See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/323768440

Addressing the Paradox of the Team Innovation Process: A Review and

Practical Considerations

Article  in  American Psychologist · May 2018

DOI: 10.1037/amp0000310

CITATIONS READS
42 2,965

3 authors, including:

Amanda L Thayer Alexandra Petruzzelli

Florida Institute of Technology University of Akron
16 PUBLICATIONS   583 CITATIONS    3 PUBLICATIONS   45 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

"Next Generation Teams and Organizational Subsystems Research" Cooperative Agreement (U.S. Army, W911NF-19-2-0173) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Amanda L Thayer on 29 May 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 American Psychologist
© 2018 American Psychological Association 2018, Vol. 73, No. 4, 363–375
0003-066X/18/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/amp0000310

Addressing the Paradox of the Team Innovation Process: A Review and

Practical Considerations
Amanda L. Thayer, Alexandra Petruzzelli, and Caitlin E. McClurg
The University of Akron

Facilitating team innovation is paramount to promoting progress in the science, technology,

engineering, and math fields, as well as advancing national health, safety, prosperity, and
welfare. However, innovation teams face a unique set of challenges due to the novelty and
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

uncertainty that is core to the definition of innovation, as well as the paradoxical nature of
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

idea generation and idea implementation processes. These and other challenges must be
overcome for innovation teams to realize their full potential for producing change. The
purpose of this review is, thus, to provide insight into the unique context that these teams
function within and provide an integrative, evidence-based, and practically useful, organizing
heuristic that focuses on the most important considerations for facilitating team innovation.
Finally, we provide practical guidance for psychologists, organizations, practitioners, scien-
tists, educators, policymakers, and others who employ teams to produce novel, innovative
solutions to today’s problems.

