotional needs of individual followers, transformational leaders direct many of their behaviors toward their entire
group of followers. Therefore, transformational leadership is often conceptualized and operationalized as a team-level
phenomenon (Judge and Piccolo, 2004).
We focus on transformational leadership because of its more consistent and stronger effects on research team innovation
than transactional leadership (Elkins and Keller, 2003). For example, transformational leaders are found to place greater
emphasis on innovation than transactional leaders (Church and Waclawski, 1998; Howell and Higgins, 1990). In particular,
Howell and Higgins (1990) argued unconventional and creative behavior of transformational leaders serve as role models for
technological innovation. Intrinsic motivational effects of transformational leadership are further [10_TD$IF]proposed to be more
conducive in activities that demand significant cognitive, emotional, and time resources from subordinates than contingent
rewards, corrective actions, and rule enforcement in transactional leadership (Burke et al., 2006a,b). Bass (1985) also
theorized that transformational leaders, in contrast to transactional leaders, are more innovative, have more novel ideas, and
can bring about major changes. Transactional leadership is even argued to be negatively related to innovative behavior
because it is focused more on in-role performance and less on the stimulation of novel activities (Nederveen Pieterse et al.,
2010). Furthermore, prior research suggests that transformational leadership is more effective in dynamic environments
(Elkins and Keller, 2003) in which research teams in our study were operating.
G Model
[(Fig._1)TD$IG]
Research Model and Hypotheses
Transformational
leadership
H2+
Task Transactive Team

