Team Collaboration and Competition
Leadership Issue of Knowledge Management
Houn-Gee Chen
Department of Business Administration, National Taiwan University, #85 Roosevelt Road, Taipei, Taiwan
Keywords: Empowering Leadership, RandD Teams, Group-Focused Leadership, Individual Focused Leadership,
Differentiated Leadership.
Abstract: Recent research suggests that there are two distinct behavioural components of leadership: 1) those targeted
at influencing the group as a whole (group-focused); and 2) those aimed at individual group members
(individual-focused). Differentiated individual-focused leadership occurs when leader exhibits varying
levels of individual-focused leadership behaviour across different group members. This research examines
the unique influences of group-focused empowering leadership and differentiated individual-focused
empowering leadership on RandD team’s processes and team effectiveness. Using data from 54 RandD
teams, we found that group-focused empowering leadership is strongly related to intra-team collaboration,
which in turn substantially benefits both team creativity and performance. Differentiated individual-focused
empowering leadership, however, leads to intra-team competition, which is harmful to team creativity.
1 INTRODUCTION
The leadership of RandD teams has been reported to
be an important factor contributing to various
outcomes such as individual and group innovation,
project and employee performance, RandD project
effectiveness, and team performances. RandD teams
are characterized with considerable more autonomy
than other types of teams: they typically have greater
degree of freedom in day to day operating decisions
such as when to work and how to solve job problems
(Abbey and Dickson, 1983; Stoker et al., 2001). To
address the autonomous nature of RandD activities,
empowering leadership is increasingly discussed to
be positively related to RandD team effectiveness as
it provides a balance between autonomy and control,
encourages member participation as well as self-
leadership, and benefits creativity (Faraj and
Sambamurthy, 2006; Frischer, 1993).
Recent research points out that leaders can attend
to both team and individual members (Chen,
Kirkman, Kanfer and Allen, 2007; Wu, Tsui, and
Kinicki, 2010). Thus, there are two distinct
behavioral components of leadership: 1) those
targeted at influencing the group as a whole(e.g.,
setting goals for the whole group, and provide
inspiration for the whole group); and 2) those aimed
at individual group members(e.g., setting goals for
individual members, and providing individualized
coaching). The former is called group-focused
leadership, while the latter is termed individual-
focused leadership. Differentiated individual-
focused leadership occurs when leader exhibits
varying levels of individual-focused leadership
behaviour across different group members, for
example, treating some members better than others;
or providing more support to some members than
others. A critique question concerning differentiated
leadership is whether it is beneficial or detrimental
to team effectiveness. Wu et al.(2010) reported that
differentiated individual-focused transformational
leadership harms group effectiveness through self-
efficacy divergence. However, much is still left
unexplored. For example, what are the effects of
differentiated individual focused empowering
leadership on other team outcomes, such as
performance and creativity, and through what
mechanism?
To advance this line of research, the current
research aims to investigate empowering leadership
in RandD teams through the lens of group-focused
and differentiated individual focused leadership, and
the mechanism through which they affect team
effectiveness in the forms of team creativity and
performance. We examine how group-focused and
331
Chen H..
Team Collaboration and Competition - Leadership Issue of Knowledge Management.
DOI: 10.5220/0005152203310338
In Proceedings of the International Conference on Knowledge Management and Information Sharing (KMIS-2014), pages 331-338
ISBN: 978-989-758-050-5
Copyright
c
2014 SCITEPRESS (Science and Technology Publications, Lda.)
differentiated individual focused leadership
influence team creativity and performance through
internal team processes, i.e. intra-team competition
and collaboration.
2 THEORY AND HYPOTHESES
Based on the input-process-output model, the
heuristic model of team effectiveness (Cohen and
Bailey, 1997) suggests that team effectiveness is a
function of contextual factors and group processes,
among others. Supervising and leadership behaviour
serves as a contextual factor and influences team
processes (e.g., conflicts, collaboration and
communication), which in turn, leads to team
effectiveness such performance and creativity.
We propose empowering leadership behaviour as
the contextual factor in our model. An empowering
leader consults with and makes joint decisions with
team members and delegates responsibilities to team
members, encourages team members’ active
participation and self-leadership, and encourages
followers to actively provide input, participate in
team decisions, and display initiative(Faraj and
Sambamurthy, 2006). Extending prior work by
Pearce and Sims (2002), Faraj and Sambamurthy
(2006) defined empowering leadership in the RandD
context to consist of three dimensions: encouraging
teamwork, encouraging self-development, and
participative goal setting. These three dimensions
can be then categorized into two types: group-
focused empowering leadership, and differentiated
individual-focused empowering leadership. Group-
focused empowering leadership refers to activities
that are aimed at influencing the team as a whole.