Keywords: teams, collaboration, innovation, creativity, review

It is widely regarded that the real value of teamwork and
collaboration lies in the ability to draw from diverse per-
spectives and expertise to solve complex problems. No-
where is this more salient than in the context of innovation,
where members are tasked with developing and implement-
ing new products, processes, or solutions to achieve orga-
nizational goals or to solve societal problems. These types
of teams are ever-present in organizations and society, such
as new product development (e.g., technology companies),
science (e.g., psychological and medical research), and so-
cial and humanitarian causes. Indeed, many fast-growth
companies have been founded through team innovation
(Watson, Ponthieu, & Critelli, 1995), where resources can
be pooled among members, specialization and division of
labor are increased (Chen, 2007), and firms benefit finan-
cially and otherwise from members’ social and human cap-
Editor’s note. This article is part of a special issue, “The Science of
Teamwork,” published in the May–June 2018 issue of American Psychol-
ogist. Susan H. McDaniel and Eduardo Salas served as guest editors of the
special issue, with Anne E. Kazak as advisory editor.
Authors’ note. Amanda L. Thayer, Alexandra Petruzzelli, and Caitlin E.
McClurg, Department of Psychology, The University of Akron.
We would like to thank Nathaniel Forrester for contributions to an
earlier version of this manuscript.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Amanda
L. Thayer, Department of Psychology, The University of Akron, 290 East
Buchtel Avenue, Akron, OH 44325-4301. E-mail: athayer@uakron.edu
363
ital (Huovinen & Pasanen, 2010; Klotz, Hmieleski, Bradley,
& Busenitz, 2014).
Technology is advancing at unprecedented rates, and
companies are relying upon teams to develop quick-to-
market products for today’s consumer. Various funding
agencies and foundations are also acknowledging the value
of team innovation in developing technologies and solu-
tions. For instance, the National Science Foundation initi-
ated its I-Corps program in 2011 to identify product oppor-
tunities from academic research teams and support their
transition to industry. Additionally, in a 50-year review of
research published in Science, Wuchty, Jones, and Uzzi
(2007) found that since the 1950s, research teams produced
more high-impact articles and patents than did individuals
alone. Innovation teams (ITs) can also be found in the
humanities and other contexts. Through its i-teams program,
Bloomberg Philanthropies assists city governments in im-
plementing ITs to tackle problems such as murder reduc-
tion, economic development, and customer service. Finally,
at a national and global scale, the Bill and Melinda Gates
Foundation emphasizes collaboration, innovation, and risk-
taking in the efforts they provide funding for, which are
focused on solving problems related to global health, de-
velopment, and poverty solutions; United States education;
and global policy and advocacy.
Ironically, though organizations are increasingly relying
upon the diverse perspectives and expertise of teams to
produce novel, innovative solutions to today’s problems, the
novelty, uncertainty, and conflicting demands associated
 364 THAYER, PETRUZZELLI, AND MCCLURG
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Amanda L.
Thayer
with the innovation process is particularly difficult to man-
age in teams. Specifically, ITs differ from action teams
tasked with executing plans or completing routine proj-
ects—the explicit goal of ITs is to be innovative and pro-
duce novel outputs. The innovation process is also paradox-
ical in that it consists of activities that researchers have
suggested require different, and oftentimes conflicting, an-
tecedents (e.g., Bledow, Frese, Anderson, Erez, & Farr,
2009). In particular, the innovation process involves not
only creative idea generation but also implementation of
those ideas. These activities of “thinking” versus “doing”
can be at odds not only within an individual member but
also in terms of how team members work together toward
goal accomplishment and the ways in which the broader
organization can support and facilitate success. Conse-
quently, the management of ITs can be difficult because
certain circumstances may be beneficial for one aspect of
innovation but simultaneously detrimental for another as-
pect (Bledow et al., 2009).
ITs face a unique, multilevel set of challenges associated
with goal attainment as a result of this paradox, as well as the
novelty and uncertainty that defines innovation. First, the mul-
tiple, conflicting demands associated with both creative idea
generation and idea implementation create a unique problem
for ITs. At the individual level, critical and creative thinking
requires a unique set of knowledge, skills, abilities, and other
attributes (KSAOs), and substantial research has been con-
ducted on the influence of divergent thinking, personality (e.g.,
learning orientation, openness to experience), and individual
creative capacity (Bledow et al., 2009; Puccio & Cabra, 2012).
However, ITs must move beyond creative idea generation to
also implement these ideas as a collective. Thus, KSAOs such
as convergent thinking, persistence, and conscientiousness are
also necessary (Bledow et al., 2009). This poses a challenge in
terms of selection, team composition, and development of a
single team engaging in both creative and routine performance
activities, because the desired characteristics for creativity are
often the antithesis of those needed for more traditional imple-
mentation work. Similarly, ITs must engage in both divergent
(e.g., minority dissent, task conflict) and convergent (e.g.,
aligning members toward a common goal) processes if they are
to be successful in both generating and implementing ideas
(Bledow et al., 2009). Indeed, managing the tension between
these demands can be challenging with respect to staffing,
development, and organizational practices and support.
Second, ITs inherently must manage high levels of un-
certainty at multiple levels (Jalonen, 2012). This is not to
say that other types of teams do not also face some level of
uncertainty and ambiguity. However, ITs are unique in that
they are by definition nonroutine—they operate in situations
of high uncertainty in novel ways to produce innovative
solutions. At the team level, members must collectively
navigate uncertainty surrounding taskwork and teamwork.
Because innovation is defined by novelty, ITs face substan-
tial uncertainty in that the team’s tasks cannot be clearly
defined. As such, organizations can provide little guidance
in terms of what specific tasks members will engage in,
making taskwork training difficult or nebulous at best. Fur-
thermore, the inherent ambiguity around the task also re-
sults in teamwork uncertainty, including unclear definitions
of roles and responsibilities (Blatt, 2009) and norms regard-
ing communication behaviors, which inhibit creativity and
implementation (Ward, 2004). Finally, like other teams, ITs
do not function in a vacuum but rather as part of a larger
system. In particular, ITs face ambiguity not only within the
team and its task but also in the external team context,
including environmental, market, and political uncertainty.
Members are sometimes unfamiliar with the market in
which they are operating and lack the knowledge and ex-
perience required for a new venture, leading to costly mis-
takes (Shepherd, Douglas, & Shanley, 2000) and damage to
team identity and cohesion (Blatt, 2009). Though other
types of teams may face uncertainty, require some of the
same KSAOs as do ITs; or engage in some activities similar
to those engaged in by ITs; it is the multiple, conflicting
demands and requirements as well as the heightened novelty
and ambiguity that both define ITs and present unique
challenges to their success.
Due to the unique nature of team innovation and its
associated challenges, an understanding of the key consid-
erations for facilitating team innovation is paramount to
promoting progress in the science, technology, engineering,
and math fields as well as advancing national health, safety,
prosperity, and welfare. Thus, our goal is to provide an
integrative, evidence-based, and practically useful, organiz-
ing heuristic that focuses on the most important consider-
 INNOVATION TEAMS
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Alexandra
Petruzzelli
ations for facilitating team innovation. First, we contextu-
alize our discussion of ITs by (a) highlighting several
previous reviews of ITs and (b) clarifying the distinction
between creativity and innovation as two separate but re-
lated aspects of the team innovation process. Next, we draw
from the paradox literature and ambidexterity theories to
summarize and integrate related literatures in psychology,
management, and sociology, among others. More specifi-
cally, we advance an evidence-based and practically useful,
organizing heuristic of the key considerations of team in-
novation with a focus on the unique demands and activities
in the innovation context. Finally, we provide practical
guidance for psychologists, organizations, practitioners, sci-
entists, educators, policymakers, and others who employ
teams to produce novel, innovative solutions to today’s
problems.
Team Innovation Reviews and Frameworks
In recent decades, team innovation has gained promi-
nence in practice as well as the scientific literature. As the
research in this area has burgeoned, several reviews and
frameworks have been presented in an effort to summarize
and advance the literature. Though a number of important
insights have been gleamed from these works, it is beyond
the scope of this article to summarize these reviews in
detail. Instead, we briefly describe these efforts to provide a
summary of previous reviews and to illustrate how our
review takes a different approach. We encourage readers to
see the original works for more detail.
West (2002) developed one of the earlier multilevel
frameworks to explain the team innovation process. Ac-
365
cording to this model, group task characteristics as well as
group knowledge diversity and skill facilitate the team’s
integrating processes (e.g., participation in decision making,
reflexivity), which in turn lead to creativity and innovation
implementation. West also considered the influence of ex-
ternal demands, which refer to organizational and environ-
mental factors. In particular, West proposed that external
demands have a negative relationship with creativity and an
inverted U relationship with innovation implementation,
meaning a moderate level of external demands is more
beneficial for innovation than are particularly high or low
levels.
Similarly, Mumford and Hunter (2005) utilized a multi-