orientation memory systems H1+ innovation
Fig. 1. Research model and hypotheses.
Theories and conceptual models also link TMS, task orientation, and team leadership to team innovation. For example,
the theory of team adaptation (Burke et al., 2006a,b) considers task orientation-related processes, such as mutual
performance monitoring and feedback, and critical reflection on team goals, to be crucial functions of plan execution, which
in turn is one of the processes involved in innovative team performance. In addition, team leadership and shared attention on
team tasks are linked to science team innovation in a conceptual model of integrative capacity (Salazar et al., 2012).
Integration is ‘‘the extent to which a [science] team combines its distinct expertise and work into a unified whole’’ (Salazar
et al., 2012, p. 528). In the model, team leaders help teams to establish shared goals, and enhance collective awareness,
sharing, and utilization of members’ expertise. Shared and reflective attention on team tasks, in turn, fosters expertise
recognition and integration and team innovation. Together, team leadership and shared attention on team tasks
enable teams to decrease compositional, team, and contextual barriers to innovation processes. TMS, in turn, [1_TD$IF]enhance
cognitive processes in which team expertise is transformed to team innovations (Salazar et al., 2012).
While the above theories, conceptual frameworks, and research have linked TMS, task orientation, and transformational
leadership to team innovation, they have not specified how these constructs are related. In the following section, we
integrate TMS and team research to provide a set of hypotheses on the direct, moderated, and mediated effects of task
orientation, TMS, and transformational leadership on research team innovation. This integration suggests that TMS has an
integrative role in enhancing team innovation, and that cognitive processes in TMS are supported and amplified by task
orientation and transformational leadership. Our research model and hypotheses are shown in Fig. 1.
3. Hypotheses
3.1. The mediating role of TMS
The motivation for members of teams with complex and interdependent tasks to form differentiated TMS is theorized to
arise from the limitations in individual cognition and the need for increased information processing capacity (Wegner,
1986). In line with TMS theory (Wegner, 1986), conceptual and empirical works on TMS are based on the assumptions that
task-oriented, intrinsically motivated team members are more willing to take and accept the responsibility for specific
expertise domains, share their ideas, and to help other members to develop and maintain their expertise domain(s)
(Peltokorpi, 2008). For example, a study with 38 MBA student teams suggests that task-oriented interactions facilitate
expertise awareness and cognition-based trust in TMS (Kanawattanachai and Yoo, 2007). In a related manner, Moreland and
McMinn (2010) conceptualized that the subconstruct of task orientation, task reflectivity, enhances TMS functioning in
terms of shared awareness among team members about their tasks and about one another. A study with 104 teams in
Chinese high-technology firms, in turn, suggests that TMS function and facilitate team performance construct that includes
team innovation elements only when team members are intrinsically motivated and engaged in the team (Zhang et al.,
2007). As mentioned above, TMS are also conceptualized (Peltokorpi, 2008; Wegner, 1986) and shown (Zhu, 2009) to
facilitate team innovation.
In team innovation research, task orientation is linked to intrinsic motivation (Shalley, 2002; West, 2002) and also shown
to enhance innovation in research teams (Anderson et al., 2014; Bain et al., 2001; Hülsheger et al., 2009). For example, West
(2002) proposed that task orientation is similar to intrinsic motivation that is fundamental to innovation at work. Team
members with high task orientation are further proposed to reflect on the value of their ideas before sharing them with other
members (Eisenbeiss et al., [12_TD$IF]2008). In addition, task orientation [13_TD$IF]is noted to support exploration of different ideas, clearer idea
formulation, and [14_TD$IF]to allow team members to make comments aligned with group processes and outputs (West, 1990). At the
same time, task orientation enhances team innovation because there is a greater likelihood that proposed ideas are more
carefully examined (West, 1990). For teams to be innovative, their members need to generate novel ideas, critically process
these ideas, and abandon those that appear useless, and process and implement those that have promise (De Dreu and West,
2001).
Based on the evidence provided above, we expect that task orientation, accompanied with intrinsic motivation, facilitate
team innovation through TMS. For example, TMS can have a mediating impact between task orientation and innovation
since it through exploration of different ideas helps team members to refine and update their expertise awareness, and to
G Model
combine their specialized expertise in novel ways. In addition, task orientation can enhance team innovation through TMS
because it motivates team members to accept responsibility of different expertise areas and to develop their task-relevant
expertise. Thus, we formulate the following hypothesis:
H1 (:).
TMS mediates the positive relationship between task orientation and team innovation.
3.2. The moderating role of transformational leadership
TMS and team innovation research suggest that transformational leaders, by idealized influence, individualized
consideration, inspirational motivation, and intellectual stimulation, alter the magnitude between TMS and research team
innovation. While leadership has been given scant attention in TMS research (Peltokorpi, [15_TD$IF]2008; Ren and Argote, 2011), team
leaders with leadership styles equivalent to individualized consideration and inspirational motivation are conceptualized to
enhance TMS processes by motivating team members to accept expertise roles and develop their expertise, and to share and
draw attention to unshared information (Peltokorpi and Manka, 2008). Because team members feel inspired and know that
their expertise is valued, they can be more motivated to engage in TMS processes. A qualitative study in a Japanese team-
based organization also provides some evidence that team leaders with leadership styles equivalent to intellectual
