Content uploaded by Logan L. Watts
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Logan L. Watts on Apr 26, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
MANAGING TECHNICAL INNOVATION
Managing Technical Innovation: A Systematic Review of 11 Leader Functions
Logan M. Steele
University of South Florida
Logan L. Watts
University of Texas at Arlington
Title page with author details
Highlights
50 years of research on managing technical innovation is reviewed
We develop an integrative framework synthesizing findings from 76 studies
The leader functions studied are often positively related to innovation outcomes
We discuss opportunities to advance this important area of research
Highlights (for review)
MANAGING TECHNICAL INNOVATION
1
Abstract
We take stock of 50 years of research on the management of technical innovation with a focus on
identifying the actions that managers take when leading technical innovation. Through
synthesizing both quantitative and qualitative studies, we categorize these actions into 11 leader
functions and describe their relationships with technical innovation. We also develop a
parsimonious framework to organize the widely varying criteria used to measure technical
innovation, as well as the processes linking leader functions with these criteria. Finally, we offer
recommendations for future research that follow from this framework.
Keywords: functional leadership; technical innovation; creativity; innovation processes; new
product development; R&D
Manuscript ithout author identifiers Click here to ie linked References
MANAGING TECHNICAL INNOVATION
2
Managing Technical Innovation: A Systematic Review of 11 Leader Functions
1. Introduction
It is now widely accepted that technical creativity and innovationthe generation and
implementation of new ideas for technical products and services (Armbruster, Bikfalvi, Kinkel,
& Lay, 2008)are critical for organizations to gain and maintain a competitive advantage
(Sivasubramaniam, Liebowitz, & Lackman, 2012).1 Furthermore, there is a consensus among
scholars that managers, or leaders, play a central role in fostering innovation in organizations
(Felekoglu & Moultrie, 2014; Haneda & Ito, 2018; Hughes, Lee, Tian, Newman, & Legood,
2018). However, following a rapid growth of scholarship in recent years, this literature is
fragmented. Because this is a highly interdisciplinary literature (Davies, Manning, & Söderlund,
2018), studies on innovation management draw from many theoretical perspectives, ranging
from psychologically oriented approaches (e.g., componential theory of creativity [Amabile,
1988], social exchange theory [Blau, 1964]) to organization-level perspectives (e.g., knowledge-
based theory of the firm [Grant, 1996; Nonaka, 1994], organizational control theory [Eisenhardt,
1985; Ouchi, 1979]). These differences in theoretical perspectives on managing technical
innovation have engendered isolated streams of research that tend to examine different criteria,
different processes, and consequently different leadership antecedents. Furthermore, the
terminology and measurement of key variables bearing on leadership antecedents and technical
innovation vary widely across studies. Thus, the broader picture to which these studies are
contributing is unclear.
The present research seeks to conceptually integrate this literature. We do this by
adopting a functional leadership lens (McGrath, 1962). Unlike other behaviorally oriented
leadership theories (e.g., transformational leadership [Bass, 1985]; empowering leadership
MANAGING TECHNICAL INNOVATION
3
[Ahearne, Mathieu, & Rapp, 2005]), functional leadership does not focus on a specific set of
behaviors; instead, it is represented by any leader action required to accomplish the essential
functions of a group (McGrath, 1962). Thus, using a functional leadership lens allows us to
consolidate the myriad functions that prior researchwhether adopting a psychologically
oriented or organization-level approachhas identified as relevant to managing innovation. By
presenting an integrative model, we offer insight into how specific leader functions may
influence the innovative outcomes of work units. Mechanisms are a critical piece of theory
building because they demonstrate why and how constructs relate to each other (Bacharach,
1989; Makadok, Burton, & Barney, 2018). Consequently, the conceptual model we present here
provides a testable research agenda and enriches our understanding of the relationship between
functional leadership and technical innovation by specifying how the two sets of constructs may
be related. Furthermore, this research seeks to clarify constructs in the context of technical
innovation that relate to leader functions, technical innovation outcomes, and the processes
through which these relationships emerge. In doing so, we provide a foundation from which
future research on functional leadership and technical innovation can proceed with increased
parsimony, precision, and consistency in terminologyfundamental elements of any rigorous
and theoretically sound domain of scholarship (Suddaby, 2010).