For example, encouraging teamwork and providing
vision for the whole team. Differentiated individual-
focused empowering leadership, however, describes
leader treating members differently in individual-
focused activities such as providing resources/
Figure 1: Proposed research model.
support, and encouraging individual learning. The
contextual factor of empowering leadership induces
team processes, defined as the interaction pattern
among team members (Jehn and Shah, 1997). In this
research, we focus on two specific forms of team
processes: intra-team competition and collaboration.
These processes, accordingly, lead to different team
outcomes, such as team creativity and performance.
Figure 1 below delineates the proposed research
model.
2.1 Group-Focused Empowering
Leadership
Group-focused leadership sets its influence target as
a whole group, rather than individual members
within the group. For the team as a group, leaders
can direct the team as a whole and influence team
outcomes by leadership activities such as setting
shared team goals and providing team rules and
guidance. Empowering leadership focuses on
member participation and self-management (Manz
and Sims, 1987), and encouraging teamwork is an
important aspect of empowering leadership as closer
teamwork enhances the ability of a team’s self-
management(Pearce and Sims, 2002). Encouraging
teamwork, as one dimension of empowering
leadership is likely to influence a team as a whole
because of its emphasis on common ground, shared
values, and ideology. Empowering leaders
encourage teamwork by urging the whole team to
work together as a team and coordinate efforts with
each other(Pearce and Sims, 2002). Thus, in this
study, we refer to encouraging team work as group-
focused empowering leadership.
Theory of Reasoned Action suggests that
subjective norms and attitudes can influence one’s
behavioural intentions, and subsequently, the actual
behaviour (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1975). Relatedness,
i.e., the need for social connection and intimacy, is
one of the three core psychological need of human
being (Gagne and Deci, 2005). Collaboration with
other team members can provide fulfilment of the
need of relatedness. Therefore, it is likely that
people have initial positive attitudes toward
collaboration. Moreover, as group-focused
empowering leadership emphasizes the importance
of the team to work together as an entity and
coordinate efforts with each other, team members
likely embrace teamwork as a subjective norm, i.e. a
perceived expectations to perform what is expected
from relevant individuals or groups (Ajzen and
Fishbein, 1975).
KMIS2014-InternationalConferenceonKnowledgeManagementandInformationSharing
332
We then propose:
Hypothesis 1. Group-focused empowering
leadership is positively related to intra-team
collaboration
2.2 Differentiated Individual-Focused
Empowering Leadership
Differentiated individual-focused empowering
leadership, however, captures the variation of
individual-focused leadership among team members
(Wu et al., 2010). A high level of differentiated
leadership signifies that the leader treat different
members differently. For example, instead of
treating all members as the same, the leader may
encourage some members to seek new opportunities
to grow more often than other members. Or, the
leader may sit with some members and discuss their
performance goals with them, but give directive
orders to others as far as performance goals are
concerned. Low levels of differentiated leadership,
on the contrary, suggest that the leader provides
similar level of participation and support for
development for each team member. Sherony and
Green (2002) found that coworker relationship
quality increased as coworkers' similarity in leader-
member-exchange (LMX) quality grew and
decreased as similarity in LMX diminished. Within-
team differentiated leadership results in the
formation of sub-groups in teams: an in-group and
an out-group, with the former enjoying a better
relationship with the leader. Social psychologists
argue that the in-group may seek positive
distinctiveness through direct competition with the
out-group; while the out-group may try to reverse
the relative positions of the in-group on salient
dimensions (Tajfel and Turner, 1979; p44). As a
result, higher differentiated individual-focused
empowering leadership may lead to higher levels of
intra-team competition. Thus, we propose:
Hypothesis 2a: Differentiated individual-focused
empowering leadership in encouraging self-
development is positively related to intra-team
competition
Hypothesis 2b: Differentiated individual-focused
empowering leadership in participative goal setting
is positively related to intra-team competition
2.3 Intra-Team Collaboration and
Team Effectiveness
We focus on team creativity and team performance
as two measures of team effectiveness in the RandD
context. Collaboration supports all three components
of creativity: expertise, creative-thinking skill and
intrinsic task motivation (Amabile, 1988). Creativity
is spurred when diverse ideas are united or when
creative material in one domain inspires or forces
fresh thinking in another (Uzzi and Spiro, 2005).