stimulation enhanced expertise differentiation (Peltokorpi, 2014). Ashleigh and Prichard (2012), in turn, proposed that
transformational leadership promote specialization in TMS by providing higher levels of autonomy to team members to
develop expertise related to team tasks.
Team innovation research[16_TD$IF], in turn, suggests that team leaders with transformational leadership types enhance the
processes through which team members’ expertise in TMS is converted to innovative outputs. Through intellectual
stimulation, transformational leaders encourage team members to view problems from new perspectives (Howell and
Higgins, 1990), think ‘‘outside the box’’ (Jung et al., 2003), and to adopt an explorative thinking style (Eisenbeiss et al., 2009).
Through individual consideration, transformational leaders enhance team members’ confidence to devise and implement
innovative responses to current problems (Bass, 1985). In teams with higher transformational leadership, teams members
are consequently less likely to fear ostracism and more likely to feel safe in sharing and discussing their ideas among their
members (Shin and Zhou, 2007). In research and development (R&D) teams, transformational leaders are also noted to
motivate members to transcend their self-interests for the sake of the team (Keller, 1992). Transformational leaders may
further reduce disputes over task expertise domains, as they are found to help teams to resolve contradictory demands
(Jansen et al., 2008). In R&D teams, transformational leadership is shown to enhance team performance constructs including
team innovation elements (Keller, 1992, 2006).
Taken together, the evidence provided above suggests that transformational leadership has a moderating effect between
TMS and team innovation. For example, by motivating team members to share and combine their expertise areas in novel
ways, transformational leaders can enhance the positive impact of TMS on team innovation. By intellectually stimulating
their team members, transformational leaders may also guide team members to search for and to be open to different ideas
and perspectives. Their intellectual stimulation can further direct the attention of members toward discovering new and
better ideas and urges them to explore and experiment with new approaches. Because transformational leadership appears
to affect the strength of the relation between TMS and team innovation, we formulate the following hypothesis:
H2 (:).
Transformational leadership moderates the relationship between TMS and team innovation such that the effect of TMS is
stronger when transformational leadership is high.
4. Methods
4.1. Sample and procedure
This study was conducted in one technological research organization in August 2009. More specifically, we conducted
this study in a Finnish multi-technological contract research organization, which provides high-end technology solutions
and innovation services. With the assistance of the research organization, we distributed a link to an internet-based study to
1200 employees in 139 research teams via their intranet. Strictly confidential data treatment was assured in the
accompanied e-mail message and responses were returned directly to our research assistant. Among these employees, 10%
did not receive our message due to incorrect or outdated e-mail addresses, their summer holiday or sick or maternity leave.
Two weeks later, we sent reminder e-mails to all employees requesting their participation. A total 579 employees
participated in the study, representing all functional areas in the organization. The individual-level response rate (48%) is
equivalent to other field studies on team innovation (e.g., Burningham and West, 1995; Eisenbeiss et al., 2008).
Among these 579 individual respondents, we omitted 33 individuals from the sample because of missing team numbers.
In the survey, respondents were asked to identify their team number. In line with a commonly used definition of teams
(Guzzo and Dickson, 1996), research on team innovation (Eisenbeiss et al., 2008), and methodological recommendations
(Maloney et al., 2010), the minimum number of responding team members necessary for inclusion in this study were two per
G Model
team. We omitted 15 teams that did not meet this criterion. The remaining 531 respondents worked in 124 research teams,
with the average within team response rate being 39.1%. The average team size was 11 members (range 4–31 members). The
average team tenure was 5 years (range 0–37 years). Correlation analyses showed the average response rate was not
significantly related with study variables. Among these 531 respondents, 75.3% were researchers, 13.1% team leaders, and
11.6% research assistants. The respondents, having a masters 51.9%, Ph.D. 34.3%, and vocational level education 13.8%, were
mainly men (64%) with the average age being 39 years (range 21–64 years). They had worked on average 13 years (range
0–40 years) with the present organization.
4.2. Measures
Except for the Finnish language transformational leadership scale (Avolio and Bass, 1995), we followed Brislin’s (1980)
procedure to translate and back-translate scales in other languages. In addition, 11 experts in the research organization
reviewed the translated survey to ensure the content validity and face validity of the measurements.
Task orientation was measured by a 3-item scale from Kivimäki and Elovainio (1999). A sample item is: ‘‘Does the team
critically appraise potential weaknesses in what it is doing in order to achieve the best possible outcome?’’ Team members
and leaders rated the items on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (a great extent). Cronbach’s a for the
scale was .64.
TMS was measured by a 15-item scale (five items for specialization, credibility, and coordination) from Lewis
(2003). Sample items are: ‘‘Different team members are responsible for expertise in different areas’’ (specialization), ‘‘I am
comfortable accepting procedural suggestions from other team members’’ (credibility), and ‘‘Our team works together in a
well-coordinated fashion’’ (coordination) (see Lewis, 2003, p. 604, for all items). Team members and leaders rated the items
on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). However, the 15-item scale had a poor fit
with the data. After deleting item #2 from specialization, items #3 and #4 from credibility, and items #3 and #4 from
coordination, a model with three components of TMS as three different factors at the first level and TMS as an underlying