Importantly, the present effort departs from prior reviews on the topics of leadership,
creativity, and innovation to advance knowledge in three respects. First, we apply a functional
leadership lens by focusing directly on leader functions, or sets of behaviors, that appear in
studies of technical innovation (McGrath, 1962; Morgeson, DeRue, & Karam, 2010). Thus, we
do not attempt to include all potential attributes of managers discussed in the leadership literature
(e.g., styles, expertise, personality, diversity). By keeping a steady spotlight on leader functions,
MANAGING TECHNICAL INNOVATION
4
we address the fundamental question of what managers actually do that supports technical
innovation. Focusing on leader functionsas opposed to popular aggregate leadership styles and
their outcomes like transformational leadership (Bass, 1985)also supports a greater level of
precision than is typical in prior reviews on this topic (e.g., Hughes et al., 2018), which is useful
for making more targeted predictions that advance theory and inform practice (Leavitt, Mitchell,
& Peterson, 2010). The broader leadership literature has been criticized for its overemphasis on
fu upbeat stles that have proved nearly impossible to differentiate in their definitions or
effects (Alvesson, 2020). Thus, the time is ripe for a more precise, behaviorally anchored
framework that organizes the literature on functional leadership and technical innovation.
Second, we constrain the types of studies included in this review to only samples with
formal requirements for technical innovation in their work (e.g., research and development
[R&D] teams, new product development [NPD] teams, engineers, scientists, etc.). Thus, the
research investigating creativity among undergraduates and professionals working in
traditionally non-technical roles (e.g., customer service; Dong, Liao, Chuang, Zhou, &
Campbell, 2015) is excluded from our review. This is a review focused on studies of individuals,
teams, and departments working in contexts that call for the creation of new technical products
and services. This constraint has not been consistently applied in prior reviews of the diverse
literatures on organizational creativity and innovation, where technical and non-technical forms
of innovation are often grouped together (e.g., Anderson, Potonik, & Zhou, 2014; Hughes et al.,
2018). Given that innovative work in technical domains such as engineering, technology, and
science is uniquely complex, demanding, and interdependent (Mumford & Gustafson, 1988), we
do not take for granted that the project constraints and resource requirements bearing on
technical innovation and emploee creativit broadl rit are the same (Robledo, Peterson, &
MANAGING TECHNICAL INNOVATION
5
Mumford, 2012; Unsworth, 2001). While technical innovation requires creativity, not all studies
of creativity involve technical innovation. To obtain a clear picture of the leader functions
needed to manage innovation in technical domains, we focus only on the individuals and groups
who are routinely engaged in complex, ill-defined, and technical work and who are evaluated
based on their technical contributions.
Third, this review identifies many of the processes by which leader functions appear to
facilitate technical innovation. To achieve this goal, we separate the analysis of variables that
measure processes (e.g., team communication, knowledge integration) from those that measure
outcomes (e.g., product novelty, profitability). This distinction between processes and outcomes
is important for understanding why particular leader functions are associated with technical
innovation. Prior reviews have tended to group all innovation-related criteria together under the
labels of creativity or innovation (Hülsheger, Anderson, & Salgado, 2009; Lee, Legood,
Hughes, Tian, Newman, & Knight, 2020) obfuscating what might be learned about the
fundamental processes by which technical innovation unfolds.
The structure of this systematic review is as follows. We begin by establishing why
leader functions are critical to technical innovation. Next, we summarize the methods and
procedures used to conduct the literature search and categorize study findings, resulting in a
categorization of 11 leader functions. This literature search culminates in a narrative review of
the findings associated with each leader function, in which we highlight the typical and atypical
patterns observed with technical innovation outcomes and mediating processes. Finally, we
discuss the implications of this review for scholars and managers and propose an agenda for
future research.
2. Leader Functions and Technical Innovation
MANAGING TECHNICAL INNOVATION
6
Functional leadership theory emphasizes the active role of leaders in meeting the work
needs of employees. Put differently, the functional leadership perspective suggests that is the
leaders job to do or get done, hatever is not being adequatel handled for group needs
(McGrath, 1962, p. 5). A number of unique and substantive needs emerge within the context of
technical innovation (Cooper, 1999; Robledo et al., 2012). Due to the novelty and complexity
involved in innovative work, there is often significant uncertainty about how this work should be
done (Mumford, Scott, Gaddis, & Strange, 2002). Innovative work also requires diverse
knowledge and skills (van Knippenberg, De Dreu, & Homan, 2004), and successfully leveraging
this diversity requires careful coordination (Homan, Gündemir, Buengeler, & van Kleef, in
press). Finally, innovative work is risky; many ideas end in failure (Castellion & Markham,
2013). Thus, there is an inevitable tension beteen organiations inherent striving for efficienc
and the unpredictable nature of innovation (Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2009). In sum, the unique
risks, complexities, and demands of technical innovation create an environment in which
managers must fulfill a range of important functions to meet the needs of innovation workers.