level framework of creativity to review the antecedents of
innovation. At the individual level these include a person’s
knowledge, creative processing activities, dispositional
characteristics, and motivation; at the group level these
include the team climate, team leadership, team processes
and communication, and group structure; at the organiza-
tional level these include organizational control and strat-
egy, resources, advocacy for innovation, and organizational
structure; and at the environmental level these include tur-
bulence and networking and alliances. Mumford and Hunter
argued that the complexity of the relationships between
these antecedents and innovation can be attributed to dif-
ferences in the requirements for innovation at different
levels. For instance, they proposed that the need for cohe-
sion and collaboration for group-level innovation stands in
opposition to personal achievement motives within individ-
uals and that the need for integration of expertise at the
group level can potentially conflict with the need for dif-
ferentiation of expertise for individual- and organization-
level innovation. Although this framework is one of the first
to conceptualize innovation across levels, many of the in-
puts and processes target the creative portion of innovation
without addressing implementation.
In an effort to understand innovation from a multilevel
perspective, Shalley and Gilson (2004) reviewed the social
and contextual factors that influence creativity at multiple
levels, including the individual, job, group, and organiza-
tional levels. At the team level in particular, they identified
communication, diversity, shared mental models, leader-
ship, and climate as the key factors for creativity. Similarly,
Anderson, Potonik, and Zhou (2014) updated and ex-
panded upon this work using a comprehensive, multilevel
framework of innovation to review the literature. According
to this review, the existing literature on team creativity and
innovation has largely focused on team structure and com-
position, team climate and processes, and team leadership,
and only a few studies have examined creativity and inno-
vation from a truly multilevel perspective. Perhaps an even
greater contribution of this work, however, was the authors’
integration of theories to provide definitional clarity about
the innovation process across levels. In particular, Anderson
 366 THAYER, PETRUZZELLI, AND MCCLURG
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Caitlin E.
McClurg
and colleagues reviewed six seminal theories of creativity
and innovation and proposed an integrative definition of the
innovation process as consisting of the creativity stage (i.e.,
idea generation) and the subsequent innovation stage (i.e.,
the implementation of ideas toward better procedures, prac-
tices, or products).
In the last decade, two reviews have focused explicitly on
the team level. First, Hülsheger, Anderson, and Salgado
(2009) conducted a meta-analysis of the team-level ante-
cedents of creativity and innovation in the workplace. The
authors concluded that team process variables generally
have stronger relationships with creativity and innovation
than do input variables (team composition and team struc-
ture). Team innovation in particular was found to have
significant but modest relationships with team size, job-
relevant diversity, goal interdependence, cohesion, and in-
ternal and external communication, as well as the four
dimensions of team climate identified by West (1990).
More recently, van Knippenberg (2017) reviewed the em-
pirical team innovation literature to assess the state of the
science and identify future directions for this area of re-
search. Through this review, van Knippenberg proposed
two key themes that encompass team innovation research to
date: the knowledge integration perspective, in which inno-
vation follows the integration of information and perspec-
tives, and the team climate perspective, in which innovation
flows from a team climate that emphasizes and supports
shared commitment to innovation, support for innovation,
and member participation. In an effort to integrate these
perspectives, the author proposed a conditional mediation
model of team innovation in which (a) information elabo-
ration predicts team innovation and (b) the relationship
between informational resources and information elabora-
tion is conditional upon the team climate and other motiva-
tors. Our review differs from van Knippenberg’s recent
work in that the primary aim was to develop a research
agenda to advance the state of the science.
Though the current effort is indeed a summary of the
existing IT literature and thus shares some commonality
with these previous reviews and frameworks, our aim is
different in that we provide a practical summary of the
critical considerations of team innovation that can be uti-
lized by a broad range of psychologists and other profes-
sionals working with or in ITs.
Defining the Team Innovation Process
Organizations are increasingly relying on teams to de-
velop innovative solutions. Innovation can occur in a vari-
ety of settings and under a multitude of job titles. Entrepre-
neurial teams, new venture teams (NVTs), research and
development (R&D) teams, and science teams are all ITs at
their core. These teams often operate in different environ-
ments and vary in terms of their responsibilities. For exam-
ple, NVTs often create organizational policies and typically
have larger managerial discretion than do many other ITs
(Klotz et al., 2014). Even research teams and development
teams, which are often grouped together, experience con-
textual differences in risk level and uncertainty (Bain,
Mann, & Pirola-Merlo, 2001). However, they all share the
same overall goal of developing and implementing new
products, processes, or solutions.
In understanding the innovation process, it is important to
distinguish between two frequently confused terms: inno-
vation and creativity. Innovation is defined as “the inten-
tional introduction and application within a role, group, or
organization of ideas, processes, products, or procedure,
new to the relevant unit of adoption, designed to signifi-
cantly benefit the individual, the group, organization or
wider society” (West & Farr, 1990, p. 8). This term is often
confused with creativity, which refers to the generation of
ideas that are considered both novel and useful (Amabile,
1983). Though related concepts, innovation builds upon
creativity through the implementation of ideas. As men-
tioned earlier, in the simplest form, the innovation process
consists of two phases: idea generation and implementation
(West, 2002). Innovation does not move through these
phases neatly; rather, it is dynamic and nonlinear (Bledow et
al., 2009; Cheng & Van de Ven, 1996; West, 2002). The
phases are often difficult to distinguish from one another
(Cheng & Van de Ven, 1996), though they place conflicting
demands on the collective (Bledow et al., 2009). Often, the
environment or processes that promote success during the
idea generation phase are the exact opposite of what is
required for implementation (West, 2002).
 INNOVATION TEAMS
The first component of innovation, idea generation, is a
creative process (Puccio & Cabra, 2012). There is a vast
literature on creativity that is beyond the scope of this
review (see Barron & Harrington, 1981; Shalley & Gilson,
2004). Numerous theoretical approaches (e.g., cognitive,
rational, and semantic; motivational) have been proposed as
a lens for studying individual creativity (Puccio & Cabra,
2012). Whereas the factors influencing individual creativity
may vary, during team creativity members must rely on
social interactions to facilitate the creative process. These
interactions allow members the opportunity to expand on
ideas by integrating their knowledge and perspectives while
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
developing ideas, as well as to critique the quality of ideas
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
(Pirola-Merlo & Mann, 2004). Through these social inter-
actions, individual creative thought is translated into team
creativity.
After ideas have been generated, one must be selected and
implemented to be considered innovative. At the individual
level, research has primarily focused on individual innova-
tive behavior (e.g., Scott & Bruce, 1994) and entrepreneur-
ship (e.g., Shook, Priem, & McGee, 2003). Although there
is research on both topics, studies focusing exclusively on
individual idea implementation are sparse (Reiter-Palmon,
Herman, & Yammarino, 2008). Implementation is typically
a social process that often inherently requires groups or
teams. Consider an individual entrepreneur who has gener-
ated a breakthrough idea for a technology product. To
develop and implement this product, the entrepreneur will
likely need to work with many other people to obtain the
knowledge and resources necessary to be successful. As a
result, even individual efforts to be innovative often require
a team to fully implement.
Innovation at the team level requires a variety of cogni-
tive and social processes to select and implement an idea.
What is required for successful implementation can vary
widely. Often, implementation requires collaboration with
individuals outside the team to receive resources and sup-
port (van Knippenberg, 2017). Thus, ITs must coordinate
within and outside the team to meet the implementation
requirements. Further, ITs need to plan and prepare for any
possible constraints that may arise during implementation
(Reiter-Palmon et al., 2008). Often, this is where the advan-
tage of multidisciplinary teams is most evident, because
members’ unique perspectives can help prepare the team for
possible implementation constraints (Reiter-Palmon et al.,
2008). Overall, it is the social processes, such as coordinat-
ing, persuading, and planning, that ITs engage in that allow
for successful implementation.
Although it is evident that ITs can bring numerous ben-
efits to organizations and society, these teams often face
challenges during this process when translating a creative
idea into an innovative effort. A variety of organizational
factors, such as an organization’s norms, structure, and
resources, can inhibit innovation (Damanpour, 1991). To
367
add to this, a recent study by Mueller, Melwani, and Gon-
calo (2012) found that people demonstrated implicit biases
toward creative ideas as they tried to reduce levels of
uncertainty. This negative bias can create a barrier as ITs try
to move from idea generation to implementation. Without
the acceptance of creative ideas from others in an organi-
zation, ITs face even more challenges attempting to get
necessary resources. Although these factors external to the
team can inhibit the implementation of ideas, the team itself