single factor at the second level showed a satisfactory fit [x2[6_TD$IF] (39.4, N = 531)/df = 28, confirmatory fit index (CFI) = .99, root-
mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA = .03)]. Averaging the three dimensions and to create a composite index to
measure TMS is the most common approach in TMS research (Peltokorpi, 2008; Ren and Argote, 2011). Cronbach’s a for the
10 items was .80.
Transformational leadership was measured by a 20-item MLQ Form 5X-Short (four items for individualized consideration,
intellectual stimulation, inspirational motivation, and eight items for idealized influence) (Avolio and Bass, 1995). Sample
items are: ‘‘The leader considers me as having different needs, abilities, and aspirations from others’’ (individualized
consideration), ‘‘the leader suggests new ways of looking at how to complete assignments’’ (intellectual stimulation), ‘‘the
leader talks enthusiastically about what needs to be accomplished’’ (inspirational motivation), and ‘‘the leader goes beyond
self-interests for the good of the group’’ (idealized influence). Team members rated the items on transformational leadership
for their team leaders on a 5-point Likert-type scale, ranging 0 (not at all) to 4 (frequently, if not always). In line with other
studies (Judge and Piccolo, 2004), a model with the four components of transformational leadership as four different factors
at the first level and transformational leadership as an underlying single factor at the second level showed a satisfactory fit
[x2 (190.5, N = 467)/df = 105, CFI = .98, RMSEA = .04]. Cronbach’s a for the scale was .94.
Team innovation was measured by three items from Eisenbeiss et al. (2008) modified to the task context of teams in the
research organization. The scale items are: (1) ‘‘To what extent your team develops ideas concerning new products and
services or service or product improvements?’’ (2) ‘‘To what extent your team develops new ideas?’’ (3) ‘‘To what extent your
team develops new ideas with practical value?’’ Team members and leaders rated these items on a 5-point Likert-type scale
ranging from 1 (to a small extent) to 5 (very a great extent). Cronbach’s a coefficient for the scale was .87.
Control variables. We included three control variables suggested by prior research. First, we included team size because it
is found to affect TMS (Jackson and Moreland, 2009) and team innovation (Hülsheger et al., 2009). The information provided
by the research organization’s human resources department measures the total number of team members at the time of the
survey. Second, because the frequency of team meetings is found to facilitate team innovation (Drach-Zahavy and Somech,
2001), we asked team members and leaders to assess the frequency of team meetings (1 = less than once a month, 2 = once a
month, 3 = 2–3 times a month, 4 = once a week, 5 = more than once a week). Third, we included team leader time in the
present team because previous research suggests that it affects team processes and outputs (Shin and Zhou, 2007). Team
members and leaders assessed the length of time of their current team leader in their research team (1 = 0–6 months, 2 = 7–12
months, 3 = more than one year).
4.3. Discriminant validity
In order to ensure discriminant validity, we used AMOS 19 to perform confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) for three
different models. First, we compared a four-factor model that contained task orientation, TMS, transformational leadership,
and team innovation to a three-factor model in which TMS and team innovation were conceptualized as one factor. As an
alternative, we tested one-factor model. The four-factor model [x2 (738.9, N = 467)/df = 479, CFI = .97, RMSEA = .03] showed a
more satisfactory fit than the three-factor model [x2 (1014.7, N = 467)/df = 483, CFI = .93, RMSEA = .05] and the one-factor
model [x2 (1526.1, N = 467)/df = 486, CFI = .86, RMSEA = .07].
G Model
4.4. Aggregation analyses
The literature and measures used in this study are aimed at the team level of analysis. To justify aggregation of data from
an individual level to the team level, we calculated rwg( j) values (James et al., 1984) for all multi-item measures. The rwg(j)
values for task orientation (.85), TMS (.83), transformational leadership (.98) and team innovation (.89) were above the
recommended cutoff value of .70 (Bliese, 2000). The rwg values for team meeting frequency and leader time in team scales
were .82 and .87. In addition, we calculated intraclass correlation coefficients, or ICC (1) and ICC (2) (McGraw and Wong,
1996). The values for task orientation [ICC (1) .30, ICC (2) .57, df1 = 520, df2 = 1042, F = 2.31, p < .001], TMS [ICC (1) .25, ICC (2)
.77, df1 = 520, df2 = 4689, F = 4.35, p < .001], transformational leadership [ICC (1) .42, ICC (2) .93, df1 = 451, df2 = 8136,
F = 15.04, p < .001], and team innovation [ICC (1) .69, ICC (2) .87, df1 = 520, df2 = 1042, F = 7.70, p < .001], except for task
orientation, were above the recommended cutoff value of.12 for ICC (1) (James, 1982) and .60 for ICC (2) (Glick, 1985). While
task orientation did not exceed the recommended cutoff of .60, Schneider et al. (1998) suggested that a moderate value of ICC
(2) coupled with an acceptable rwg(j) score is sufficient grounds for aggregation. Thus, we aggregated individual responses to
the team level.
5. Results
Table 1 shows the means (M), standard deviations[18_TD$IF] (SD), and the correlation matrix for study variables. Task orientation,
transformational leadership, and TMS were positively correlated with team innovation, providing initial support for the
study hypotheses.
We tested Hypotheses 1 and 2 through hierarchical regression analyses (see Table 2). Based on Baron and Kenny (1986:
1177): ‘‘to establish mediation, the following conditions must hold: First, the independent variable must affect the mediator
in the first equation; second, the independent variable must be shown to affect the dependent variable in the second
equation; and third, the mediator must affect the dependent variable in the third equation. If these conditions all hold in the
predicted direction, then the effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable must be less in the third equation
than in the second’’. Following Aiken and West (1991), we tested the hypotheses with mean-centered variables.
Table 1
Means (M), standard deviations (SD) and intercorrelations.
Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Team size 11.27 4.44