3. Systematic Review Procedure
3.1 Literature Search
Having established the justifications for and boundary conditions of our review, we now
turn to summarizing the literature. A three-step approach was used to search for studies. This
search concluded in 2020. First, keyword searches were conducted in the following databases:
PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES, Academic Search Premier, Business Source Premier, JSTOR,
ERIC, Dissertation Abstracts, ProQuest Dissertation & Theses Global, and Google Scholar. The
keords used ere manag*, leader*, creativ*, innovat*, and R&D.2 Second, going
ten years back, manual searches of the top 10 innovation management journals (Thongpapanl,
MANAGING TECHNICAL INNOVATION
7
2012) were conducted.3 Third, the references of prior narrative and quantitative review articles
on relevant topics were examined (e.g., Anderson et al., 2014; Felekoglu & Moultrie, 2014;
Sivasubramaniam et al., 2012).
3.2 Inclusion Criteria
Studies were retained if they met the following criteria: (a) the sample was drawn from
workers with clear requirements for technical innovation (e.g., R&D, NPD, engineers, scientists),
(b) the study clearly described at least one leader function, rather than potential antecedents to
(e.g., traits) or outcomes of (e.g., organizational climate) these functions, and (c) the study
clearly described at least one technical innovation criterion, either as an outcome (e.g., number of
patents; speed to market) or process (e.g., team information sharing; implementing new ideas).
To ensure all available evidence was considered, we included studies regardless of the
quantitative or qualitative methods employed, which allowed us to leverage the strengths of
some methods against the weaknesses of others (Stone-Romero, 2011). The vast majority (90%)
of the studies we obtained examined innovation processes or outcomes at the individual, team, or
department level. Because innovation at the organization level is distinct in many ways from
innovation at lower levels (Cooper & Kleinschmidt, 1986; Felekoglu & Moultrie, 2014), we
excluded studies with only organizational-level criteria from this review. This resulted in a
database of 76 independent studies. See the Appendix for a summary of these studies.
Next, we describe how an inputprocessoutput (IPO) framework was used to organize
variables into the categories of leader functions, processes, and outcomes (Fischer, Dietz, &
Antonakis, 2017). We integrated the IPO framework with functional leadership theory because
one of the objectives of this review was to examine the mechanisms through which leader
functions exert an effect on innovative outcomes. This integration extends prior meta-analytic
MANAGING TECHNICAL INNOVATION
8
work, which has focused squarely on bivariate relationships (e.g., Lee et al., 2020; Watts, Steele,
& Den Hartog, 2020). The IPO framework is ideally suited for such an approach, as it was
originally developed to explain how different inputs (including specific leadership functions)
influence team outcomes (Ilgen, Hollenbeck, Johnson, & Jundt, 2005; Kozlowski, Mak, & Chao,
2016).
3.3 Organization Scheme
3.3.1 Inputs
See Figure 1 for a visual summary of our organization scheme. The first and second
author independently sorted each leader function measure (in the case of quantitative studies) or
description (in the case of qualitative studies) into a leader function category. Morgeson et al.s
(2010) 15 general team leadership functions served as the starting point for this categorization.
We made revisions to category labels and collapsed, removed, and added categories as needed in
order to maximize internal homogeneity and independence of the leader function categories
(Patton, 2002). The authors then met to discuss their respective categorizations and achieved
100% consensus (see Table 1). We organized the discussion of these leader functions in the order
of most to least frequently studied.
MANAGING TECHNICAL INNOVATION
9
Figure 1. Input–Process–Output Framework of Managing Technical Innovation
Note. *Innovation Processes differ from the Group Processes in that the former, but not the latter, are part of a sequence.
