Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T13:21:50.617Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Exploring the psychological safety of R&D teams: An empirical analysis in Taiwan

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 February 2015

Chi-Cheng Huang  and
Pin-Chen Jiang
Chi-Cheng Huang
Affiliation:
Department of Industrial and Business Management, Aletheia University, Taiwan
Pin-Chen Jiang
Affiliation:
Department of Asia-Pacific Industrial and Business Management, National University of Kaohsiung, Kaohsiung, Taiwan, ROC
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

R&D is uncertain work that involves the knowledge, skills, or perspectives of team members. When R&D teams develop new products or technologies, the need for psychological safety within the teams is increasingly emphasized. If R&D team members perceive that team psychological safety exists, they may be willing to offer knowledge or perspectives during the development process because they are not afraid of being rejected or embarrassed for speaking up. However, the application of the theory of team psychological safety to R&D teams is considerably limited. This study explores the antecedents and consequences of team psychological safety in R&D teams. Our research model is assessed using data from a sample of 245 team members from sixty technology R&D teams at a leading R&D institute and is analyzed using the partial least squares (PLS) method. The results of this study suggest that: (1) social capital exerts a positive and significant effect on team psychological safety; (2) team psychological safety has a positive and significant impact on team performance; (3) knowledge sharing and team learning positively and significantly mediate the relationship between team psychological safety and team performance; and (4) knowledge sharing exhibits a positive and significant effect on team learning. This study also discusses the implications of team psychological safety for R&D teams.

Keywords

team psychological safetysocial capitalteam performanceknowledge sharingteam learningpartial least squares
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Management & Organization , Volume 18 , Issue 2 , March 2012 , pp. 175 - 192
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Akgün, A. E., Lynn, G. S., & Reilly, R. R. (2002). Multi-dimensionality of learning in new product development teams. European Journal of Innovation Management, 5, 57–72.Google Scholar
Akgün, A. E., Lynnb, G. S., & Yilmaz, C. (2006). Learning process in new product development teams and effects on product success: A socio-cognitive perspective. Industrial Marketing Management, 35, 210–224.Google Scholar
Allen, T. (1971). Communication networks in R&D laboratories. R&D Management, 1, 14–21.Google Scholar
Anand, V., Clark, M., & Zellmer-Bruhn, M. (2003). Team knowledge structures: Matching task to information environment. Journal of Managerial Issues, 15, 15–31.Google Scholar
Argote, L., Gruenfeld, D., & Naquin, C. (2001). Group learning in organizations. In Turner, M. E. (Eds.), Groups at work: Advances in theory and research (pp. 369–411). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Baer, M. & Frese, M. (2003). Innovation is not enough: Climates for initiative and psychological safety, process innovations, and firm performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(1), 45–68.Google Scholar
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74–94.Google Scholar
Bain, P. G., Mann, L., & Pirola-Merlo, A. (2001). The innovation imperative. Small Group Research, 32(1), 55–73.Google Scholar
Barsade, S. G., Gibson, D. E., & Putzel, R. (2001). To be angry or not to be angry in groups: Examining the question. Washington, DC: Academy of Management.Google Scholar
Bock, G. W., Zmud, R. W., Kim, Y. G., & Lee, J. N. (2005). Behavioral intention formation in knowledge sharing: Examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social-psychological forces, and organizational climate. MIS Quarterly, 29(1), 87–111.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of social capital. In Richard, J. G. (Eds.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 46–58). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bresman, H. (2010). External learning activities and team performance: A multimethod field study. Organization Science, 21(1), 81–98.Google Scholar
Brown, S. P., & Leigh, T. W. (1996). A new look at psychological climate and its relationship to job involvement, effort, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 358–368.Google Scholar
Bryman, A., & Cramer, D. (1994). Quantitative data analysis for social scientists. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Carmeli, A. (2007). Social capital, psychological safety and learning behaviours from failure in organizations. Long Range Planning, 40, 30–44.Google Scholar
Carmeli, A., Brueller, D., & Dutton, J. E. (2009). Learning behaviors in the workplace: The role of high-quality interpersonal relationships and psychological safety. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 26, 81–98.Google Scholar