2. Frequency of team meetings 2.20 0.87 .10
3. Team leader time in team 2.53 0.68 .05 .08
4. Task orientation 4.23 0.50 .21* .06 .09
5. Transformational leadership 2.54 0.42 .13 .14 .01 .26**
6. Transactive memory systems 4.02 0.30 .09 .14 .17 .38** .53**
7. Team innovation 3.45 0.53 .02 .26** .14 .42** .43** .45**
** *
Note: n = 124, p < .01, p < 05, two-tailed.
Table 2
Regression table.
Transactive memory Team innovation Team innovation Team innovation

systems
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
b SE t b SE t b SE T b SE t
Team size .01 .01 0.15 .09 .01 1.06 .09 .01 1.17 .12 .01 1.67*
Frequency of team meetings .04 .03 0.46 .15 .05 1.71 .14 .05 1.65 .15 .05 1.92*
Leader time in team .15 .04 1.82* .14 .06 1.71 .09 .06 1.15 .12 .06 1.58**
Task orientation .36 .05 3.92** .38 .09 4.33*** .27 .09 3.00** .24 .09 2.93**
Transactive memory systems (TMS) .32 .15 3.82*** .28 .16 2.93**
Transformational leadership (TL) .31 .11 3.35**
TMS TL .26 .27 3.17**
F 6.06** 8.41*** 10.43*** 11.41**
DF 14.63*** 9.91***
R2 .17 .22 .31 .41
DR2 .09 .10
Adjusted R2 .14 .19 .28 .37
Note: n = 124.
*** p < .001.
** p < .01.
* p < .05.
G Model
[(Fig._2)TD$IG]
Fig. 2. Interaction effect between transformational leadership and TMS on team innovation.
In Model 1, task orientation has a statistically significant positive impact on TMS (b = .36, p < .01). Thus, the first condition
to establish mediation is supported. In Model 2, task orientation has a statistically positive significant impact on team
innovation (b = .38, p < .001). Thus, the second condition is supported. In Model 3, TMS has a statistically significant positive
impact on team innovation (b = .32, p < .001). Thus, the third condition is supported. In Model 3, results also show that after
TMS was taken into account, the effect of task orientation on team innovation became weaker (b = .27, p < .01), albeit still
significant, which suggests partial mediation. In Model 4, transformational leadership also had a positive moderating effect
between TMS and team innovation (b = .26, p < .01). Models 3 and 4 also produced significant DF-statistics [Model 3
(DF = 14.63, p < .001, Model 4 (DF = 9.91, p < .001)]. Taken together, these results provide support for Hypotheses 1 and
2. Providing evidence that multicollinearity did not distort these results, the highest variance inflation factor (VIF) value of
1.74 for the variables is below the recommend ceiling of 10 for those metrics (Hair et al., 1998). Further, Durbin–Watson tests
with values ranging between 1.74 and 2.19 suggest satisfactory results regarding the independence of error terms (Cohen
et al., 2003).
[19_TD$IF]In order to facilitate interpretation of the moderated interaction, we plotted relationship, indicating the mean, and high
and low levels of transformational leadership by values one standard deviation (SD) above and below the mean. As shown in
Fig. 2, the relationship between TMS and team innovation is stronger when transformational leadership is high than when it
is low.
5.1. Additional analyses
In order to avoid conceptual and mathematical limitations associated with traditional approaches for assessing
moderated mediation or indirect effects (MacKinnon et al., 2004; Preacher et al., 2007), we used PROCESS macro (Hayes,
2013) to simultaneously test all of our hypothesized relations. PROCESS macro uses a path analysis approach described by
Preacher et al. (2007) and allows for a bootstrap test of indirect effects in mediation at various levels of the moderator(s)
(MacKinnon et al., 2004). An important advantage of the bootstrapping technique over the traditional approaches is that
confidence intervals based on bootstrapping adjust for the nonnormality of the distribution of mediated effects (Preacher
et al., 2007). Bootstrapping generates an empirical approximation of the sampling distribution of a statistic by sampling,
with replacement, from the original data set and calculating effects from the resulting data set. This approach yields direct
effects of the predictor on the outcome variable and indirect effects, which are the magnitudes of the association of the
predictor with the outcome that is transmitted by the intervening variable (MacKinnon et al., 2004).
Using PROCESS model 14 ([20_TD$IF]i.e., second-stage moderated mediation model), we generated 95% bootstrap bias-corrected
confidence intervals (CIs) for the indirect effect conditioned by transformational leadership on the basis of 5000 bootstrap
samples. We conducted analyses with all control variables and mean-centered variables. Table 3 shows CIs for bootstrap
tests at three transformational leadership values: (1) one SD below mean, (2) mean, and (3) one SD above the mean. The CIs
are considered statistically significant if the values between the low and high CIs do not include zero (Hayes, 2013). As shown
in Table 2, the bootstrap CIs for the indirect effect when transformational leadership values are one SD below mean ( .05 to
.06) includes zero, showing that there is no significant indirect effect under this condition. In contrast, under conditions of
mean and one SD above the mean, there are significant indirect (mediated) effects of task orientation on team innovation
G Model
Table 3
Bootstrap results for the conditional indirect effects.
Transformational leadership Boot indirect effect Boot SE Boot lower limit 95% CI Boot upper limit 95% CI
1 SD ( .42) .03 .05 .05 .14