can also hinder the transition to implementation. The pro-
cess to plan for implementation at the team level requires
coordination, making it an effortful and time-consuming
process (Reiter-Palmon et al., 2008). As a result, ITs are
often more reluctant to take the initiative to plan, thereby
inhibiting successful implementation (Reiter-Palmon et al.,
2008). Given these points, it is evident that the challenges
faced throughout each stage of the innovation process must
be overcome to leverage the ultimate value of ITs.
In an effort to address these challenges, ambidexterity
theory proposes that organizations need to effectively man-
age individuals and teams engaged in exploration (i.e.,
creative) and exploitation (i.e., innovative) processes (Ble-
dow et al., 2009). The paradox of team creativity and
innovation is that each of these phases of the innovation
process consists of different sets of activities with different
and sometimes conflicting antecedents. For instance, grant-
ing autonomy is related to generation of new ideas, but
initiating structure is related to success of implementation;
being in a relaxed environment is good for creativity, but
environmental dynamism (which should be stressful) is
good for innovation. Ambidexterity theory suggests that
organizations can manage these and other demands, for
instance, through establishing norms that encourage diver-
gent activities during the creativity stage when teams’ ten-
dencies toward convergent processes (e.g., conformity) are
detrimental to performance. Therefore, we used ambidex-
terity theory as a guiding principle for addressing the par-
adox of the team innovation process. More specifically, we
now highlight six key considerations that can improve the
ambidexterity of organizations and facilitate innovation pro-
cesses and solutions.
Critical Considerations of Team Innovation
In our review of the literature on ITs, we drew from an
organizing heuristic of the critical considerations of team-
work developed by Salas, Shuffler, Thayer, Bedwell, and
Lazzara (2015). More specifically, we used this existing
heuristic to discuss the unique aspects of teamwork in the
innovation context. Whereas the overall objective of Salas
and colleagues’ heuristic was to provide simple, clear, prac-
tical guidance for improving teamwork in general, our goal
was (a) to provide insight into the team innovation process
as being distinct from both individual-level innovation and
 368 THAYER, PETRUZZELLI, AND MCCLURG
teamwork in a general sense and (b) to provide practically
useful guidance for facilitating team innovation. This is not
intended to be an exhaustive review of all factors that are
important to teams during the innovation process but rather
an organized set of the most important factors to consider.
Thus, we summarize the existing literature on ITs in six key
considerations for team innovation, including (a) team com-
position, both the attributes of the individuals (e.g., knowl-
edge, skills, and abilities) and the characteristics of the team
(e.g., team diversity); (b) communication and knowledge
integration; (c) cognition; (d) conflict; (e) creative leader-
ship; and (f) context, including climate and culture. We now
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
discuss these considerations with a specific focus on how
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
they are unique in the innovation context.
Composition
Individual KSAOs. Individual-level attributes, dispo-
sitions, and behaviors can influence outcomes at different
levels of an organization. Previous research has identified
several KSAOs that affect creativity, including openness,
conscientiousness, and self-acceptance (Feist, 1998); goal
orientation (Simmons & Ren, 2009) and creative self-
efficacy (Tierney & Farmer, 2002). These findings provide
valuable information about the idea generation portion of
innovation, but much less is known about the idea imple-
mentation phase. It is likely that certain KSAOs are more
critical for either idea generation or implementation (Ble-
dow et al., 2009). For example, Miron, Erez, and Naveh
(2004) found that initiative was necessary for individuals to
move beyond creativity and implement an idea. Adding to
this complexity, research has suggested that individuals’
KSAOs should align with organizational practices for cre-
ative work (e.g., Shalley, Gilson, & Blum, 2000). For in-
stance, an organization with strict procedures and supervi-
sion will have difficulty retaining employees who engage in
creative work, which often requires greater autonomy
(Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby, & Herron, 1996). How-
ever, the innovation process also requires that creative en-
deavors be implemented, which often requires supervision
and formal procedures to do so. Thus, a balance of these
KSAOs and organizational practices that foster both cre-
ativity and more traditional implementation activities is
necessary.
Several KSAOs are also necessary for the social compo-
nent of team innovation. Often, teams generate fewer ideas
in brainstorming activities than do individuals, which has
been attributed to process loss associated with coordination
of team members (Reiter-Palmon et al., 2008). For example,
members may forget ideas while waiting to speak or feel
uncomfortable sharing ideas with the team (Reiter-Palmon
et al., 2008). Thus, social skills such as determining when to
contribute or when to listen during a conversation are es-
sential (Paulus, Dzindolet, & Kohn, 2012). Additionally,
attentional skill is beneficial because these teams sift
through an influx of information throughout the innovation
process. In these situations, knowing where to direct atten-
tion can also help reduce process loss (Paulus et al., 2012).
Diversity. One compositional characteristic that has
garnered immense attention is team diversity. Early re-
search found that both functional diversity, or the differ-
ences in knowledge between team members as a result of
varying educational or training backgrounds, and tenure
diversity, or differences among team members based on
how long they’ve been a part of the team, were both
negatively related to product development and implemen-
tation (Ancona & Caldwell, 1992). However, this runs
counter to the notion that diverse ITs can benefit from
different viewpoints in terms of more creative solutions to
various problems. It is encouraging that recent research by
Zhou, Vredenburgh, and Rogoff (2015) found that entrepre-
neurial teams performed better when members were more
functionally and skill diverse. A meta-analysis by Hül-
sheger and colleagues (2009) also found a small, yet sig-
nificant positive relationship between job-relevant diversity
(i.e., the heterogeneity of job-related attributes among team
members) and innovation. This suggests that new product
success depends upon the ability of teams to contribute
different skills and roles as well as their ability to under-
stand the unique information held among team members
(Zhou et al., 2015). Additionally, Kurtzberg (2005) found
that a diversity in cognitive styles is positively related to the
number of ideas generated by a team. These findings are
worth careful attention because diversity is traditionally
related to lowered performance in action teams, but orga-
nizations that use ITs (e.g., schools, global companies) may
find that diversity can be beneficial to idea generation and
implementation.
Cognition
Team cognition refers to any form of cognition that
occurs at the team level (Cooke, Gorman, & Kiekel, 2008).
Prior research on creativity and innovation has focused
much more on individual cognition than on team cognition
(Reiter-Palmon, Wigert, & de Vreede, 2012), but increased
attention is being directed to team cognition. Although
numerous forms of team cognition may facilitate team in-
novation, we focus on three with a particularly strong in-
fluence: shared mental models, transactive memory sys-
tems, and reflexivity.
First, shared mental models (SMMs) refer to organized
knowledge structures that team members share (Mathieu,
Maynard, Rapp, & Gilson, 2008) and are often described as
team members “being on the same page.” Studies have
found a general positive relationship between SMMs and
creativity (Reiter-Palmon et al., 2012); however, some re-
searchers have suggested SMMs may inhibit the sharing of
 INNOVATION TEAMS
divergent thoughts or novel ideas within a team (Skilton &
Dooley, 2010). Even more, it has been suggested that there
may be a curvilinear relationship between SMMs and inno-
vation, such that too much or too little mental model simi-
larity will inhibit innovative performance (Reiter-Palmon et
al., 2012). Reuveni and Vashdi (2015) furthered under-
standing of the disputed SMM⫺innovation relationship by
considering two distinct types of mental models: task and
team. Task mental models refer to shared knowledge about
the objective components of the task (e.g., procedures),
whereas team mental models refer to shared knowledge of
how the team will function and interact to complete the task
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
(e.g., roles; Mathieu et al., 2008). In their study of R&D
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
teams in Israel, Reuveni and Vashdi found that team mental
models, but not task mental models, were positively related
to innovation. Furthermore, team mental models mediated
the relationship between functional heterogeneity and inno-
vation. Thus, it appears that for IT success, shared knowl-
edge regarding how the team will function and interact is
more essential than is shared knowledge about the actual
task. Although further research is needed to explain the role
of SMMs and innovation, these findings are promising.
Additionally, there is evidence that transactive memory
systems (TMSs) play a key role for ITs. TMSs refer to “the
collection of knowledge possessed by each team member
and a collective awareness of who knows what” (Mathieu et
al., 2008, p. 431). When members are aware of who knows
what, ITs can more effectively leverage the benefits of each
member’s set of KSAOs. TMSs allow teams to locate and
coordinate knowledge to develop novel solutions during
innovation (Peltokorpi, 2008). Using a sample of teams in
Taiwan, Fan and colleagues (2016) found that TMSs were
positively related to both team-level innovation and indi-
vidual innovative behavior. Akgün, Byrne, Keskin, Lynn,
and Imamoglu (2005) found that in new product develop-
ment teams, TMSs were positively associated with project
outcomes such as team learning, speed-to-market, and new
product success. Overall, TMSs facilitate team innovation
by providing a coordination mechanism that can maximize
members’ KSAOs.
Finally, reflexivity, or a team’s explicit reflection on
goals, strategies, and processes (West, 1996) is a valuable