MANAGING TECHNICAL INNOVATION
10
Table 1. Summary of Leader Functions
Leader Function
Operational Definition
k
1. Planning, coordinating, and monitoring work
Determining what and how tasks need to be accomplished, who
will do what task, and assessing the groups progress toward
meeting their targets
31
2. Providing autonomy
Giving groups members discretion in what goals are pursued and
how they are accomplished
20
3. Setting and clarifying objectives
Establishing the goals to be pursued by the group
17
4. Managing boundaries
Managing the social connections linking ones group to the larger
organizational and environmental context
16
5. Supporting the social climate
Facilitating positive relationships between oneself and group
members and among group members
13
6. Evaluating work and providing feedback
Identifying performance gaps and providing information to help
address these gaps
9
7. Recognizing and rewarding performance
Providing incentives for desired performance
7
8. Challenging assumptions
Questioning assumptions made by group members
5
9. Environmental scanning and sensemaking
Monitoring opportunities and threats emerging from within and
outside the group and helping group members reach a shared
understanding of events that affect them
3
10. Securing and allocating resources
Securing resources (e.g., expertise, materials, equipment,
information) for ones group and allocating these resources
3
11. Developing team members
Supporting the development of group members, primarily in the
form of relevant knowledge and skills
2
*Note. k = number of studies. Only leader function categories with a k-size of 2 or more are presented. The total number exceeds
the number of studies because some studies measured or described more than one leader function.
3.3.2 Processes
There are two categories of variables we identified that reflected processes that explain
the connection between leader functions and innovative outcomes. These processes shed light on
the question, Why and how does a given leader function ultimately translate into innovative
outcomes? The first category of processes is group processes. The variables in the group
processes category are not unique to groups doing technical innovation but are processes
relevant to group performance generally. We organized these processes into sub-categories by
listing all of the processes identified in studies included in our review, then iteratively comparing
and contrasting sub-category labels to maximize internal homogeneity and sub-category
MANAGING TECHNICAL INNOVATION
11
independence (for a similar approach, see Acar, Tarakci, & van Knippenberg, 2019). The four
sub-categories that emerged were social, motivational, cognitive, and behavioral. Social
processes refer to interpersonal relationships and the quality of interactions between people, such
as leadermember exchange (LMX) and team cohesion. Motivational processes refer to how one
intends to or chooses to allocate effort (Pinder, 2008), such as commitment and self-efficacy.
Cognitive processes refer to individual or collective thought processes, such as uncertainty and
decision-making clarity. Finally, behavioral processes refer to observable actions, such as
frequency of communication with team members.
The second category of processes is innovation processes. These are processes that are
largely unique to groups doing technical innovation. Several conceptualizations of innovation
processes have been proposed (e.g., Cooper & Kleinschmidt, 1986; Montag, Maertz, & Baer,
2012; Mumford et al., 1991; Perry-Smith & Mannucci, 2017), but they generally refer to the
processes that occur between problem/opportunity identification and product launch. Examples
of these processes include information gathering, idea generation, and front-end success.
3.3.3 Outputs
We identified three categories of innovative outcomes. The first category is project
performance. Like group processes, these variables are not specific to innovative groups, but
instead reflect group outcomes more generally (e.g., cost and schedule goal achievement,
satisfaction with team performance). The second category is product innovation,4 which includes
measures of the final products or processes that were developed, such as quantity or perceptions
of novelty and quality. The final category is innovation impact, which refers to how a new
product performed in the market (e.g., profitability, competitive advantage gained). By
definition, the innovation impact category consists of variables that occur after the innovative
MANAGING TECHNICAL INNOVATION
12
work has been completed (Utterback, 1971). Thus, we distinguish between proximal outcomes,
which consists of the project performance and product innovation categories, and distal
outcomes, which consists of the innovation impact category.
3.4 Methodological Details
In addition to categorizing functional leadership, processes, and technical innovation
variables, we coded several study characteristics: sample size, sample description, methodology
(e.g., cross-sectional, time-lagged, ethnography, case study), data type (e.g., surveys, interviews,
observation), level of the leader (i.e., supervisor, mid-level management, senior management)
and innovation (i.e., individual, team, project, department), whether measurement of innovation
was objective or subjective, and reported effect size or inference.