Mean (0) .10 .05 .03 .25
+ 1 SD (.42) .18 .08 .06 .39
Note. CI = Confidence Interval; Bootstrap sample size = 5000.
through TMS (95% CI ranges = .03–.25 and .06–.39, which does not include zero). The results suggest that under conditions of
mean and one SD above the mean of transformational leadership, we can find a significant mediated effect.
Furthermore, we conducted identical analyses as shown in Table 2 by using control, mediating, and moderating variables
evaluated by team members or the organization’s human resources department and the dependent variable evaluated by
team leaders. In contrast to the above analyses conducted with 124 teams, this sample using dependent variables evaluated
by team leaders consisted of 64 teams. We conducted these analyses because of potential problems with common method
bias can be reduced by using predictor and criterion variables from different sources (Podsakoff et al., 2003). In Model 1, task
orientation was significantly related with TMS (b = .32, p < .05, F = 3.20, p < .05, adjusted R2[17_TD$IF] = .12). In Model 2, task
orientation was significantly related with team innovation (b = .31, p < .05, F = 3.01, p < .05, adjusted R2 = .11). In Model 3,
task orientation and TMS were significantly related with team innovation (task orientation, b = .23, p < .05; TMS b = .34,
p < .01, F = 4.17, p < .01, adjusted R2 = 20). In Model 4, transformational leadership had a significant moderating effect
between TMS and team innovation (b = .32, p < .05, F = 5.80, p < .001, adjusted R2 = 35). Models 3 and 4 produced significant
DF-statistics [Model 3 (DF = 7.47, p < .01, Model 4 (DF = 7.54, p < .001)]. We also conducted identical PROCESS analyses as
described above. The analyses results suggest that CIs for bootstrap tests at three different transformational leadership
values were: one SD below mean ( .03 to .17), mean (.00 .29), and one SD above the mean (.01 .44). Taken together,
additional analyses with both full (124 teams) and reduced (64 teams) sample provided additional support to our
hypothesized moderated mediation model.
6. Discussion
This paper integrated research on TMS and team innovation to examine the effects of task orientation, TMS, and
transformational leadership on research team innovation. While these bodies of research are complimentary in several
respects, to date little conceptual and empirical cross-fertilization has occurred. The findings, by showing that TMS has a
positive impact on team innovation, therefore provide new directions to TMS and team innovation research. In addition, the
findings further understanding of the role of TMS in research teams by showing that TMS has a positive mediating effect
between task orientation and team innovation, and that transformational leadership moderates the positive relationship
between TMS and team innovation. These findings have several theoretical contributions and practical implications.
6.1. Theoretical contributions
First, this study answers to calls for TMS research in organizational teams (Peltokorpi, 2008) by showing that TMS have a
positive effect on innovation in research teams. By doing so, this study extends TMS research from performance and memory
recall tasks to innovation. In line with scholarly arguments (Peltokorpi, 2008; Wegner, 1986; Zhu, 2009), the findings suggest
that TMS processes, such as increased specialization, shared awareness of distributed expertise, and utilization of the
specialized information of team members, facilitate research team innovation. The cognitive and behavioral coordination in
well-functioning TMS can also facilitate the combination of complementary information items in novel ways (Wegner,
1986). In addition, the findings extend TMS research on innovation from school boards (Zhu, 2009) to organizational teams.
[21_TD$IF]The [2_TD$IF]present findings [23_TD$IF]combined [24_TD$IF]with [25_TD$IF]Zhu [26_TD$IF](2009) suggest that TMS have an important role in enhancing team innovation in
various knowledge-intensive contexts. Indeed, regardless of task context, TMS provide a cognitive structure of each team
member’s expertise and a mechanism that facilitates collective collaboration by utilizing the whole stock of the task-related
information available in the team (Wegner, 1986). This shared accurate awareness of members’ expertise can provide
appropriate conditions for generation of innovation in various knowledge-intensive settings. In contrast to a recent study in
research teams (Peltokorpi and Hasu, 2014), the present findings further show that TMS have a positive direct impact on
team innovation. We hope that our findings stimulate more TMS research on team innovation in various settings.
Second, the findings show that TMS mediate the relation between task orientation and team innovation. In addition to
taking account factors influencing research teams, this study provides a novel integration of TMS and team innovation
research. The findings contribute to TMS research by suggesting that that task orientation enhances TMS processes, for
example through increased expertise awareness, specialization, and the utilization of specialized task information possessed
by team members. The findings further contribute to team innovation research by the mediated effect of TMS. To date, the
bulk of team innovation research has focused on the direct impact of task orientation on team innovation (Anderson et al.,
2014). The mediating effect is feasible, taking into account that task-oriented team interactions are identified to enhance
TMS processes (Kanawattanachai and Yoo, 2007; Moreland and McMinn, 2010) and team innovation (Shalley, 2002; West,
G Model
2002). Indeed, task orientation is evidenced by team-level emphasis on intrateam advice, feedback and cooperation, mutual
monitoring, exploration and emergence of opposing opinions, and a shared concern to provide high quality products,
processes, and services (West, 1990). In the theory of team adaptation (Burke et al., 2006a,b), task orientation-related
processes are further important functions in adaptive and innovative performance. Teams with a high task orientation are
also more likely to overcome obstacles during the innovation implementation process to transform selected ideas into
improvements in products, processes, or scientific knowledge (Eisenbeiss et al., 2008).
Third, the findings show that transformational leadership moderates the relationship between TMS and team innovation.
While team leadership has already been conceptualized to enhance TMS processes (Ashleigh and Prichard, 2012; Peltokorpi
and Manka, 2008), to the best of our knowledge, this is the first empirical study that links transformational leadership to TMS
and team innovation. The findings suggest that in teams with higher transformational leadership, members are more
motivated to specialize and accept expertise roles, and to use each other’s expertise to complete their tasks. In such teams,
the individualized consideration of team leaders assure that individual members’ needs and wants are heard and considered
more carefully, unique points of views are valued more, and individual expression is more encouraged (Bass, 1985). This can
motivate team members to develop their specialization. In addition, the intellectual stimulation of team leaders may direct
their teams’ attention toward discovering new and better ideas and exploring and experimenting with new approaches (Jung
et al., 2003). In summary, the[27_TD$IF] present findings suggest that teams with higher transformational leadership engage more into
processes through which team members’ task expertise in TMS is converted to innovative outputs.
6.2. Practical implications