form of team cognition during innovation. Reflexivity is an
information-processing activity in which teams systemati-
cally reflect on past events and plan for future events
(Schippers, Edmondson, & West, 2014). A reflexive team
can evaluate a new environment and make more effective
decisions through reflection methods (Hoegl & Parboteeah,
2006). In a study of health care teams, Schippers, West, and
Dawson (2015) found that teams who were under high work
demands and were highly reflexive were more innovative. A
highly reflexive team is more proactive and self-aware, can
monitor the internal and external environment, and can
overcome challenges of knowledge integration (Hoegl &
369
Parboteeah, 2006). Team reflexivity also promotes knowl-
edge distribution, which leads to an increased chance of
generating novel ideas (Salazar, Lant, Fiore, & Salas, 2012).
Overall, reflexivity, along with SMMs and TMSs, is a
necessary component for successful IT performance.
Communication and Knowledge Integration
Though team cognition is clearly important for ITs, it is
the communication process that makes cognition usable.
Communication allows team members to exchange knowl-
edge, perspectives, and ideas. In fact, researchers have
suggested that these team interactions are the external, ob-
servable form of cognition at the team level (e.g., Cooke et
al., 2008). A meta-analysis by Hülsheger and colleagues
(2009) supports the importance of communication, finding
that internal communication (i.e., within the team) and
external communication (i.e., outside the team) were posi-
tively related to innovation. However, greater internal com-
munication does not always lead to innovation. This was
illustrated by Kratzer, Leenders, and van Engelen (2004),
who found that communication frequency was negatively
related to the creative performance of new product devel-
opment teams. These mixed findings suggest that it is not
necessarily about how often teams communicate but what
they communicate.
Specifically, for ITs, it is not enough to just share infor-
mation; rather, ITs need to integrate their unique knowledge
(Salazar et al., 2012). When team members effectively
communicate and integrate knowledge, they can draw from
their diverse perspectives to put forth novel ideas and so-
lutions (Amabile, 1983). In a recent review, van Knippen-
berg (2017) classified knowledge integration as one of the
main perspectives of team innovation. The knowledge inte-
gration perspective proposes that the benefit of diverse
members in ITs lies in members’ ability to integrate infor-
mation from their different backgrounds and perspectives
(van Knippenberg, 2017). In sum, an IT may be composed
of members with essential knowledge for the team’s suc-
cess; however, if these members do not effectively commu-
nicate and integrate their knowledge, then this benefit is
lost.
Conflict
The interdependence of ITs can often lead to conflict,
which can arise from disagreements surrounding the team’s
task (i.e., task conflict) or team member incompatibilities
(i.e., relationship conflict; Jehn, 1995). It has been sug-
gested that in certain situations, task-related conflict can
promote learning, higher creativity, and innovation (De
Dreu, 2011). However, conflict has mixed findings in re-
search. Khan, Breitenecker, Gustafsson, and Schwarz
(2015) found that both task and relationship conflicts had
 370 THAYER, PETRUZZELLI, AND MCCLURG
significantly negative impacts on team effectiveness for
venture teams. Hülsheger and colleagues (2009) and
O’Neill, Allen, and Hastings (2013) found no significant
relationships between task conflict, relationship conflict,
and process conflict with team innovation. Weingart, Todo-
rova, and Cronin (2010) found that task conflict was bene-
ficial when creating innovative and high-quality products
when a team was more heterogeneous and knew how to
manage conflict. Even still, Xie, Wang, and Luan (2014)
found an inverted relationship between task conflict and
team innovation. These conflicting findings suggest there
are (unstudied) mediators and moderators of the conflict–
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
innovation relationship.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
One such mediator that can hold the key to these mixed
findings is collaborative problem solving, which is a coor-
dinated activity that results from a continuous attempt to
share the conception of a problem in order to arrive at its
solution (Roschelle & Teasley, 1995). Thus, in an IT con-
text, collaborative problem solving requires team members
to coordinate interdependent actions and work together to
arrive at solutions instead of simply distributing the work
among team members. De Dreu (2006) found that collab-
orative problem solving acts as a mediator between task
conflict and innovation, with moderate levels of task con-
flict relating to higher levels of innovation. Thus, it can be
argued that moderate levels of conflict produce more infor-
mation exchange and collaborative problem solving than do
lower levels (De Dreu, 2006).
Creative Leadership
Leadership can maximize a team’s innovative capabilities
(Mumford, Scott, Gaddis, & Strange, 2002). Studies on
creative leadership, or the leading subordinates’ creative
endeavors, have focused on specific traits of leaders, finding
that a leader’s skills or expertise in a particular domain and
level of creative problem-solving skills can greatly affect
subordinates as they work through various creative pro-
cesses (Tierney, Farmer, & Graen, 1999). Therefore, it is
important that leaders of ITs have vast knowledge of the
type of innovative endeavors those teams are pursuing, as
well as possess creative problem-solving skills to effec-
tively manage the team during idea generation. Addition-
ally, research has focused on specific leader behaviors,
finding that leader behaviors influence subordinates’
innovative behavior through leader role expectations, the
quality of relationships between leaders and each of their
subordinates, and the perceived support for innovation the
leaders possess (Scott & Bruce, 1994). Thus, how leaders
behave in the presence of followers greatly affects the IT’s
ability to innovate. Further, leaders can also shape the
environment in which followers operate, which in turn
affects subordinates’ creativity (Mumford et al., 2002).
Therefore, leaders can foster creativity and innovation
across many levels of an organization and are a vital part of
IT effectiveness.
Mainemelis, Kark, and Epitropaki (2015) identified three
ways in which creative leaders help their subordinates with
their creative endeavors: directing with the leader’s creative
vision, facilitating subordinates’ creative visions, and inte-
grating both sources of creative visions. Although utilizing
this taxonomy is beneficial for idea generation, leaders can
take other routes when attempting to implement ideas
through the use of ITs. For example, Hunter, Thorough-
good, Myer, and Ligon (2011) identified several paradoxes
that leaders in charge of ITs must overcome to be success-
ful, such as needing to provide a vision to the team while
also allowing higher levels of autonomy than would typi-
cally be provided to traditional action teams. Therefore, it is
important that leaders understand how to facilitate both idea
generation and implementation, despite this paradox.
It is encouraging that some research can provide guid-
ance regarding leadership and innovation. A meta-
analysis found an overall positive relationship between
transformational leadership, whereby leaders focus on
promoting change in their followers, and innovation, with
a corrected mean correlation of .28, though there was
large variability in results across individual studies (Ros-
ing, Frese, & Bausch, 2011). Despite the theoretical
background that suggests a consistent positive relation-
ship between transformational leadership and innovation,
the large variation in results and numerous moderating
relationships suggest that transformational leadership is
not always best, and it is important to consider what other
leadership styles foster innovation.
Following Bledow and colleagues’ (2009) ambidexter-
ity theory, Rosing and colleagues (2011) proposed that
ambidextrous leadership is an optimal strategy for suc-
cessful team innovation. Ambidextrous leaders guide
teams through the dynamic innovation process through
the use of opening and closing leader behaviors. Opening
leader behaviors encourage followers to think differently
and break away from a norm, whereas closing leader
behaviors streamline and direct followers via establish-
ment of routines, control of goal attainment, and rule
adherence. For example, accepting feedback from team
members (e.g., ideas for working together differently) is
considered an opening leader behavior, whereas a closing
leader behavior might include withholding information
about a product in development to move it more quickly
through the production process. Rosing and colleagues
proposed that opening leader behaviors are beneficial
primarily during the idea generation stages of innovation,
whereas closing leader behaviors become necessary dur-
ing idea implementation. Accordingly, an effective am-
bidextrous leader has the flexibility to switch between
opening and closing behaviors through the dynamic in-
novation process. Altogether, through flexible behaviors,
 INNOVATION TEAMS
ambidextrous leaders can help teams overcome the chal-
lenges associated with the innovation paradox.
Context
ITs do not exist in a vacuum, and a multitude of contex-
tual variables at the team, organizational, and national levels
can facilitate or hinder the innovative process in teams. In
the following sections, we discuss the influence of two
contextual factors: climate and culture.
Climate. Climate refers to “the set of norms, attitudes,
and expectations that individuals perceive to operate in a
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
specific social context” (Pirola-Merlo, Härtel, Mann, &
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Hirst, 2002, p. 564). Climate can exist at multiple levels of
analysis (e.g., team, organizational) and refer to a general or
specific type of climate (Mathieu et al., 2008). At the team
level, innovation research has focused on team innovation
climate, or a fostering of a positive viewpoint toward inno-
vation within teams. Proposed by West (1990), team climate
for innovation consists of vision, participative safety, task
orientation, and support for innovation. Vision represents a
higher goal and motivation from an idea that is character-
ized by clarity, sharedness, attainability, and value. Partic-
ipative safety is established when collaborators are involved
in decision-making within a nonthreatening environment,
giving individuals opportunities to contribute new ideas and