4. Summary of Findings by Leader Function
4.1 Planning, Coordinating, and Monitoring Work
The most studied leader function (k = 31) was planning, coordinating, and monitoring
work. This function includes determining what tasks need to be accomplished and how those
tasks fit together (i.e., planning), who will do what task (i.e., coordinating), and assessing the
groups progress toward meeting their targets (i.e., monitoring). Thirty of the 31 studies observed
a positive relationship between planning, coordinating, and monitoring behaviors and innovation
outcomes. In two time-lagged studies, Keller (1992, 2006) found that when supervisors used
more of these behaviors, their teams were rated as adding more value to the organization and
were more likely to meet schedule and budget goals. Their teams also produced more profitable
products. Similar findings were observed in cross-sectional studies, where supervisor planning
exhibited a moderate, positive relationship with how well teams were perceived to be meeting
MANAGING TECHNICAL INNOVATION
13
their objectives (Blindenbach-Driessen & Van Den Ende, 2010; Kim, Min, & Cha,1999;
Stockstrom & Hersatt, 2008; Verworn, Herstatt, & Nagahira, 2008).
Several studies focused on early-stage innovation processes. Teams engaged in more
creative behaviors when their supervisors provided clear roles for team members (Hemlin &
Olsson, 2011; Rosso, 2014). The use of interactive visual aids while planning a project was also
associated with team creativity, as observed in a qualitative study of three commercial NPD
projects (Olausson & Berggren, 2010). A few studies examined specific, creative behaviors,
rather than measuring creative or innovative behaviors in the aggregate. For instance, a cross-
sectional study of 496 R&D scientists observed positive relationships between task-oriented
leadership (which included planning, coordinating, and monitoring) and problem definition,
information search, and idea generation (Gupta & Singh, 2014).
Other studies examined intervening processes related to group performance generally,
rather than processes specific to innovative work. Team communication and decision-making
clarity were assessed in multiple studies. In a time-lagged study of 22 R&D teams, Hirst and
Mann (2004) observed a strong, positive relationship between leader coordination/monitoring
and team communication. Two cross-sectional studies observed strong, positive correlations
between leader planning and team decision-making clarity (Schultz, Salomo, de Brentani, &
Kleinschmidt, 2013), clarity about the projects technical requirements (Verorn et al., 2008),
and clarity about market needs (Verworn et al., 2008). Arrighi, Le Masson, and Weil (2015)
made a similar observation in qualitative study of two NPD projects. They found that when
managers explicitly considered relevant constraints in their planning processes, their teams
developed a clearer understanding of those constraints.
MANAGING TECHNICAL INNOVATION
14
Taken together, these studies show consistent, positive relationships between planning,
coordinating, and monitoring and a wide variety of criteria. One caveat, however, comes from a
qualitative study of 79 software development teams in R&D organizations (Annosi, Magnusson,
Martini, & Appio, 2016). This study examined the effects of Agile, a popular approach to project
management that encourages flexibility and involves key stakeholders throughout development
to ensure fundamental product requirements are met. In this qualitative study, teams reported that
Agile resulted in negative effects on innovation because of the high time pressure imposed by
this method. This finding aligns with other research on time pressure showing that very high or
low levels of time pressure can be disruptive to the generation of creative ideas (Baer & Oldham,
2006). In sum, the function of planning, coordinating, and monitoring work appears to stimulate
technical innovation by facilitating both innovation and group processes, but managers must
strike a balance to ensure project deadlines are simultaneously challenging and realistic.
4.2 Providing Autonomy
The second leader function is providing autonomy (k = 20). Managers provide autonomy
by involving team members as participants in decision making and allowing them freedom in
deciding how to execute their work. For nearly as long as creativity and innovation have been
studied in organizations, autonomy has been recognized as an important antecedent (e.g., Hall &
Mansfield, 1975; Pelz & Andrews, 1966). In the context of technical innovation, providing
autonomy may be especially critical for the practical reason that managers rarely have the
expertise or bandwidth to solve every technical problem that emerges (Mumford et al., 2002).
Three cross-sectional studies observed positive relationships between providing
autonomy (sometimes operationalized as empowering leadership) and innovation outcomes,
including advancing knoledge in ones field (Andres & Farris, 1967; Barnowe, 1975) and the
MANAGING TECHNICAL INNOVATION
15
profitability of project portfolios (Kock, Heising, & Gemünden, 2015). Teams who were given
more autonomy were also more likely to achieve their goals and perform well (Hirst & Mann,
2004; Ishikawa, 2012b; Kolb, 1992). Similarly, a cross-sectional study of 261 R&D engineers
showed that when autonomy was restricted, efficiency suffered and errors increased (Wang,
Chiang, Tsai, Lin, & Cheng, 2013).
