IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wsi/ijimxx/v22y2018i06ns1363919618500500.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Investigating The Synergistic And Antagonistic Impacts Of Outcome Interdependence, Shared Vision And Team Reflexivity On Innovation In Software Development Projects

Author

Listed:
  • ADARSH KUMAR KAKAR

    (Alabama State University, Montgomeus, AL USA)

Abstract

Reflexivity, the extent to which teams reflect upon and modify their functioning, is widely considered a key factor for engendering team innovation. In this study, we propose that reflexivity is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for team innovation. Outcome interdependence, defined as the extent to which team members perceive that attainment of goals by their colleagues will facilitate their own goal achievement, and shared team vision, will moderate the effect of team reflexivity on team innovation. An empirical study with 332 team members of 34 software projects reveals that as predicted high outcome interdependence and shared team vision magnified the positive impacts of team reflexivity on team innovation. However, an increase in team reflexivity at low outcome interdependence and shared team vision had a negative impact on team innovation. Further, in general, agile software teams consistently demonstrated higher outcome interdependence and team reflexivity and thereby higher team innovation compared to teams adopting plan-driven methods of software development.

Suggested Citation

  • Adarsh Kumar Kakar, 2018. "Investigating The Synergistic And Antagonistic Impacts Of Outcome Interdependence, Shared Vision And Team Reflexivity On Innovation In Software Development Projects," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 22(06), pages 1-31, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:wsi:ijimxx:v:22:y:2018:i:06:n:s1363919618500500
    DOI: 10.1142/S1363919618500500
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S1363919618500500
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1142/S1363919618500500?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jansen, J.J.P. & van den Bosch, F.A.J. & Volberda, H.W., 2005. "Managing Potential and Realized Absorptive Capacity: How do Organizational Antecedents matter?," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2005-025-STR, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    2. Evans, Martin G., 1985. "A Monte Carlo study of the effects of correlated method variance in moderated multiple regression analysis," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 305-323, December.
    3. Laura B. Cardinal, 2001. "Technological Innovation in the Pharmaceutical Industry: The Use of Organizational Control in Managing Research and Development," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 12(1), pages 19-36, February.
    4. James G. March, 1991. "Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 71-87, February.
    5. J. Bradford De Long & Lawrence H. Summers, 1994. "Equipment Investment and Economic Growth: Reply," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 109(3), pages 803-807.
    6. Zi-Lin He & Poh-Kam Wong, 2004. "Exploration vs. Exploitation: An Empirical Test of the Ambidexterity Hypothesis," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(4), pages 481-494, August.
    7. Paulus, Paul B. & Yang, Huei-Chuan, 2000. "Idea Generation in Groups: A Basis for Creativity in Organizations," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 82(1), pages 76-87, May.
    8. Taylor, Frederick Winslow, 1911. "The Principles of Scientific Management," History of Economic Thought Books, McMaster University Archive for the History of Economic Thought, number taylor1911.
    9. Jeroen P. J. de Jong & Ron Kemp, 2003. "Determinants of Co-Workers' Innovative Behaviour: An Investigation into Knowledge Intensive Services," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 7(02), pages 189-212.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Karl Aschenbrücker & Tobias Kretschmer, 2022. "Performance-based incentives and innovative activity in small firms: evidence from German manufacturing," Journal of Organization Design, Springer;Organizational Design Community, vol. 11(2), pages 47-64, June.
    2. Justin J. P. Jansen & Frans A. J. Van Den Bosch & Henk W. Volberda, 2006. "Exploratory Innovation, Exploitative Innovation, and Performance: Effects of Organizational Antecedents and Environmental Moderators," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(11), pages 1661-1674, November.