Chan, C. A., Person, C., & Entrekin, L. (2003). Examining the effects of internal and external team learning on team performance. Team Performance Management, 9, 174–181.Google Scholar
Chin, W., & Gopal, A. (1995). Adoption intention in GSS: Relative importance of beliefs. Data Base Advances, 26(2 & 3), 42–63.Google Scholar
Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. In Mrcoulides, G. A. (Eds.), Modern methods for business research (pp. 295–336). Lawrence, NJ: Erlbaum & Associates.Google Scholar
Chiu, C. M., Hsu, M. H., & Wang, E. T. G. (2006). Understanding knowledge sharing in virtual communities: An integration of social capital and social cognitive theories. Decision Support System, 42(3), 1872–1888.Google Scholar
Dutton, J. E. (1993). The making of organizational opportunities: An interpretive pathway to organizational change. In Cummings, L. L., & Staw, B. M. (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 195–226). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 350–383.Google Scholar
Edmondson, A. (2002a). Managing the risk of learning: Psychological safety in work teams. In West, M. (Eds.), International handbook of organizational teamwork (pp. 255–275). London, England: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Edmondson, A. (2002b). The local and variegated nature of learning in organizations: A group-level perspective. Organization Science, 13, 128–146.Google Scholar
Edmondson, A. (2003). Speaking up in the operating room: How team leaders promote learning in interdisciplinary action teams. Journal of Management Studies, 40(6), 1419–1452.Google Scholar
Edmondson, A. (2004). Learning from mistakes is easier said than done. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 40(1), 66–90.Google Scholar
Edmondson, A., Bohmer, R. M., & Pisano, G. P. (2001). Disrupted routines: Team learning and new technology implementation in hospitals. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(4), 685–716.Google Scholar
Edmondson, A., & Mogelof, J. P. (2006). Explaining psychological safety in innovation teams: Organizational culture, team dynamics or personality? In Thompson, L. L., & Choi, H. S. (Eds.), Creativity and innovation in organization teams (pp. 109–134). London, England: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Edmondson, A., Roberto, M. A., & Watkins, M. D. (2003). A dynamic model of top management team effectiveness: Managing unstructured task streams. The Leadership Quarterly, 14(3), 297–325.Google Scholar
Edmondson, A. C., Dillon, J. R., & Roloff, K. S. (2007). Three perspectives on team learning: Outcome improvement, task mastery and group process. In Brief, A. P., & Walsh, J. P. (Eds.), The academy of management annals (pp. 269–314). Hillsdale, NJ: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Edmondson, A. C., & Roloff, K. S. (2009). Overcoming barriers to collaboration: Psychological safety and learning in diverse teams. In Salas, E., Goodwin, G. F., & Burke, C. S. (Eds.), Team effectiveness in complex organizations: Cross-disciplinary perspectives and approaches (pp. 183–222). New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
Elkjaer, B. (2003). Social learning theory: Learning as participation is social processes. In Easterby-Smith, M., & Lyles, M. A. (Eds.), The Blackwell handbook of organizational learning and knowledge management (pp. 38–53). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
Ghiselli, E. E., Campbell, J. P., & Zedeck, S. (1981). Measurement theory for the behavioral sciences. San Francisco, CA: Freeman.Google Scholar
Hasan, B., & Ali, J. (2007). An empirical examination of factors affecting group effectiveness in information systems projects. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 5(2), 229–243.Google Scholar
Hinsz, V. B., Tindale, R. S., & Vollrath, D. A. (1997). The emerging conceptualization of groups as information processors. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 43–64.Google Scholar
Janz, B. D., & Prasarnphanich, P. (2003). Understanding the antecedents of effectiveness knowledge management: The importance of a knowledge-center culture. Decision Sciences, 34(2), 351–384.Google Scholar
Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Leidner, D. E. (1999). Communication and trust in global virtual teams. Organization Science, 10(6), 791–815.Google Scholar
Jones, G. R., & George, J. M. (1998). The experience and evolution of trust: Implication for cooperation and teamwork. Academy of Management Review, 23, 531–546.Google Scholar
Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692–724.Google Scholar
Kankanhalli, A., Tan, B. C. Y., & Wei, K. K. (2005). Contributing knowledge to electronic knowledge repositories: A empirical investigation. MIS Quarterly, 29(1), 113–143.Google Scholar
Kark, R., & Carmeli, A. (2009). Alive and creating: the mediating role of vitality and aliveness in the relationship between psychological safety and creative work involvement. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 785–804.Google Scholar