A few intervening processes that may connect this leader function and innovation
outcomes have been examined. In one study of innovation processes, Zhang and Zhou (2014)
found that the relationship between providing autonomy and creative and innovative behaviors
was mediated by creative self-efficacy. Group processes were also examined as an intervening
mechanism. Specifically, providing autonomy was positively related to information sharing
among members of project teams (Chuang, Jackson, & Jiang, 2016). However, in a cross-
sectional study of 54 R&D teams, Zhu and Chen (2016) found that providing autonomy can
backfire in teams that perceive an unequal distribution of autonomy, being positively related to
higher levels of within-team competition.
In general, the literature reviewed here clearly shows that providing autonomy is
positively related to technical innovation. This leader function appears to stimulate innovation
processes and group processessuch as enhancing team members motivation to engage in
creative work and improving collaboration. The one caveat emerging from this literature is that
managers should be careful to ensure that autonomy is more or less equally distributed within
their teams to ensure interpersonal dynamics do not undermine the benefits of this function.
4.3 Setting and Clarifying Objectives
The third leader function is establishing the goal to be pursued (k = 17). Five studies
focused on visions, hich refer to an articulation of a groups general direction and objectives
MANAGING TECHNICAL INNOVATION
16
(Berson, Waldman, & Pearce, 2016, p. 173). In one study, the visions were provided by senior
leaders (e.g., CEOs, top management teams), but in the other four, visions were provided by
project supervisors or across a variety of levels. These studies observed positive relationships
between leader visions and performance metrics, including meeting cost and schedule goals
(Patanakul, Chen, & Lynn, 2012) and general perceptions of effectiveness (Revilla & Rodríguez,
2011). A cross-sectional study of 200 biotechnology firms also showed a positive relationship
between the presence of a technology vision and having a technical competitive advantage (Reid,
Roberts, & Moore, 2015). However, all of the outcome measures just discussed were
subjectively reported. When objective measures of team performance or innovation were used
(e.g., number of patents or publications), the correlations with this leader function were non-
significant (Patanakul et al., 2012).
Beyond providing a vision, other forms of setting and clarifying objectives were assessed.
For example, in a cross-sectional study of 409 R&D employees (Stetler & Magnusson, 2015),
setting clear goals and stating that innovation was expected were positively related to the number
of ideas team members suggested and adopted. In another study (Aagaard, 2011), these
behaviors were also associated with higher novelty in the ideas suggested for new
pharmaceuticals. A qualitative study of four NPD projects found that managers who stated the
specific attributes that a new product needed to possess helped their teams reach a consensus on
the problem to be solved (Sarpong & Maclean, 2012). Alternatively, a study of six NPD projects
found that managers helped their teams achieve a shared understanding of the problem by
representing it through stories, metaphors, or physical prototypes (Seidel & OMahon, 2014).
Importantly, what preceded problem consensus in both studies was a process of idea evaluation
MANAGING TECHNICAL INNOVATION
17
by the teamfor example, by scrutinizing the managers representations and suggesting how
certain aspects of these representations would violate or conform to the design constraints.
Taken together, the evidence suggests that when managers perform the critical function
of setting and clarifying objectives, we observe positive relationships with product innovation,
group processes, and innovation processes. However, the two studies that used objective
measures of technical innovation showed no relationship.
4.4 Managing Boundaries
The fourth leader function is managing team boundaries (k = 16). In the innovation
literature, this leader function is referred to at times as championing (e.g., Howell & Higgins,
1990), boundary spanning (e.g., Ancona & Caldwell, 1992), or gatekeeping (e.g., Allen &
Cohen, 1969). Generally, this function refers to attending to the tightness or looseness of the
social connections linking the project team to the larger organizational and environmental
context. Managing boundaries serves two objectives. The first is to protect the team from
disruptive, external forces (e.g., strong process control from senior managers; Katz & Tushman,
1979). This shielding behavior allows teams to focus on solving the complex technical problems
at hand (Berger & Brem, 2016). The second objective of managing boundaries is to maintain
strong ties with key stakeholders within and outside the organization. This is because innovation
often requires coordination among several departments, and in some cases may require the
building and maintenance of strategic external alliances.
