Individual,Climate,and Group Interaction Processes as Predictors of Work Team Innovation

Abstract

The contribution of individual innovativeness and team climate factors to the rated innova-tiveness of work groups is examined in a study of 59 members of 13 teams in an oil company. A specific model of work team innovation was tested that proposes that four team climate factors-team vision, participative safety, task orientation, and support for innovationdetermine level of team innovation. Scores on measures of group interaction processes and team climate were related to external ratings of group innovativeness. The results showed that supportfor innovation was the most consistent predictor, with negotiated vision and an aim for excellence (a subscale of the task orientation scale) also predicting externally rated group innovativeness. Allfour major theoretical variables correlated significantly with the interaction process category of innovating, offeringfurther supportfor theoretical predictions.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Argyris, C. (1993). Actionable knowledge: Especially for changing the status quo. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bales, R. F. (1950). Interaction process analysis: A methodfor the study of small groups. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Guzzo, R. A. , & Shea, G. P. (1992). Group performance and intergroup relations in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette & Leatta M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, (Vol. 3, pp. 269-313). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Hackman, R. J. (1992). Group influences on indviduals in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 199-267). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

King, N. (1992). Modelling the innovation process: An empirical comparison of approaches. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 65, 89-100.

Maier, N.R.F. (1970). Problem solving and creativity: In individuals and groups. Monterey CA: Brooks/Cole.

Tjosvold, D. (1982). Effect of approach to controversy on supervisors' incorporation of subordinates' information in decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 189-193.

Tjosvold, D. , Wedley, W. C. , & Field, R.H.G. (1986). Constructive controversy, the VroomYetton Model, and managerial decision making. Journal of Occupational Behavior, 7, 125-138.

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, England: Wiley.

10.

West, M. A. , & Wallace, M. (1991). Innovation in health care teams. European Journal of Social Psychology, 21, 303-315.