These structural preconditions suggest that creativity
is the consequence of a social system of actors that
amplify or stifle one another’s creativity. We thus
expect that intra-team collaboration directly
enhances team creativity. The whole team’s
performance also benefits as in a collaborative team
environment. When team members collaborate
toward a common goal, perceptions of shared fate is
created and supportive behaviour is promoted,
whereby each group member looks out for the
interests of the others. We thus propose:
Hypothesis 3a: Intra-team collaboration is
positively related to team creativity
Hypothesis 3b: Intra-team collaboration is
positively related to team performance
2.4 Intra-Team Competition and Team
Effectiveness
In RandD teams, each member’s work is dependent
on the others. For overall performance and
successful project integration, both intra-team and
inter-team collaboration are vital (Hoegl et al.,2004;
Souder and Moenaert, 1992). Intra-team competition,
on the contrary, may be detrimental to RandD team
effectiveness. Rather than share information and
experience, people in competitive teams tend to keep
valuable information proprietary. Moreover, rather
than supporting each other, people in competitive
environments may be motivated to impair the
progress of others in an effort to gain positive
advantage. Teammates are likely to remain
indifferent to one another and avoid interacting for
fear that doing so will result in exploitation
(Tjosvold, 1986). The possibility also exists for
teammates to interfere, obstruct, or in some other
way make the behaviour of another less effective
(Tjosvold, 1986). Thus, intra-team competition may
have negative influences on team effectiveness in
both creativity and performance.
Hypothesis 4a: Intra-team competition is
negatively related to team creativity
Hypothesis 4b: Intra-team competition is
negatively related to team performance
TeamCollaborationandCompetition-LeadershipIssueofKnowledgeManagement
333
3 METHODS
3.1 Sample and Procedures
We tested the model and hypotheses with data
collected from a cross-sectional field study of
employees in RandD departments from a system
integration company headquartered in Taiwan. This
company has frequented the Business week’s
Infotech 100 list and is one of the world leaders in
desktops, notebooks, motherboards and other
computer related products. For this survey,
participants include software engineers, system
engineers, hardware engineers, and RandD managers
located in the Taipei headquarter office. With the
support from top management teams and the help of
two administrative assistants, roughly 100 RandD
teams in the headquarter office were invited by mail
to participate in the survey with the offer of a small
gift. Fifty-five teams responded, with 247 engineers
and 55 managers from the motherboard business unit
and the handheld device business unit. Two forms of
surveys were used. RandD engineers answered
questions about their perceptions of empowering
leadership, intra-team competition and collaboration.
RandD managers assessed their team’s performance
and creativity. Surveys were given to the team
manager to hand out to his/her members, and
engineers returned their finished survey to their
managers in sealed envelopes, with no identification
information on them. A total of 247 engineers and
55 managers’ responded, however, one survey come
back with incomplete data. Table 1 summarizes the
demographic information of the sample.
Table 1: the demographic information of the sample
Manager RandD engineer
Gender
female (16.7%),
male(83.3%)
female(16.8%),
male( 83.2%)
Tenure
average 6.06 yr
(1.4-13.4)
average 3.1 yr
(0.1-11)
Team size average 7 (3-17)
Education
College (42.9%)
Masters (52.1%)
Age
20-30 yr (47%),
30-40 yr (52.5%)
3.2 Measures
Group-focused Empowering Leadership: Group-
focused empowering leadership measurements are
from Faraj and Sambamurthy (2006)’s empowering
leadership measurement of encouraging teamwork
with 5 items. Wording of the items was adjusted to
reflect team referent (e.g., “My team leader
encourages us to work together with each other who
are part of the team”). Measures use a scale
anchored at 1(“strongly disagree”) and 7(“Strongly
agree”). Because intra-team collaboration is a group-
level variable, individual level data need to be
aggregated to the group level for analysis (James,
1982; Glick, 1985).
Differentiated Individual-focused Empowering
Leadership: Differentiated individual-focused
empowering leadership has two dimensions:
differentiation in encouraging self-development and
differentiation in participative goal setting.
Encouraging self-development and participative goal
setting were from Faraj and Sambamurthy (2006)’s
empowering leadership measurement. Measures use
a scale anchored at 1(“strongly disagree”) and
7(“Strongly agree”).
Intra-team Competition: Intra-team competition is
measured using within school competition scale
from Mael and Ashford(1992). The original scale
was developed to measure perceived competition
among students attending the same school, and some
items may not be readily applied in the work setting.