The findings suggest some practices that could improve, or that are at least positively associated with research team
innovation. First, teams with well-functioning differentiated TMS are more effective at producing innovative outputs. To
facilitate TMS formation and functioning, team members can take responsibility for specific parts of a task, which could be
better done by negotiating the assessment of tasks based on members’ unique expertise. Also, team members could be
encouraged to develop more accurate and extensive awareness of one another’s expertise and understanding from whom
they can seek appropriate aid when needed. [28_TD$IF]Peltokorpi [29_TD$IF]and [30_TD$IF]Manka ([31_TD$IF]2008) also suggest that team leaders can inform
members ‘‘who knows what’’ in the team. Second, because transformational leadership moderated the relationship between
TMS and team innovation, more attention should be placed to team leader characteristics in the selection process. This is
especially important in research organizations in which team leaders are often chosen more for their technical than their
leadership skills (Elkins and Keller, 2003). Research suggests that organizations can promote transformational leadership
through focused training programs (Barling et al., 1996). Third, since task orientation is conductive to both TMS and team
innovation, it is important to promote a supportive team climate that encourages commitment to excellence in task
performance.
6.3. Limitations and suggestions for future research
This study has limitations that can be taken account in future research. First, similar to the bulk of previous research on
team innovation, most measures were collected through self-reports, which might increase the strength but not direction of
some relationships (Hülsheger et al., 2009). Future studies could assess team innovation with more objective measures, such
as patents. Second, the average within team response rate (39.1%) was relatively low in part because the research
organization launched the survey during the summer vacation. However, a Monte Carlo simulation suggests that the within-
team response rate should not have strong impact on our findings (Maloney et al., 2010). Third, the present findings to a
certain extent are context specific because this study relies on data gathered from one team-based research organization in
Finland. While we expect similar findings to take place in other team-based research organizations in other countries, more
research is needed in other settings. Fourth, several additional factors might affect both TMS ([32_TD$IF]Peltokorpi, [3_TD$IF]2008; [34_TD$IF]Ren [35_TD$IF]and
[36_TD$IF]Argote, [37_TD$IF]2011) and team innovation (Anderson et al., 2014; Hülsheger et al., 2009). Future research thus benefits by
integrating more team processes and emergent stages found to influence TMS and team innovation. Despite these
limitations, this study makes meaningful contributions to TMS and team innovation research by linking task orientation,
TMS, and transformational leadership to research team innovation. At the same time, it underscores the need for more
empirical work in this area[3_TD$IF].
References
Aiken, L., West, S.G., 1991. Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interaction. Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Anderson, N., Potocnik, K., Zhou, J., 2014. Innovation and creativity in organizations: a state-of-the-science review, prospective commentary, and
guiding framework. J. Manag. 40, 1297–1333.
Ashleigh, M., Prichard, J., 2012. An integrative model of the role of trust in transactive memory development. Group Organ. Manag. 37 (1), 5–35.
Avolio, B., Bass, B., 1995. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire: Leader Form, Rater Form and Scoring Key (Form 5X-short): English and Finnish
Versions. Mind Garden.
Bain, P.G., Mann, L., Pirola-Merlo, A., 2001. The innovation imperative: the relationships between team climate, innovation, and performance in
research and development teams. Small Group Res. 32, 55–73.
Barling, J., Weber, T., Kelloway, E.K., 1996. Effects of transformational leadership training on attitudinal and financial outcomes: a field experiment. J.
Appl. Psychol. 81, 827–832.
G Model
Baron, R.M., Kenny, D.A., 1986. The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical
considerations. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 51, 1173–1182.
Bass, B.M., 1985. Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations. Free Press, New York.
Bliese, P.D., 2000. Within-group agreement: non-independence, and reliability: implications for data aggregation analyses. In: Klein, K.J., Kozlowski,
S.W.J. (Eds.), Multilevel Theory, Research, and Methods in Organizations: Foundations, Extensions, and New Directions. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco,
pp. 349–381.
Brislin, R.W., 1980. Translation and content analysis of oral and written materials. In: Triandis, H.C., Lambert, W.W. (Eds.), Handbook of Cross-cultural
Psychology. Allyn & Bacon, Boston, pp. 349–444.
Burke, C.S., Stagl, K.C., Cameron, K., Goodwin, G.F., Salas, E., Halpin, S.M., 2006a. What type of leadership behaviors are functional in teams? A meta-
analysis. Leadersh. Q. 17, 288–307.
Burke, C.S., Stagl, K.C., Salas, E., Pierce, L., Kendall, D., 2006b. Understanding team adaptation: a conceptual analysis and model. J. Appl. Psychol. 91,
1189–1207.
Burningham, C., West, M.A., 1995. Individual, climate, and group interaction processes as predictors of work team innovation. Small Group Res. 26,
106–117.
Church, A.H., Waclawski, J., 1998. The relationship between individual personality orientation and executive leadership behavior. J. Occup. Organ.
Psychol. 71, 99–125.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S.G., Aiken, L.S., 2003. Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 3rd ed. Lawrence
Erlbaum Association, Mahwah, New Jersey.
De Dreu, C.K.W., 2007. Cooperative outcome interdependence, task reflexivity, and team effectiveness: a motivated information processing
perspective. J. Appl. Psychol. 92, 628–638.
De Dreu, C.K.W., West, M.A., 2001. Minority dissent and team innovation: the importance of participation in decision making. J. Appl. Psychol. 86,
1191–1201.
Drach-Zahavy, A., Somech, A., 2001. Understanding team innovation: the role of team processes and structures. Group Dyn. Theory Res. Pract. 5,
111–123.
Eisenbeiss, S.A., van Knippenberg, D., Boerner, S., 2008. Transformational leadership and team innovation: integrating team climate principles. J. Appl.
Psychol. 93, 1438–1446.
Elkins, T., Keller, R.T., 2003. Leadership in research and development organizations: a literature review and conceptual framework. Leadersh. Q. 14,
587–606.
Gino, F., Argote, L., Miron-Spektor, E., Todorova, G., 2010. First, get your feet wet: the effects of learning from direct and indirect experience on team
creativity. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 111, 102–115.
Glick, W.H., 1985. Conceptualizing and measuring organizational and psychological climate: Pitfalls in multilevel research. Acad. Manag. Rev. 10,
601–616.
Guzzo, R.A., Dickson, M.W., 1996. Teams in organizations: recent research on performance and effectiveness. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 47, 307–338.
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., Black, W.C., 1998. Multivariate Data Analysis. Prentice Hall International, London.
Hayes, A.F., 2013. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-based Approach. Guilford Press, New York.
Henttonen, K., 2010. Exploring social networks on the team level – a review of the empirical literature. J. Eng. Technol. Manag. 27, 74–109.
Howell, J.M., Higgins, C.A., 1990. Champions of technological innovation. Adm. Sci. Q. 35, 317–341.