All of the studies examining this leader function observed a positive relationship with
technical innovation. In one of the earliest studies, Andrews and Farris (1967) surveyed 21 teams
of space and aeronautics scientists. They found that supervisors who better managed inter-group
relationships were more likely to report that their subordinates were advancing knowledge in
MANAGING TECHNICAL INNOVATION
18
their field. Similarly, in a time-lagged study (10 to 15 years between measuring leader function
and innovation variables), Walter, Parboteeah, Riesenhuber, and Hoegl (2011) found that
entrepreneurs who built stronger and broader social ties had higher sales growth for their new
products. Telling stories about innovation was one way of building these social ties and
persuading audiences (e.g., senior managers) to support a new idea or product (Sergeeva &
Trifilova, 2018). In addition to building new relationships, teams sometimes benefited from
repairing old ties. In a case study at a large video game development company, Cohendet and
Simon (2016) found that managers who formed truces between groups with conflicting interests
facilitated technical innovation. Finally, a cross-sectional study of 144 R&D employees found
that while having a project champion was unrelated to a projects novelty, it was positively
related to the projects alignment ith an organiations strategic objectives (Griffiths-Hemans
& Grover, 2006), suggesting champions may play an important role in evaluating and refining
ideas (Perry-Smith & Mannucci, 2017).
Three studies examined the group processes linking this leader function with innovation
outcomes. Both communication quality and frequency were found to mediate the relationship
between managing team boundaries and ratings of team performance in two studies (Ishikawa,
2012a; Kyriazis, Massey, Couchman, & Johnson, 2017). In another study, cohesion within and
between teams and between firms mediated the relationship between cross-functional leadership
and NPD program performance (Stock, Totzauer, & Zacharias, 2014).
In sum, it is clear from these studies that managing boundaries serves a critical social-
informational function. In particular, b loosening boundaries, managers can improve
coordination and facilitate access to external informationkey processes known to support
MANAGING TECHNICAL INNOVATION
19
technical innovation. Where evidence is lacking is for the proposed benefits of tightening
activities like buffering teams from external disruptions.
4.5 Supporting the Social Climate
The fifth leader function is supporting the social climate (k = 13). Decades of research
show support for the general notion that groups who get along better tend to perform better
(Parker et al., 2003). In other words, the quality of the social climate, as perceived and
experienced by employees, is critical to their performance. These benefits appear to extend to
innovative performance as well. For example, a meta-analysis by Hunter, Bedell, and Mumford
(2007) showed that work settings characterized by positive interpersonal exchange, positive
supervisor relationships, and positive peer group relationships tended to evidence much higher
levels of creative achievement. Whenever managers take action to facilitate these positive work
relationships, they are fulfilling the function of supporting the social climate.
Supporting the social climate encompasses a myriad of behaviors. Prominent among
them was consideration (sometimes called benevolent leadership), which involves showing
respect and concern for ones team members and their elfare (Hemphill & Coons, 1957;
Stogdill, 1963). Three studies (two cross-sectional and one time-lagged) observed a positive
relationship between manager consideration and ratings of team performance (Keller, 1992; Oh,
Kim, & Lee, 1991; Wang et al., 2013). Manager consideration was also positively related to the
frequency with which team members engaged in creative and innovative behaviors (Lin, Ma,
Zhang, Li, & Jiang, 2018; Wang & Cheng, 2010).
Another behavior used to operationalize the leader function of supporting the social
climate was that of idealized influence (sometimes called charismatic leadership). Idealized
influence refers to the extent that managers model ethical values and display confidence in team
MANAGING TECHNICAL INNOVATION
20
members. In two studies, Keller (1992, 2006) found that manager idealized influence was
positively related to subjective (e.g., meeting cost and schedule goals) and objective performance
criteria (e.g., new product profitability). Similarly, in a time-lagged study, Chen and Hou (2016)
observed a small, positive relationship between ethical leadership and how much R&D scientists
received in bonuses for creative activity.