Thus, the wording of the scale was modified to fit
the working context. Group-level variables are
measured using individual respondents and
aggregated to the group level.
Intra-team Collaboration: The measures of intra-
team collaboration blended prior research from
several scholars into one scale. It synthesizes scale
items used in Aram and Morgan (1976) for
collective problem solving, Singh and Avital (2007)
and Baggs (1994) for information sharing, Aram and
Morgan (1976) for help and support, Lin et al.,
(2010) for collaborative working, and last, Singh and
Avital (2007) for task coordination. The scale
reflects the wilful contribution of personal effort,
knowledge and resources to the completion of tasks
of other team members towards common goals.
Team Performance: Team performance was from
Faraj and Sambamurthy (2006). We use a 1–5 scale,
ranging from well below average to well above
average. We asked team managers to assess the
performance of their own team and compare their
team with other RandD teams with which they were
familiar.
Team Creativity: Team creativity was measured
with Lovelace, Shapiro and Weingart (2001)’s 4
items with a 1–5 scale from well below average to
well above average. This too, was assessed by team
managers of their own teams against other RandD
teams with which they were familiar with.
KMIS2014-InternationalConferenceonKnowledgeManagementandInformationSharing
334
Table 2: Means, standard deviations, correlations among the variables, and reliabilities for the measures.
Table 3: Results from the regression analysis for hypothesis testing.
4 PRELIMINARY RESULTS
The means, standard deviations, correlations among
the variables, and reliabilities for the measures are
reported in Table 2.
4.1 Hypotheses Testing
All hypotheses were tested using ordinary least
squares(OLS) regression. Table 3 reports the results
from the regression analysis for our hypothesis
testing.
Hypothesis 1 predicts that group-focused
empowering leadership is positively related to intra-
team collaboration. As column 2 in Table 3 shows,
group-focused empowering leadership is strongly
and positively related to intra-team collaboration
(coefficient=0.74), thus, hypothesis 1 is supported.
Hypothesis 2 states that differentiated individual-
focused empowering leadership in encouraging self-
development and participative goal setting is
positively related to intra-team competition. Column
3 and 4 in Table 3 show the results. While
differentiated individual-focused leadership in
encouraging self-development is positively related to
intra-team competition, differentiated individual-
focused empowering leadership in participative goal
setting isn’t. Thus, Hypothesis 2 is partly supported
Hypothesis 3 argues that Intra-team collaboration
is positively related to team creativity and
performance. As column 4 and 5 in Table 3 shows,
intra-team collaboration is positively related to both
TeamCollaborationandCompetition-LeadershipIssueofKnowledgeManagement
335
team creativity (coefficient 0.34) and performance
(coefficient 0.28), thus, hypothesis 3a and 3b are
fully supported.
Hypothesis 4 maintains that intra-team
competition is negatively related to team creativity
and performance. Column 6 and 7 summarize the
results. Intra-team competition is indeed negatively
related to team creativity, however, its negative
association with team performance failed to be
significant. Therefore, hypothesis 4 is also partly
supported.
5 DISCUSSION AND
CONCLUSION
In this study, we took a closer look at empowering
leadership through the group-focused and
differentiated individual-focused lens, and found
that although empowering leadership as a whole is
positively related to team effectiveness (Faraj and
Sambamurthy, 2006), details concerning how it is
administered can also make a huge difference in
outcomes.
5.1 Theoretical Implications
Prior research has mostly treated empowering
leadership as a single construct with different
dimensions. This research explores the two distinct
behavioural components of empowering leadership:
1) those targeted at influencing the group at a whole;
and 2) those aimed at individual group members,
and further investigate the results of differentiated
individual-focused leadership. The findings reveal
that for those two types of empowering leadership
behaviours, different team processes could follow.
Thus, we contribute to the empowering leadership
literature with further details and insights concerning
each dimension, and the proper use of individual-
focused leadership with the group-focused and
differentiated individual-focused lens. Second, this
research extends our understanding of how RandD
team leaders influence team creativity and
performance through creativity-enabling or
hindering group processes. We investigate a pair of
important, albeit little-discussed team processes:
intra-team competition and collaboration. We
explore how leadership behaviours, although
unintended, may lead to unwanted group process of
intra-team competition as an outcome, and how
intentionally focusing on the team as a whole could
lead to better team process in the form of
collaboration. We also examine the different
outcomes of team processes on team creativity and
performance, substantiating the heuristic model of
team effectiveness (Cohen and Bailey, 1997).