Hülsheger, U.R., Anderson, N., Salgado, J.F., 2009. Team-level predictors of innovation at work: a comprehensive meta-analysis spanning three decades
of research. J. Appl. Psychol. 94, 1128–1145.
Jackson, M., Moreland, R.L., 2009. Transactive memory in the classroom. Small Group Res. 40 (5), 508–534.
James, L.R., 1982. Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreement. J. Appl. Psychol. 67, 219–229.
James, L.R., Demaree, R.G., Wolf, G., 1984. Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. J. Appl. Psychol. 69, 85–98.
Jansen, J.J.P., George, G., Van den Bosch, F.A.J., Volberda, H.W., 2008. Senior team attributes and organizational ambidexterity: the moderating role of
transformational leadership. J. Manag. Stud. 45, 982–1007.
Judge, T.A., Piccolo, R.F., 2004. Transformational and transactional leadership: a meta-analytic test of their relative validity. J. Appl. Psychol. 89,
755–768.
Jung, D.I., Chow, C., Wu, A., 2003. The role of transformational leadership in enhancing organizational innovation: hypotheses and some preliminary
findings. Leadersh. Q. 14, 525–544.
Kanawattanachai, P., Yoo, Y., 2007. The impact of knowledge coordination on virtual team performance over time. MIS Q. 31, 783–808.
Keller, R.T., 1992. Transformational leadership and the performance of research and development project teams. J. Manag. 18, 489–501.
Keller, R.T., 2006. Transformational leadership, initiating structure, and substitutes for leadership: a longitudinal study of research and development
project team performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 91, 202–210.
Kivimäki, M., Elovainio, M., 1999. A short version of the Team Climate Inventory: development and psychometric properties. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol.
72, 241–246.
Kleinsmann, M., Buijs, J., Valkenburg, R., 2010. Understanding the complexity of knowledge integration in collaborative new product development
teams: a case study. J. Eng. Technol. Manag. 27, 20–32.
Lewis, K., 2003. Measuring transactive memory systems in the field: scale development and validation. J. Appl. Psychol. 88, 587–604.
Liang, D.W., Moreland, R.L., Argote, L., 1995. Group versus individual training and group performance: the mediating role of transactive memory.
Person. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 21, 384–393.
MacKinnon, D.P., Lockwood, C.M., Williams, J., 2004. Confidence limits for the indirect effect: distribution of the produce and resampling methods.
Multivariate Behav. Res. 39, 99–128.
Maloney, M.M., Johnson, S.G., Zellmer-Bruhn, M.E., 2010. Assessing group-level constructs under missing data conditions: a Monte Carlo simulation.
Small Group Res. 41, 281–307.
McGraw, K.O., Wong, S.P., 1996. Forming inferences about some intraclass correlations coefficients. Psychol. Methods 1, 30–46.
Mohammed, S., Ferzandi, L., Hamilton, K., 2010. Metaphor no more: a 15-year review of the team mental model construct. J. Manag. 36, 876–910.
Moreland, R.L., McMinn, J.G., 2010. Group reflexivity and performance. In: Thye, S.R., Lawler, E. (Eds.), Advances in Group Processes, vol. 27. Emerald
Press, Bingley, UK, pp. 63–95.
Nederveen Pieterse, A., van Knippenberg, D., Schippers, M., Stam, D., 2010. Transformational and transactional leadership and innovative behavior:
the moderating role of psychological empowerment. J. Organ. Behav. 31, 609–623.
Peltokorpi, V., 2014. Transactive memory system coordination in organizations: an exploratory case study. Group Organ. Manag. 39 (4), 444–471.
Peltokorpi, V., 2008. Transactive memory systems. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 12, 378–394.
Peltokorpi, V., Hasu, M., 2014. Transactive memory systems and team innovation: a curvilinear approach. Team Performance Manag. 20, 262–272.
Peltokorpi, V., Manka, M.-L., 2008. Antecedents and the performance outcome of transactive memory in daycare work groups. Eur. Psychol. 13,
103–113.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J., Podsakoff, N.P., 2003. Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and
recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 88, 879–903.
Preacher, K.J., Rucker, D.D., Hayes, A.F., 2007. Addressing moderated mediation hypothesis: theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behav.
Res. 42, 185–227.
Ren, Y., Argote, L., 2011. Transactive memory systems 1985–2010: an integrative framework of key dimensions, antecedents, and consequences. Acad.
Manag. Ann. 5 (1), 189–229.
G Model
Salazar, M.R., Lant, T.K., Fiore, S.M., Salas, E., 2012. Facilitating innovation in diverse science teams through integrative capacity. Small Group Res. 43
(5), 527–558.
Schneider, B., White, S.S., Paul, M.C., 1998. Linking service climate and customer perceptions of service quality: test of a causal model. J. Appl.
Psychol. 83, 150–163.
Shalley, C.E., 2002. How valid and useful is the integrative model for understanding work groups’ creativity and innovation. Appl. Psychol. Int. Rev.
51, 406–410.
Shin, S.J., Zhou, J., 2007. When is educational specialization heterogeneity related to creativity in research and development teams? Transformational
leadership as a moderator. J. Appl. Psychol. 92, 1709–1721.
Somech, A., Drach-Zahavy, A., 2013. Translating team creativity to innovation implementation: the role of team composition and climate for
innovation. J. Manag. 39, 684–708.
Wegner, D.M., 1986. Transactive memory: a contemporary analysis of the group mind. In: Mullen, B., Goethals, G.R. (Eds.), Theories of Group
Behavior. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 185–208.
West, M.A., 1990. The social psychology of innovation in groups. In: West, M.A., Farr, J.L. (Eds.), Innovation and Creativity at Work: Psychological and
Organizational Strategies. Wiley, Chichester, United Kingdom, pp. 309–333.
West, M.A., 2002. Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: an integrative model of creativity and innovation implementation in work groups. Appl.
Psychol. Int. Rev. 51 (3), 355–424.
West, M.A., Anderson, N.R., 1996. Innovation in top management teams. J. Appl. Psychol. 81, 680–693.
West, M.A., Farr, J.L., 1990. Innovation at work. In: West, M.A., Farr, J.L. (Eds.), Innovation and Creativity at Work: Psychological and Organizational
Strategies. Wiley, Chichester, United Kingdom, pp. 3–13.
Zhang, Z.-X., Hempel, P.S., Han, Y.-L., Tjosvold, D., 2007. Transactive memory system links work team characteristics and performance. J. Appl.
Psychol. 92, 1722–1730.
Zhu, J., 2009. Utilizing Expertise in Work Teams: The Role of Transactive Memory Systems. (Unpublished PhD dissertation)University of Minnesota.

Transactive Memory Systems Team Innovation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Transactive Memory Systems Team Innovation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

G Model

ENGTEC-1454; No. of Pages 12

J. Eng. Technol. Manage. xxx (2015) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Engineering and Technology

Transactive memory systems in research team innovation:

Research Model and Hypotheses

Task Transactive Team

Fig. 1. Research model and hypotheses.

3.1. The mediating role of TMS

3.2. The moderating role of transformational leadership

4.1. Sample and procedure

4.3. Discriminant validity

4.4. Aggregation analyses

1. Team size 11.27 4.44

Transactive memory Team innovation Team innovation Team innovation

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

5.1. Additional analyses

1 SD ( .42) .03 .05 .05 .14

Note. CI = Conﬁdence Interval; Bootstrap sample size = 5000.

6.1. Theoretical contributions

6.2. Practical implications

6.3. Limitations and suggestions for future research

You might also like