project (e.g., task performance strategies, goals, project requirements, the
organizational context, etc.)” (p. 125);
( 2) “The team adjusted its task performance strategies in response to changes
in the context and progress of the project” (p. 125); and ( 3) “The strategies and
work approaches selected were later
checked for their appropriateness by
the team” (p. 125).
Existing Knowledge: Existing knowledge was measured by three items
(a 5 0.943) that assessed the degree
of current knowledge in relation to
the focal NPD project (Brockman &
Morgan, 2006; Moorman & Miner, 1997):
( 1) “A great deal of knowledge about this
product category” (p. 305); ( 2) “A great
deal of information about this product
category” (p. 305); and ( 3) “A strong
understanding of this product category”
(p. 305).
Task Familiarity: Task familiarity
was measured by three items (a 5 0.899)
that examined the extent of knowledge
about a task domain that a team member
possesses (Brockman & Morgan, 2006;
Moorman & Miner, 1997): ( 1) “A great
deal of knowledge about this product
category” (p. 102); ( 2) “A great deal of
information about this product category”
(p. 102); and ( 3) “A strong understanding
of this product category” (p. 102).
Procedural Justice: Procedural justice
was measured by three items (a 5 0.937)
to assess the level of fairness that team
members perceived (Li et al., 2007):
( 1) “Our R&D manager adopts decision-making procedures that are fair over
time” (p. 213); ( 2) “Our R&D manager
provides a full explanation for final decisions made” (p. 213); and ( 3) “Our R&D
manager respects the project members’
individual autonomy” (p. 213).
Team Conflict: Team conflict was
operationalized by task conflict and
relationship conflict (Jehn & Mannix,
2001). Relationship conflict was measured by the following items: ( 1) “Within
our NPD team, there are many personal issues which may cause some
fights” (p. 243); and ( 2) “We disagree
about non-work issues (e.g., related to
Items Loadings
Existing Knowledge (Brockman & Morgan, 2006; Moorman & Miner, 1997); CR 5 0.963,
AVE 5 0.899
1 EK1 0.941
2 EK2 0.953
3 EK3 0.948
Task Familiarity (Brockman & Morgan, 2006; Moorman & Miner, 1997); CR 5 0.937, AVE 5 0.832
1 TF1 0.925
2 TF2 0.932
3 TF3 0.879
Procedural Justice (Li et al., 2007); CR 5 0.959, AVE 5 0.888
1 PJ1 0.938
2 PJ2 0.944
3 PJ3 0.946
Team Reflexivity (Hoegl & Parboteeah, 2006); CR 5 0.897, AVE 5 0.744
1 TR1 0.893
2 TR2 0.898
3 TR3 0.794
Team Conflict (Jehn et al., 2008; Shah & Jehn, 1993)
Task Conflict (CR 5 0.979, AVE 5 0.959)
1 TC1 0.981
2 TC2 0.978
Relationship Conflict (CR 5 0.947, AVE 5 0.900)
3 TC3 0.944
4 TC4 0.954
NPD Success (Akgün et al., 2006; Cooper & Kleinschmidt, 1987); CR 5 0.958, AVE 5 0.884
1 NPD1 0.929
2 NPD2 0.951
3 NPD3 0.941
Note: N 5 254 team members; AVE, average variance extracted; CR, composite reliability
Table 1: Items and scales sources.
social issues or personalities)” (p. 243)
(a 5 0.889). On the other hand, task
conflict was measured by: ( 1) “We fight
about work matters”; and ( 2) “Our NPD
team experiments with a high level of
conflict of ideas” (p. 243) (a 5 0.957).
New Product Success: New product
success was measured by three items
considering the product performance
(a 5 0.934) (Akgün, Lynn, & Yilmaz,
2006): ( 1) “Overall, the NPD perfor-
mance exceeds sales expectations”
(p. 222); ( 2) “The NPD performances
meets or exceeds sales expectations in
dollar terms” (p. 222); and ( 3) “The NPD
performance exceeds the schedule with
regard to being produced and com-
mercialized” (p. 222). These items are
summarized in Table 1, along with their
factor loadings.
Controling for Potential Common
Method Bias
Because this study collected the data
from a particular source, there is a possibility that common method bias exists