making members more invested in the group’s outcomes.
Task orientation is the group’s mutual concern for high-
quality performance surrounding their objectives, which is
demonstrated through a variety of behaviors such as eval-
uation, feedback, and mutual monitoring. Finally, support
for innovation is defined as the encouragement of attempts
aimed at improving or changing the current work environ-
ment, and is highest when this support is both expressed and
enacted.
Research has suggested that team innovation climate is
important for outcomes. A recent meta-analysis by Hül-
sheger and colleagues (2009) found strong positive relation-
ships between innovation and vision, support for innova-
tion, and task orientation. Participative safety had the
weakest relationship with innovation (Hülsheger et al.,
2009). Team innovation climate has also been found to
moderate the relationship between educational diversity and
team communication quality, such that when the climate is
positive, communication improves with educationally di-
verse teams (Valls, González-Romá, & Tomás, 2016).
Climate can also be considered at the organizational level.
Numerous researchers have proposed organizational climate
taxonomies expected to increase innovation and creativity
(e.g., Amabile et al., 1996; Ekvall, 1996). In an effort to
organize these taxonomies, Hunter, Bedell, and Mumford
(2007) reviewed the literature and created an integrated
taxonomy including 14 dimensions, such as positive super-
visor relations, resources, and top management support. The
371
authors’ findings indicated that climate had a substantial
effect on individual creative achievement, but this effect
was even larger when assessed at the group level. Further-
more, the relationship between climate and creative
achievement was stronger in organizational environments
characterized by turbulence, pressure, and competition
(Hunter et al., 2007). These findings indicate that organiza-
tional climate is an influential factor for team innovation.
Culture. Organizational culture refers to beliefs, val-
ues, and ideologies shared by members of an organization
(Schneider, Ehrhart, & Macey, 2011). Whereas organiza-
tional climate is established through policies and proce-
dures, culture arises through more abstract manners, such as
narratives and practices shared by employees (Schneider et
al., 2011). Organizational culture impacts innovation
through socialization processes that create norms for inno-
vation and by influencing policies and procedures that pro-
mote innovation (Martins & Terblanche, 2003). Addition-
ally, organizational cultures can facilitate team processes
associated with innovation. As mentioned previously, col-
laborative problem solving mediates the relationship be-
tween task conflict and innovation (De Dreu, 2006). Col-
laborative problem solving can be introduced through a
collaborative conflict culture, which involves a set of norms
and/or organizational beliefs about an active and coopera-
tive discussion of conflict (Gelfand, Leslie, Keller, & de
Dreu, 2012). Conflict can be viewed as a team-building
exercise involving a belief that the team or organization
encourages teamwork, values differing opinions, and sup-
ports risk-taking (Gittell, 2003), thereby promoting innova-
tion. Furthermore, organizations can promote collaborative
problem solving through reward systems that target team-
work behaviors. Specifically, rewards should be distributed
to the entire team rather than individual members of the
team to reduce self-interest and promote cooperation
(Kramer, Thayer, & Salas, 2013). By rewarding behaviors
associated with collaborative problem solving, organiza-
tions can reinforce this behavior and promote future team-
work.
As globalization becomes increasingly prevalent, there is
also significance in considering the influence of national
culture on innovative endeavors. The cultural values and
attitudes that members bring to a team can have implica-
tions for IT performance. For instance, whereas incentives
for collaborative problem solving may be necessary to mo-
tivate members of ITs in more individualistic societies, they
may not be necessary when collectivism is high, and in turn
organizations may be better served by utilizing resources in
other ways. Unfortunately, the majority of research inves-
tigating national culture and innovation has been conducted
only at the individual or organizational level. Shane, Ven-
kataraman, and MacMillan (1995) determined that individ-
uals high on cultural values of uncertainty avoidance, power
distance, or collectivism all have different strategies for
 372 THAYER, PETRUZZELLI, AND MCCLURG
championing innovative efforts within the organization. Ad-
ditionally, Peretz, Levi, and Fried (2015) determined that
cultural values were related to the adoption of organiza-
tional diversity programs. Specifically, there was a higher
likelihood of an organizational diversity program being
adopted when the national cultural values were more indi-
vidualistic, future- and performance-oriented, and gender-
egalitarian, and lower in power distance and uncertainty
avoidance (Peretz et al., 2015). Furthermore, organizational
diversity programs were associated with lower absenteeism
and turnover and higher levels of organizational innovation.
Despite these findings, when comparing innovative firms
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
across different nations, several national-level cultural vari-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
ables (e.g., cultural values, religion, geographic location)
are statistically nonsignificant when related to innovative
firm effectiveness, and the most important driver of radical
innovation in these firms is corporate culture (Tellis,
Prabhu, & Chandy, 2009). Therefore, although national
culture relates to variables important to ITs, it is more vital
that organizations foster a culture for innovation.
Key Points and Practical Guidance
Innovation teams face a unique set of challenges due to
the novelty and uncertainty that is core to the definition of
innovation, as well as the paradoxical nature of the idea
generation and idea implementation processes. These and
other challenges must be overcome for ITs to realize their
full potential for producing change (Ward, 2004). Though
more research is needed, several pieces of practical guid-
ance can be derived from our analysis of the challenges
associated with the team innovation process and the six
considerations in our organizing heuristic.
First, though the literature has often treated creativity and
innovation as synonymous concepts, there are some impor-
tant distinctions. In particular, the innovation process con-
sists of two distinct phases: (a) idea generation, which is
characterized by creative, divergent processes and nonrou-
tine activities and (b) idea implementation, which is char-
acterized by more traditional, convergent processes and
routine performance. Though these two phases are inter-
twined and largely interdependent, they present a paradox,
or conflict, when they are both performed within a single
team. Therefore, ITs and the organizations to which they
belong must balance these competing demands that impact
decisions related to team member selection and team com-
position, team development, organizational policies and
practices, and allocation of resources. In general, the liter-
ature has suggested that these challenges and demands are
best managed when ITs, leaders, and organizations are
ambidextrous, or equally equipped and supportive of both
creative and routine performance objectives.
To meet these needs, organizations must consider both
individual KSAOs and overall team characteristics. It is not
enough to select individuals exclusively based on the
KSAOs associated with individual creativity, because ITs
must also be equipped to engage in routine tasks associated
with implementation. Furthermore, though there are bene-
fits to having a team comprised of members from different
functional backgrounds, the differing perspectives and ex-
pertise translates to increased innovation only when the
remaining considerations (e.g., cognition, climate) are also
aligned with these objectives. When the other consider-
ations are not met, diversity may actually be detrimental to
innovation. However, research has also suggested that ITs
benefit from members with KSAOs that facilitate teamwork
(e.g., social skills) and innovative interactions (e.g., flexi-
bility), and thus development of teamwork skills may help
to buffer the potential difficulties associated with diversity.
Furthermore, the influences of cognition, communication,
and conflict are critical in determining IT success, because
these considerations reflect the most important aspects of
teamwork in this context. Thus, it is imperative that these be
fostered. First, psychologists can use interventions (e.g.,
team charters outlining expectations and norms) to promote
SMM similarity and the development of TMSs. Encourag-
ing ITs to reflect on their current goals and processes may
also be advantageous. Second, communication has a partic-
ular relationship with IT performance. Although informa-
tion sharing is necessary for IT success, frequent commu-
nication can be detrimental to innovation. Researchers and
practitioners need to look beyond overall communication
frequency and focus on the integration of knowledge to
capitalize on diverse expertise. Because some approaches
consider communication to be the external, observable form
of team cognition (e.g., Cooke et al., 2008), it may also be
necessary to focus on developing shared cognition if a team
is otherwise communicating the wrong information. For
instance, teams with a well-developed TMS will know
where expertise lies within the team, potentially increasing
their knowledge integration capability. Third, with the cur-
rent mixed findings on conflict in ITs, it would be unwise to
suggest increasing conflict for innovation; however, there
may be value in promoting collaborative problem solving in
ITs. This process may facilitate the aspects of conflict
expected to positively relate to innovation (e.g., exchanging
differing ideas) when teams do experience a moderate
amount of task conflict, while also mitigating the negative
effects.
Finally, creative leadership and supportive conditions cre-
ate the foundation for innovative performance. Recent find-
ings have supported the notion that ambidextrous leadership
is beneficial for ITs and that organizations should focus on
selecting and training ambidextrous leaders. Although re-
search has provided valuable information on leading cre-
ative people, the implementation process cannot be ignored.
As teams move through idea generation and implementa-
tion, leaders must be flexible in their behaviors. For in-