Kenny, D. A., & LaVoie, L. (1985). Separating individual and group effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 339–348.Google Scholar
Klein, R., Rai, A., & Straub, D. W. (2007). Competitive and cooperative positioning in supply chain logistics relationships. Decision Sciences, 38(4), 611–646.Google Scholar
Lee, C., & Chen, W. J. (2007). Cross-functionality and charged behavior of the new product development teams in Taiwan's information technology industries. Technovation, 27(10), 605–615.Google Scholar
Levi, D., & Slem, C. (1995). Team work and research and development organizations: The characteristics of successful teams. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 16, 29–42.Google Scholar
Lewis, K. (2004). Knowledge and performance in knowledge-worker teams: A longitudinal study of transactive memory systems. Management Science, 50(11), 1519–1533.Google Scholar
Liang, H., Saraf, N., Hu, Q., & Xue, Y. (2007). Assimilation of enterprise systems: The effect of institutional pressures and the mediating role of top management. MIS Quarterly, 31(1), 59–87.Google Scholar
Lüthje, C., & Prügl, R. (2006). Preparing business students for co-operation in multi-disciplinary new venture teams: Empirical insights from a business-planning course. Technovation, 26(2), 211–219.Google Scholar
Lynn, G. S., Akgün, A. E., & Keskin, H. (2003). Accelerated learning in new product development teams. European Journal of Innovation Management, 6(4), 201–212.Google Scholar
MacDuffie, J. P. (1997). The road to ‘root cause’: Shop-floor problem-solving at three auto assembly plants. Management Science, 43, 479–502.Google Scholar
Mannix, E., & Neale, M. A. (2005). What differences make a difference? The promise and reality of diverse teams in organizations. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 6(2), 31–55.Google Scholar
May, D. R., & Gilson, R. L. (1999). Engaging the human spirit at work: Exploring the psychological conditions of meaningfulness, safety and availability. Proceedings of the National Meeting of the Academy of Management, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
May, D. R., Gilson, R. L., & Harter, L. M. (2004). The psychological conditions of meaningfulness, safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work. Journal Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77, 11–37.Google Scholar
McAdam, R., O'Hare, T., & Moffett, S. (2008). Collaborative knowledge sharing in composite new product development: An aerospace study. Technovation, 28(5), 245–256.Google Scholar
Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., & DeChurch, L. A. (2009). Information sharing and team performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2), 535–546.Google Scholar
Moreland, R. L., & Myaskovsky, L. (2000). Exploring the performance benefits of group training: Transactive memory or improved communication. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 117–133.Google Scholar
Moye, N. A., & Langfred, C. W. (2005). Information sharing and group conflict: Going beyond decision making to understand the effects of information sharing on group performance. International Journal of Conflict Management, 15(4), 381–410.Google Scholar
Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and organizational advantage. The Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242–266.Google Scholar
Nelson, K. M., & Cooprider, J. G. (1996). The contribution of shared knowledge to IS group performance. MIS Quarterly, 20(4), 409–432.Google Scholar
Nembhard, I. M., & Edmondson, A. (2006). Making it safe: The effects of leader inclusiveness and professional status on psychological safety and improvement efforts in health care teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(7), 941–966.Google Scholar
Nilniyom, P. (2007). The impacts of group climate on creativity and team performance of auditors in Thailand. International Journal of Business Research, 7(3), 171–179.Google Scholar
Nunnally, J. C. (1967). Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Patnayakuni, R., Rai, A., & Seth, N. (2006). Relational antecedents of information flow integration for supply chain coordination. Journal of Management Information Systems, 23(1), 13–49.Google Scholar
Pirola-Merlo, A., Härtel, C., Mann, L., & Hirst, G. (2002). How leaders influence the impact of affective events on team climate and performance in R&D teams. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(5), 561–581.Google Scholar
Purser, R. E., Pasmore, W. A., & Tenkasi, R. V. (1992). The influence of deliberations on learning in new product development teams. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 9, 1–28.Google Scholar
Rigby, D., & Zook, C. (2002). Open-market innovation. Harvard Business Review, 80(10), 80–89.Google Scholar
Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Will, A. (2005). SmartPLS 2.0. Retrieved from http://www.smartpls.deGoogle Scholar