5.2 Managerial Implications
This research offers interesting insights and
implications for RandD managers that intend to use
empowering leadership for their teams.
First, group focused leadership that emphasizes
teamwork enhances team collaboration, and team
collaboration is vital for both team creativity and
team performance. Thus, managers that want to
empower their teams should first and foremost stress
the importance of teamwork and collaboration,
which would substantially enhance their team
creativity and performance.
Second, encouraging self-development is an
effective tool for empowering the team; however,
managers should use this tool with caution. When
managers encourage team members for self-
development, they should make sure that each
member feels like he/she has been treated equally
with other members. Managers should not display
favouritism towards some members out of the whole
team, especially on salient, open topics such as
learning opportunities and skill development. Each
member deserves his/her own chance to learn and
grow. Otherwise, knowing that someone is getting
more than others, team members are likely to
compete with each other for more and better
opportunities, thus directly hurting team creativity.
Intra-team competition, as the bivariate correlation
shows, is also negatively related to collaboration,
thus, doubling the harm.
Third, this research outlines the potential
harmful influence of competition in RandD teams.
Many people believe competition promotes
efficiency and innovation as it stimulates individuals
to outperform each other by working faster, or
“smarter,” or cheaper (Fletcher, Major, and Davis,
2008). However, results from our study show that
instead of enhancing team performance and
creativity, competition among team members
actually hampers creativity, and can potentially harm
performance as well. Thus, managers should avoid
creating a competitive environment for their teams
whenever possible. While competition can be
effectively used in some other industries, due to the
interdependence nature of RandD work, using
competition to motivate team members for better
outcomes may fail miserably.
To summarize, the key point from this research
KMIS2014-InternationalConferenceonKnowledgeManagementandInformationSharing
336
is: empowering is good, when it is done equally. As
far as empowering team members are concerned,
leaders should be advised that differentiation
between treatments of team members hampers team
creativity and performance, and should be avoided
when possible. Managers should treat all members
equally in encouraging self-development and
participative goal setting, not favouring one over
another for better team performance and creativity.
REFERENCES
Abbey, A., and Dickson, J. W. 1983. RandD work climate
an innovation in semiconductors. Academy of
Management Journal, 26, 362-368
Ajzen, I., and Fishbein, M. 1975. Understanding attitudes
and predicting social behaviour. New Jersey;
Prentice-Hall.
Allen, T. J., Lee, D. M., and Tushman, M. L. 1980. RandD
performance as a function of internal communication,
project management, and the nature of the work. IEEE
Transactions on Engineering Management, 27(1), pp
2-12.
Allison, P. D. 1978. Measures of Inequality, American
Sociological Review, 43 (6), 865-880
Amabile, T. M. (1988): A model of creativity and
innovation in organizations. In: Research in
Organizational Behavior, Vol.10, p.123-167.
Aram, J. D., and Morgan, C. P. 1976. The Role of Project
Team Collaboration in RandD Performance.
Management Science, 22(10), 1127-1137.
Beersma, B., Hollenbeck, J. R., Humphrey, S. E., Moon,
H., Conlon, D. E., and Ilgen, D. R. 2003. Cooperation,
competition, and team performance: Toward a
contingency approach. Academy of Management
Journal, 46(5), 572-590.
Bliese, P. D. 1998. Group size, ICC values, and group-
level correlations: A simulation. Organizational
Research Methods, 1, 355–373.
Campion, M. A., Medsker, G. J., and Higgs, A. C. 1993.
Relations between work group characteristics and
effectiveness: implications for designing effective
work groups. Personnel Psychology, 46, 823-850.
Chan, D. 1998. Functional relations among constructs in
the same content domain at different levels: A
typology of composition models. Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol 83(2),234-246
Chen, G., Kirkman, B. L., Kanfer, R., Allen, D., and
Rosen, B. 2007. A multilevel study of leadership,
empowerment, and performance in teams. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 92, 331-346.
Cohen, S. G., and Bailey, D. E. 1997. What makes teams
work: Group effectiveness research from the shop
floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management,
23, 239–290.
Faraj, S. and Sambamurthy, V. 2006. Leadership of
information systems development Projects. IEEE
Transactions on Engineering Management, 53(2),
238—2
Fletcher, T. D., Major, D. A., and Davis, D. D. 2008. The
interactive relationship of competitive climate and trait
competitiveness with workplace attitudes, stress, and
performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
29(7), 899-922.
Frischer, J. 1993. Empowering Management in New
Product Development Units, Journal of Product
Innovation Management, October: 393–401.