 INNOVATION TEAMS
stance, opening, transformational leadership behaviors are
important for encouraging team creativity; however, as the
IT moves into implementation, more direction and guidance
may be needed, and thus, leaders must adjust their approach
to closing, transactive leadership. This adjustment in ap-
proach likely requires a conscious effort, and leaders must
have a thorough understanding of both how and when to
engage in the appropriate behaviors for IT success at any
particular point in time. Thus, leader development opportu-
nities may be necessary and beneficial. However, ITs and
the organizations they operate within should also work to
develop a climate in which norms for innovation are salient.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This includes supporting innovative ideas through verbal
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
exchanges or resources, creating a nonthreatening environ-
ment for free information flow, and providing feedback and
monitoring as the IT engages in the innovation process.
Furthermore, to ensure creative ideas translate into desired
outcomes, organizations must value innovation as a process
as well as promote and support creative thought and inno-
vative endeavors through the establishment of policies and
procedures that recognize and reward both the idea gener-
ation and implementation processes ITs must engage in.
Overall, these six considerations are essential for ITs
trying to manage the demands of the innovation process,
namely the novelty and uncertainty that defines innovation,
as well as the paradox of idea generation and implementa-
tion as two intertwined yet conflicting processes that are
equally important for realizing the benefits of creative ac-
tivities. The practical guidance derived from these consid-
erations is valuable for psychologists and others aiming to
promote innovation in their research teams or practice, as
well as ITs working to address today’s grand challenges.
References
Akgün, A. E., Byrne, J., Keskin, H., Lynn, G. S., & Imamoglu, S. Z.
(2005). Knowledge networks in new product development projects: A
transactive memory perspective. Information & Management, 42, 1105–
1120. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2005.01.001
Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity: A componen-
tial conceptualization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45,
357–376. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.2.357
Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996).
Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management
Journal, 39, 1154 –1184. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256995
Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. (1992). Demography and design:
Predictors of new product team performance. Organization Science, 3,
321–341. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.3.3.321
Anderson, N., Potonik, K., & Zhou, J. (2014). Innovation and creativity
in organizations: A state-of-the-science review, prospective commen-
tary, and guiding framework. Journal of Management, 40, 1297–1333.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206314527128
Bain, P. G., Mann, L., & Pirola-Merlo, A. (2001). The innovation imper-
ative: The relationships between team climate, innovation, and perfor-
mance in research and development teams. Small Group Research, 32,
55–73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/104649640103200103
373
Barron, F., & Harrington, D. M. (1981). Creativity, intelligence, and
personality. Annual Review of Psychology, 32, 439 – 476. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.32.020181.002255
Blatt, R. (2009). Tough love: How communal schemas and contracting
practices build relational capital in entrepreneurial teams. Academy of
Management Review, 34, 533–551. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMR
.2009.40633298
Bledow, R., Frese, M., Anderson, N., Erez, M., & Farr, J. (2009). A
dialectic perspective on innovation: Conflicting demands, multiple path-
ways, and ambidexterity. Industrial and Organizational Psychology:
Perspectives on Science and Practice, 2, 305–337. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1111/j.1754-9434.2009.01154.x
Chen, M. H. (2007). Entrepreneurial leadership and new ventures: Cre-
ativity in entrepreneurial teams. Creativity and Innovation Management,
16, 239 –249. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8691.2007.00439.x
Cheng, Y. T., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1996). Learning the innovation
journey: Order out of chaos? Organization Science, 7, 593– 614. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.7.6.593
Cooke, N. J., Gorman, J. C., & Kiekel, P. A. (2008). Communication as
team-level cognitive processing. In M. P. Letsky, N. W. Warner, S. M.
Fiore, & C. A. P. Smith (Eds.), Macrocognition in teams: Theories and
methodologies (pp. 51– 64). Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of
effects of determinants and moderators. Academy of Management Jour-
nal, 34, 555–590. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256406
De Dreu, C. W. (2006). When too little or too much hurts: Evidence for a
curvilinear relationship between task conflict and innovation in teams.
Journal of Management, 32, 83–107. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0149206305277795
De Dreu, C. W. (2011). Conflict at work: Basic principles and applied
issues. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organiza-
tional psychology: Vol 3, Maintaining, expanding, and contracting the
organization (pp. 461– 493). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Ekvall, G. (1996). Organizational climate for creativity and innovation.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5, 105–123.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13594329608414845
Fan, H., Chang, P., Albanese, D., Wu, J., Yu, M., & Chuang, H. (2016).
Multilevel influences of transactive memory systems on individual in-
novative behavior and team innovation. Thinking Skills and Creativity,
19, 49 –59. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2015.11.001
Feist, G. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic
creativity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 290 –309.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0204_5
Gelfand, M. J., Leslie, L. M., Keller, K., & de Dreu, C. (2012). Conflict
cultures in organizations: How leaders shape conflict cultures and their
organizational-level consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97,
1131–1147. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0029993
Gittell, J. H. (2003). The Southwest Airlines way: Using the power of
relationships to achieve high performance. New York, NY: McGraw-
Hill.
Hoegl, M., & Parboteeah, K. P. (2006). Team reflexivity in innovative
projects. R&D Management, 36, 113–125. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j
.1467-9310.2006.00420.x
Hülsheger, U. R., Anderson, N., & Salgado, J. F. (2009). Team-level
predictors of innovation at work: A comprehensive meta-analysis span-
ning three decades of research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94,
1128 –1145. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0015978
Hunter, S. T., Bedell, K. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2007). Climate for
creativity: A quantitative review. Creativity Research Journal, 19, 69 –
90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10400410709336883
Hunter, S. T., Thoroughgood, C. N., Myer, A. T., & Ligon, G. S. (2011).
Paradoxes of leading innovative endeavors: Summary, solutions, and
 374 THAYER, PETRUZZELLI, AND MCCLURG
future directions. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5,
54 – 66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0017776
Huovinen, S., & Pasanen, M. (2010). Entrepreneurial and management
teams: What makes the difference? Journal of Management & Organi-
zation, 16, 436 – 453. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1833367200002078
Jalonen, H. (2012). The uncertainty of innovation: A systematic review of
the literature. Journal of Management Research, 4, 1– 47. http://dx.doi
.org/10.5296/jmr.v4i1.1039
Jehn, K. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments
of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 256 –282.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2393638
Khan, M. S., Breitenecker, R. J., Gustafsson, V., & Schwarz, E. J. (2015).
Innovative entrepreneurial teams: The give and take of trust and conflict.
Creativity and Innovation Management, 24, 558 –573. http://dx.doi.org/
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
10.1111/caim.12152
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Klotz, A. C., Hmieleski, K. M., Bradley, B. H., & Busenitz, L. W. (2014).
New venture teams: A review of the literature and roadmap for future
research. Journal of Management, 40, 226 –255. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1177/0149206313493325
Kramer, W. S., Thayer, A. L., & Salas, E. (2013). Goal setting in teams. In
E. A. Locke & G. P. Latham (Eds.), New developments in goal setting
and task performance (pp. 287–310). New York, NY: Routledge.
Kratzer, L., Leenders, O. T. A. J., & van Engelen, J. M. L. (2004).
Stimulating the potential: Creative performance and communication in
innovation teams. Creativity and Innovation Management, 13, 63–71.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8691.2004.00294.x
Kurtzberg, T. R. (2005). Feeling creative, being creative: An empirical
study of diversity and creativity in teams. Creativity Research Journal,
17, 51– 65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1701_5
Mainemelis, C., Kark, R., & Epitropaki, O. (2015). Creative leadership: A
multi-context conceptualization. Academy of Management Annals, 9,
393– 482. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2015.1024502
Martins, E. C., & Terblanche, F. (2003). Building organisational culture
that stimulates creativity and innovation. European Journal of Innova-
tion Management, 6, 64 –74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/146010603
10456337
Mathieu, J., Maynard, M. T., Rapp, T., & Gilson, L. (2008). Team
effectiveness 1997–2007: A review of recent advancements and a
glimpse into the future. Journal of Management, 34, 410 – 476. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206308316061
Miron, E., Erez, M., & Naveh, E. (2004). Do personal characteristics and
cultural values that promote innovation, quality, and efficiency compete
or complement each other? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25,
175–199. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.237
Mueller, J. S., Melwani, S., & Goncalo, J. A. (2012). The bias against
creativity: Why people desire but reject creative ideas. Psychological