    3. Hu, Jing & Wang, Yilin & Liu, Shengnan & Song, Mingshun, 2023. "Mechanism of latecomer enterprises’ technological catch-up in technical standards alliances – An ambidextrous innovation perspective," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    4. Avimanyu Datta, 2011. "Review and Extension on Ambidexterity: A Theoretical Model Integrating Networks and Absorptive Capacity," Journal of Management and Strategy, Journal of Management and Strategy, Sciedu Press, vol. 2(1), pages 2-22, March.
    5. Sabyasachi Sinha, 2015. "The Exploration–Exploitation Dilemma: A Review in the Context of Managing Growth of New Ventures," Vikalpa: The Journal for Decision Makers, , vol. 40(3), pages 313-323, September.
    6. Diether Gebert & Sabine Boerner & Eric Kearney, 2010. "Fostering Team Innovation: Why Is It Important to Combine Opposing Action Strategies?," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(3), pages 593-608, June.
    7. Justin J. P. Jansen & Michiel P. Tempelaar & Frans A. J. van den Bosch & Henk W. Volberda, 2009. "Structural Differentiation and Ambidexterity: The Mediating Role of Integration Mechanisms," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(4), pages 797-811, August.
    8. Sébastien Brion & Caroline Mothe & Maréva Sabatier, 2010. "The Impact Of Organisational Context And Competences On Innovation Ambidexterity," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 14(02), pages 151-178.
    9. Estolatan, Eric & Geuna, Aldo, 2019. "Looking forward via the Past: An Investigation of the Evolution of the Knowledge Base of Robotics Firms," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis LEI & BRICK - Laboratory of Economics of Innovation "Franco Momigliano", Bureau of Research in Innovation, Complexity and Knowledge, Collegio 201904, University of Turin.
    10. Turner, Karynne L. & Monti, Alberto & Annosi, Maria Carmela, 2021. "Disentangling the effects of organizational controls on innovation," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 57-69.
    11. Zhang, Zhu & Lyles, Marjorie A. & Wu, Changqi, 2020. "The stock market performance of exploration-oriented and exploitation-oriented cross-border mergers and acquisitions: Evidence from emerging market enterprises," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 29(4).
    12. Bedford, David S. & Bisbe, Josep & Sweeney, Breda, 2019. "Performance measurement systems as generators of cognitive conflict in ambidextrous firms," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 21-37.
    13. Erwin Danneels & Rajesh Sethi, 2011. "New Product Exploration Under Environmental Turbulence," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(4), pages 1026-1039, August.
    14. O'Reilly, Charles A., III & Tushman, Michael L., 2013. "Organizational Ambidexterity: Past, Present and Future," Research Papers 2130, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    15. Sébastien Brion & Caroline Mothe, 2016. "Organizational context and innovation ambidexterity: Is creativity the missing link?," Post-Print hal-01419039, HAL.
    16. Adarsh Kumar Kakar, 2017. "Do Reflexive Software Development Teams Perform Better?," Business & Information Systems Engineering: The International Journal of WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, Springer;Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI), vol. 59(5), pages 347-359, October.
    17. Ho, Hillbun (Dixon) & Lu, Ruichang, 2015. "Performance implications of marketing exploitation and exploration: Moderating role of supplier collaboration," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 68(5), pages 1026-1034.
    18. Katou, Anastasia A. & Budhwar, Pawan S. & Patel, Charmi, 2021. "A trilogy of organizational ambidexterity: Leader’s social intelligence, employee work engagement and environmental changes," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 688-700.
    19. Jackson, Nicole C., 2019. "Managing for competency with innovation change in higher education: Examining the pitfalls and pivots of digital transformation," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 62(6), pages 761-772.
    20. Sheng, Margaret L. & Hartmann, Nathaniel N., 2019. "Impact of subsidiaries' cross-border knowledge tacitness shared and social capital on MNCs' explorative and exploitative innovation capability," Journal of International Management, Elsevier, vol. 25(4).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wsi:ijimxx:v:22:y:2018:i:06:n:s1363919618500500. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Tai Tone Lim (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.worldscinet.com/ijim/ijim.shtml .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.