conflict within NPD teams. Most previous studies have focused on the effects
of team conflict on innovation (De Dreu,
2006; Song et al., 2006), but little attention has been paid to the interaction
between team reflexivity and team conflict, and the effects of this on NPD success. This study found that relationship
conflict is a key factor that can weaken
the relationship between team reflexivity and NPD success.
Managers should thus work to
enhance information exchanges and
overall communication within NPD
teams, especially in transitional phases,
because ineffective or unnecessary
interactions may trigger some relationship conflicts. Managers should also
evaluate existing processes to improve
the allocation of resources in order to
reduce relationship conflicts within
NPD teams. Furthermore, managers
should carefully examine in which stage
an NPD project is, and, based on this,
either encourage or discourage the formation of task conflict.
Limitations and Future Research
The present study reviewed the product innovation literature to develop a
research framework that may be beneficial for both academics and managers. However, its conclusions should be
generalized with caution because of the
following limitations. First, this study
obtained data from 254 team members
using single informants to compute the
measurement items. As a result of the
single source, there is the possibility
of some bias. This work also employed
cross-sectional data. The use of longitudinal data in future studies would
enable a better understanding of the
evolution of team reflexivity over time.
A future longitudinal study may also use
different informant sources to increase
the generalizability of its findings. In
addition, although this study involves
an NPD team-level concept, the unit of
measurement is the perceptions of the
team members. Thus, there is a pos-
sibility that the results are biased. With
the examination of shared task famil-
iarity and team reflexivity, there is an
assumption in this study that the team
members who took part in this work all
shared the same view of these research
constructs (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000).
Therefore, future studies may aggre-
gate the individual measures to team
Moreover, this study carried out a
short and direct assessment of NPD
success, decreasing the likelihood that
proximal predictors influence more
distant results (Chiocchio, Kelloway, &
Hobbs, 2015). We employed NPD success measurement items that are similar to those developed by Akgün et al.
(2006), but a more accurate measurement scale should be employed in further research. Finally, this research was
carried out among high-tech firms in
Taiwan. Therefore, the results cannot
be applied to other cultures, and specifically to Western ones, without more
work being done to assess the validity
of this study’s findings in such contexts.
Management researchers in the field of
NPD and innovation seem to be more
aware of the necessity of NPD team
projects for the development of success-
ful products. Because of the dynamic
nature of teams, interactions among
team members may influence the extent
to which team members share infor-
mation and project-related perceptions.
Therefore, this study aimed to apply a
more dynamic view of teamwork by con-
sidering team reflexivity as an impor-
tant information process that boosts
the dynamics of teams by creating new
arrangements of ideas and people that
can better fit changing market demands
(Humphrey & Aime, 2014). The goal
was to emphasize the advantages of
considering a contingency perspective
that sees team conflict as a modera-
tor that impacts the positive relation-
ship between team reflexivity and NPD
performance. At the same time, we
highlighted the importance of under-
standing multiple practices to improve
team reflexivity. Our results suggest that
existing knowledge, task familiarity, and
procedural justice enhance team reflex-
ivity. Moreover, relationship conflict
lessens the positive effects that team
reflexivity has on NPD success.
Adams, S. J., Roch, S. G., & Ayman,
R. (2005). Communication medium
and member familiarity: The effects on
decision time, accuracy, and satisfaction.
Small Group Research, 36( 3), 321–353.
Adenfelt, M., & Lagerström, K. (2006).
Enabling knowledge creation and sharing
in transnational projects. International
Journal of Project Management, 24( 3),
Akgün, A. E, Keskin, H., & Byrne, J.
C. (2010). Procedural justice climate
in new product development teams:
Antecedents and consequences. Journal
of Product Innovation Management,
27( 7), 1096–1111.
Akgün, A. E., Keskin, H., Lynn, G. S.,
& Dogan, D. (2012). Antecedents and
consequences of team sensemaking
capability in product development projects.
R&D Management, 42( 5), 473–493.
Akgün A. E., Lynn 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( 2), 210–224.
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1978).
Organizational learning: A theory
of action perspective. Reading, MA:
Basadur, M., & Gelade, G. A. (2006).
The role of knowledge management in
the innovation process. Creativity and
Innovation Management, 15( 1), 45–62.
Blader, S. L., & Tyler, T. R. (2009). Testing
& extending the group engagement
model: Linkages between social identity,
procedural justice, economic outcomes
and extra role behavior. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 94( 2), 445–464.
Brockman, B. K., & Morgan, R.
M. (2006). The moderating effect
of organizational cohesiveness in