Roussin, C. J. (2008). Increasing trust, psychological safety and team performance through dyadic leadership discovery. Small Group Research, 39(2), 224–248.Google Scholar
Saade, R., & Bahli, B. (2005). The impact of cognitive absorption on perceive usefulness and perceived ease of use in on-line learning: An extension of the technology acceptance model. Information and Management, 42(2), 317–327.Google Scholar
Sarin, S., & McDermott, C. (2003). The effect of team leader characteristics on learning, knowledge application, and performance of cross-functional new product development teams. Decision Sciences, 34(4), 707–739.Google Scholar
Schein, E. H., & Bennis, W. G. (1965). Personal and organizational change through group methods. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Sher, P. J., & Lee, V. C. (2004). Information technology as a facilitator for enhancing dynamic capabilities through knowledge management. Information & Management, 41, 933–945.Google Scholar
Singer, S., Lin, S., Falwell, A., Gaba, D., & Baker, L. (2009). Relationship of safety climate and safety performance in hospitals. Health Services Research, 44, 399–421.Google Scholar
So, J. C. F., & Bolloju, N. (2005). Explaining the intentions to share and reuse knowledge in the context of IT service operations. Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(6), 30–41.Google Scholar
Stasser, G., Stewart, D. D., & Wittenbaum, G. W. (1995). Expert roles and information exchange during discussion: The importance of knowing who knows what. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 244–265.Google Scholar
Stasser, G., Vaughan, S. I., & Stewart, D. D. (2000). Pooling unshared information: The benefits of knowing how access to information is distributed among group members. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 102–116.Google Scholar
Stewart, G. L., & Barrick, M. R. (2000). Team structure and performance: Assessing the mediating role of intrateam process and the moderating role of task type. The Academy of Management Journal, 43(2), 135–148.Google Scholar
Taylor, W. A., & Wright, G. H. (2004). Organizational readiness for successful knowledge sharing: Challenges for public sector managers. Information Resources Management Journal, 17(2), 22–37.Google Scholar
Tjosvold, D., Yu, Z. Y., & Hui, C. (2004). Team learning from mistakes: The contribution of cooperative goals and problem-solving. Journal of Management Studies, 41(7), 1223–1245.Google Scholar
Tsai, W., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital and value creation: The role of intrafirm networks. The Academy of Management Journal, 41(4), 464–476.Google Scholar
Tucker, A. L., Nembhard, I. M., & Edmondson, A. (2007). Implementing new practices: an empirical study of organizational learning in hospital intensive care units. Management Science, 53(6), 894–907.Google Scholar
Vasquez, B., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2001). The impact of cooperative learning on the performance and retention of U.S. navy air traffic controller trainees. The Journal of Social Psychology, 133(6), 769–783.Google Scholar
Wang, S., & Noe, R. A. (2010). Knowledge sharing: A review and directions for future research. Human Resource Management Review, 20, 115–131.Google Scholar
Wasko, M. M., & Faraj, S. (2005). Why should I share? Examining social capital and knowledge contribution in electronic networks of practice. MIS Quarterly, 29(2), 35–57.Google Scholar
Wegner, D. M. (1987). Transactive memory: A contemporary analysis of the group mind. In Mullen, B., & Goethals, G. R. (Eds.), Theories of group behavior (pp. 187–208). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Weick, K. E., & Roberts, K. H. (1993). Collective mind in organizations: Heedful interrelating on flight decks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 357–381.Google Scholar
West, M. A. (1990). The social psychology of innovation in groups. In West, M. A., & Farr, J. L. (Eds.), Innovation and creativity at work: Psychological and organizational strategies (pp. 309–333). Chichester, England: Wiley.Google Scholar
West, M. A., Borrill, C. S., & Unsworth, K. L. (1998). Team effectiveness in organizations. In Cooper, C. L., & Robertson, I. T. (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1–48). New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
Wilken, R., & London, M. (2006). Relationships between climate, process, and performance in continuous quality improvement groups. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69, 510–523.Google Scholar
Wu, W. L., Yehl, R. S., & Huang, C. C. (2007). Fostering knowledge sharing to encourage R&D team learning. Proceedings of the PICMET 2007, Portland, OR.Google Scholar
Yeh, Y. J., & Chou, H. W. (2005). Team composition and learning behaviors in cross-functional teams. Social Behavior and Personality, 33(4), 391–402.Google Scholar
Yoo, Y., & Kanawattanachai, P. (2001). Developments of transaction memory systems and collective mind in virtual teams. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 9(2), 187–208.Google Scholar