Science, 23, 13–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956797611421018
Mumford, M. D., & Hunter, S. T. (2005). Innovation in organizations: A
multi-level perspective on creativity. In F. J. Yammarino & F. Danserau
(Eds.), Research in multi-level issues (Vol. 4, pp. 11–74). http://dx.doi
.org/10.1016/S1475-9144(05)04001-4
Mumford, M. D., Scott, G. M., Gaddis, B., & Strange, J. M. (2002).
Leading creative people: Orchestrating expertise and relationships.
Leadership Quarterly, 13, 705–750. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1048-
9843(02)00158-3
O’Neill, T. A., Allen, N. J., & Hastings, S. E. (2013). Examining the “pros”
and “cons” of team conflict: A team-level meta-analysis of task, rela-
tionship, and process conflict. Human Performance, 26, 236 –260. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2013.795573
Paulus, P. B., Dzindolet, M., & Kohn, N. W. (2012). Collaborative cre-
ativity—Group creativity and team innovation. In M. D. Mumford (Ed.),
Handbook of organizational creativity (pp. 327–357). http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/B978-0-12-374714-3.00014-8
Peltokorpi, V. (2008). Transactive memory systems. Review of General
Psychology, 12, 378 –394. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.12.4
.378
Peretz, H., Levi, A., & Fried, Y. (2015). Organizational diversity programs
across cultures: Effects on absenteeism, turnover, performance, and
innovation. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 26,
875–903. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2014.991344
Pirola-Merlo, A., Härtel, C., Mann, L., & Hirst, G. (2002). How leaders
influence the impact of affective events on team climate and perfor-
mance in R&D teams. Leadership Quarterly, 13, 561–581. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(02)00144-3
Pirola-Merlo, A., & Mann, L. (2004). The relationship between individual
creativity and team creativity: Aggregating across people and time.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 235–257. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1002/job.240
Puccio, G. J., & Cabra, J. F. (2012). Idea generation and idea evaluation:
Cognitive skills and deliberate practices. In M. D. Mumford (Ed.),
Handbook of organizational creativity (pp. 189 –215). http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/B978-0-12-374714-3.00009-4
Reiter-Palmon, R., Herman, A. E., & Yammarino, F. J. (2008). Creativity
and cognitive processes: Multi-level linkages between individual and
team cognition. In M. D. Mumford, S. T. Hunter, & K. E. Bedell-Avers
(Eds.), Research in multi-level issues: Vol. 7, Multi-level issues in
creativity and innovation (pp. 203–267). Bingley, United Kingdom:
Emerald.
Reiter-Palmon, R., Wigert, B., & de Vreede, T. (2012). Team creativity and
innovation: The effect of group composition, social processes, and
cognition. In M. D. Mumford (Ed.), Handbook of organizational cre-
ativity (pp. 295–326). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-374714-3
.00013-6
Reuveni, Y., & Vashdi, D. R. (2015). Innovation in multidisciplinary
teams: The moderating role of transformational leadership in the rela-
tionship between professional heterogeneity and shared mental models.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 24, 678 –
692. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2014.1001377
Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S. D. (1995). The construction of shared knowl-
edge in collaborative problem solving. In C. E. O’Malley (Ed.),
Computer-supported collaborative learning (pp. 69 –197). http://dx.doi
.org/10.1007/978-3-642-85098-1_5
Rosing, K., Frese, M., & Bausch, A. (2011). Explaining the heterogeneity
of the leadership-innovation relationship: Ambidextrous leadership.
Leadership Quarterly, 22, 956 –974. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua
.2011.07.014
Salas, E., Shuffler, M. L., Thayer, A. L., Bedwell, W. L., & Lazzara, E. H.
(2015). Understanding and improving teamwork in organizations: A
scientifically based practical guide. Human Resource Management, 54,
599 – 622. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21628
Salazar, M. R., Lant, T. K., Fiore, S. M., & Salas, E. (2012). Facilitating innovation
in diverse science teams through integrative capacity. Small Group Research,
43, 527–558. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1046496412453622
Schippers, M. C., Edmondson, A. C., & West, M. A. (2014). Team reflexivity
as an antidote to team information-processing failures. Small Group Re-
search, 45, 731–769. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1046496414553473
Schippers, M. C., West, M. A., & Dawson, J. F. (2015). Team reflexivity
and innovation: The moderating role of team context. Journal of Man-
agement, 41, 769 –788. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206312441210
Schneider, B., Ehrhart, M. G., & Macey, W. H. (2011). Organizational
climate research. In N. M. Ashkanasy, C. Wilderom, & M. F. Peterson
(Eds.), The handbook of organizational culture and climate (2nd ed., pp.
29 – 49). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior:
A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of
Management Journal, 37, 580 – 607. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256701
 INNOVATION TEAMS
Shalley, C. E., & Gilson, L. L. (2004). What leaders need to know: A
review of social and contextual factors that can foster or hinder creativ-
ity. Leadership Quarterly, 15, 33–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua
.2003.12.004
Shalley, C. E., Gilson, L. L., & Blum, T. C. (2000). Matching creativity
requirements and the work environment: Effects on satisfaction and
intentions to leave. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 215–223.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1556378
Shane, S., Venkataraman, S., & MacMillan, I. (1995). Cultural differences
in innovation championing strategies. Journal of Management, 21, 931–
952. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014920639502100507
Shepherd, D. A., Douglas, E. G., & Shanley, M. (2000). New venture
survival: Ignorance, external shocks, and risk reduction strategies. Jour-
nal of Business Venturing, 15, 393– 410. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
S0883-9026(98)00032-9
Shook, C. L., Priem, R. L., & McGee, J. E. (2003). Venture creation and
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
the enterprising individual: A review and synthesis. Journal of Manage-
ment, 29, 379 –399. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0149-2063(03)00016-3
Simmons, A. L., & Ren, R. (2009). The influence of goal orientation and
risk on creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 21, 400 – 408. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1080/10400410903297980
Skilton, P. F., & Dooley, K. J. (2010). The effects of repeat collaboration
on creative abrasion. Academy of Management Review, 35, 118 –134.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2010.45577886
Tellis, G. J., Prabhu, J. C., & Chandy, R. K. (2009). Radical innovation
across nations: The preeminence of corporate culture. Journal of Mar-
keting, 73, 3–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.73.1.3
Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2002). Creative self-efficacy: Its potential
antecedents and relationship to creative performance. Academy of Man-
agement Journal, 45, 1137–1148. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3069429
Tierney, P., Farmer, S. M., & Graen, G. B. (1999). An examination of
leadership and employee creativity: The relevance of traits and relation-
ships. Personnel Psychology, 52, 591– 620. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j
.1744-6570.1999.tb00173.x
Valls, V., González-Romá, V., & Tomás, I. (2016). Linking educational
diversity and team performance: Team communication quality and in-
novation team climate matter. Journal of Occupational and Organiza-
tional Psychology, 89, 751–771. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/joop.12152
van Knippenberg, D. (2017). Team innovation. Annual Review of Orga-
nizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4, 211–233. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032516-113240
Ward, T. B. (2004). Cognition, creativity, and entrepreneurship. Journal of
Business Venturing, 19, 173–188. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0883-
9026(03)00005-3
View publication stats
375
Watson, W. E., Ponthieu, L. D., & Critelli, J. W. (1995). Team interper-
sonal process effectiveness in venture partnerships and its connection to
perceived success. Journal of Business Venturing, 10, 393– 411. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/0883-9026(95)00036-8
Weingart, L. R., Todorova, G., & Cronin, M. A. (2010). Task conflict,
problem-solving, and yielding: Effects on cognition and performance in
functionally diverse innovation teams. Negotiation and Conflict Man-
agement Research, 3, 312–337. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-4716
.2010.00063.x
West, M. A. (1990). The social psychology of innovation in groups. In
M. A. West & J. L. Farr (Eds.), Innovation and creativity at work:
Psychological and organizational strategies (pp. 309 –333). Chichester,
United Kingdom: Wiley.
West, M. A. (Ed.). (1996). Reflexivity and work group effectiveness: A
conceptual integration. In Handbook of work group psychology (pp.
55–579). Chichester, United Kingdom: Wiley.
West, M. A. (2002). Sparkling fountains or stagnant ponds: An integrative
model of creativity and innovation implementation in work groups.
Applied Psychology, 51, 355–387. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1464-0597
.00951
West, M. A., & Farr, J. L. (1990). Innovation at work. In M. A. West &
J. L. Farr (Eds.), Innovation and creativity at work: Psychological and
organizational strategies (pp. 3–13). Chichester, United Kingdom: Wi-
ley.
Wuchty, S., Jones, B. F., & Uzzi, B. (2007). The increasing dominance of
teams in production of knowledge. Science, 316, 1036 –1039. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1126/science.1136099
Xie, X.-Y., Wang, W.-L., & Luan, K. (2014). It is not what we have, but
how we use it: Re-exploring the relationship between task conflict and
team innovation from the resource-based view. Group Processes &
Intergroup Relations, 17, 240 –251. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
1368430213502559
Zhou, W., Vredenburgh, D., & Rogoff, E. G. (2015). Informational diver-
sity and entrepreneurial team performance: Moderating effect of shared
leadership. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal,
11, 39 –55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11365-013-0274-3
Received January 16, 2017
Revision received January 23, 2018
Accepted January 26, 2018 䡲