Gagne, M., and Deci, E. L. 2005. Self-determination
theory and work motivation. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 26, 331–362.
Glick, W. H. 1985. Conceptualizing and measuring
organizational and psychological climate: Pitfalls in
multilevel research. Academy of Management Review,
10, 601-616.
Hoegl, M., Weinkauf, K., and Gemuenden, H. G. 2004.
Inter-team Coordination, Project Commitment, and
Teamwork in Multi team RandD Projects: A
Longitudinal Study. Organization Science, 15(1), 38-
55.
Hofmann, D. A., and Jones, L. M. 2005. Leadership,
collective personality, and performance. Journal of
Applied Psychology. 90(3): 509-522.
Hofmann, D. A., and Stetzer, A. 1996. A cross-level
investigation of factors influencing unsafe behaviors
and accidents. Personnel Psychology, 49, 307–339.
Hofmann, D. A., and Stetzer, A. 1998. The role of safety
climate and communication in accident interpretation:
Implications for learning from negative events.
Academy of Management Journal, 41, 644–657.
James, L. R. 1982. Aggregation bias in estimates of
perceptual agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology,
67, 219-229.
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., and Wolf, G. 1984.
Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and
without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology,
69(1), 85-98.
Jehn, K. A., and Shah, P. P. 1997. Interpersonal
relationships and task performance: An examination of
mediating processes in friendship and acquaintance
groups. Journal of Personality and Social, 23, 112-
127
Kozlowski, S. W. J., and Hults, B. M. 1987. An
exploration of climates for technical updating and
performance. Personnel Psychology, 40, 539–563.
Mael, F., and Ashforth, B. E. 1992. Alumni and their alma
mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of
organizational identification. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 13(2), 103-123.
Manz, C. C., and Sims, H. P. 1987. Leading workers to
lead themselves: The external leadership of self
managing work teams. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 32(1), 106-128
Pearce, C.L. and Sims, H.P. Jr 2002, “Vertical versus
shared leadership as predictors of the effectiveness of
change management teams: an examination of
aversive, directive, transactional, transformational, and
empowering leader behaviors”, Group Dynamics:
TeamCollaborationandCompetition-LeadershipIssueofKnowledgeManagement
337
Theory, Research, and Practice, Vol. 6, pp. 172-97.
Sherony, K. M., and Green, S. G. 2002. Coworker
exchange: Relationships between coworkers, leader–
member exchange, and work attitudes. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 87, 542−548.
Singh, J., and Fleming, L. 2009. Lone Inventors as
Sources of Breakthroughs: Myth or Reality?
Management Science, 56(1), 41-56.
Souder, W. E., and Moenaert, R. K. 1992. Integrating
Marketing and RandD Project Personnel Within
Innovation Projects: an Information Uncertainty
Model. Journal of Management Studies, 29(4), 485-
512.
Stoker, J.I., Looise, J.C., Fisscher, O.A.M. and Jong, R.D.
2001. Leadership and innovation: relations between
leadership, individual characteristics and the
functioning of RandD teams. International Journal of
Human Resource Management, vol. 12 (7), 1141-
1151.
Tajfel, H. and Turner, J. C. 1979. An Integrative Theory of
Intergroup Conflict. In W. G. Austin and S. Worchel
(Eds.), The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations.
Monterey, CA: Brooks-Cole .
Thamhain, H. J. 2003. Managing Innovative RandD
Teams. RandD Management, 33 (3), 297-312.
Thibaut, J. W. and Kelley, H. H. 2004. The Social
Psychology of Groups, Transaction Publishers, New
Brunswick, New Jersey.
Tjosvold, D. 1986. The dynamics of interdependence in
organizations. Human Relations, 39, 517-540.
Uzzi, B., and Spiro, J. 2005. Collaboration and Creativity:
The Small World Problem. American Journal of
Sociology, 111(2), 447-504.
Wu, J.B., Tsui, A.S., and Kinicki, A.J. 2010.
Consequences of Differentiated Leadership in Groups.
Academy of Management Journal, 53 (1), 90-106.
Zenger, T. R., and Marshall, C.R. 2000. Determinants of
Incentive Intensity in Group-Based Rewards, Academy
of Management Journal, 43(2): 149-163.
Zhang, X. M., and Bartol, K. M. 2010. Linking
empowering leadership and employee creativity: The
influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic
motivation, and creative process engagement.
Academy of Management Journal, 53 (1): 107-128.
KMIS2014-InternationalConferenceonKnowledgeManagementandInformationSharing
338