Four studies examined intervening group processes. Sarin and OConnor (2009) found
that manager consideration was positively related to functional conflict resolution among team
members, but it was not related to the quality of communication among team members nor how
collaborative they were. This leader function was also positively related to the quality of team
members relationships ith their supervisors (Lin et al., 2018). Finally, ethical leadership was
positively related to constructively challenging the status quo (Chen & Hou, 2016).
Taken together, these studies show that there are a variety of behaviors that managers can
use to fulfill the social climate function. What should not be lost in the midst of this complexity
is the universally positive relationships that were observed for this leader function. In other
words, ensuring the formation and maintenance of positive working relationships among group
members is a critical function of leaders in contexts calling for technical innovation.
4.6 Evaluating Work and Providing Feedback
The sixth leader function identified in our review was evaluating work and providing
feedback (k = 9). This function consists of identifying performance gaps and providing
information to help address these gaps. At its most basic level, managers use this function to
guide groups in deciding whether to maintain their course or adapt in order to meet their
objectives (Kozlowski, Gully, McHugh, Salas, & Cannon-Bowers, 1996). Giving feedback on
innovative work involves evaluating performance with respect to product requirements (e.g.,
MANAGING TECHNICAL INNOVATION
21
functionality, technical quality, novelty), anticipating potential downstream implications (e.g.,
feasibility of implementation, addresses market need), and verbalizing task-specific information
that helps members overcome performance gaps (Watts, Mulhearn, Todd, & Mumford, 2017).
Five cross-sectional studies investigated the relationship between the frequency of
feedback and technical innovation. Two studies observed a positive relationship between
feedback frequency and the general performance of R&D teams (Roberts, 2000) and NPD
programs (Schultz et al., 2013). Another study observed that more frequent meetings with a
projects sponsor as positivel correlated ith ho novel a project as and ho ell aligned it
ith an organiations strateg (Kelley & Lee, 2010).
Two studies focused on the kinds of criteria that managers used to evaluate innovative
work. In a study of 107 NPD managers, Marinuso and Poskela (2011) found that managers
relying on market criteria to evaluate a recent product tended to rate these products as having
greater business potential. In contrast, managers using strategic criteria tended to rate recent
products as being higher in competitive potential. Meanwhile, when managers relied on technical
criteria (e.g., quality, feasibility), products tended to be rated higher on both competitive and
business potential. In other words, the criteria managers use to evaluate innovative work appears
to shape the nature of the products produced. Further evidence for this claim can be observed in a
qualitative study of the flexibility of criteria applied by managers in seven R&D organizations
(Jayawarna & Holt, 2009). It was found that more rigid criteria facilitated knowledge
exploitation and local information searches while more flexible criteria encouraged knowledge
exploration and more expansive information searches.
These studies show that feedback frequency has a positive relationship with innovative
performance. They also show that the criteria managers use to generate feedback impacts what
MANAGING TECHNICAL INNOVATION
22
innovative teams produce and how they go about that production. However, it is somewhat
unclear whether these findings extend to objective measures of innovation. In a study of 339
R&D employees, for example, no relationship was observed between supervisor feedback and
the number of patents held by team members (Bettencourt, Bond, Cole, & Houston, 2017). Thus,
while this leader function on the whole appears to facilitate technical innovation, evidence of
direct effects on objective measures of innovation is lacking.
4.7 Recognizing and Rewarding Performance
The seventh leader function is recognizing and rewarding desired performance (k = 7).
Even though rewards often take the form of financial incentives, rewards can take numerous
other forms, such as more time to work on a project of personal interest, recognition in a
company newsletter, or a celebratory dinner (Hebda, Vojak, Griffin, & Price, 2012; Shaner,
Beeler, & Noble, 2016). Recognition and rewards have received a great deal of attention in the
creativity literature due in large part to their complex effects on motivation (Amabile, 1997).
Nevertheless, meta-analtic evidence clearl shos that reards increase creativit hen
individuals understand that rewards are contingent on creative (rather than routine) performance
(Byron & Khazanchi, 2012, p. 823). Indeed, our review supports the generalizability of this
statement to work contexts involving technical innovation.
Two cross-sectional studies examined the effects of rewards on the quantity of
innovations produced. Results showed a positive relationship between providing rewards and the
number of patents obtained (Bettencourt et al., 2017) and objective indicators of research output
(Hung, Kuo, & Dong, 2013). These positive relationships were consistent across different
product innovation attributes. For example, Stock et al.s (2014) cross-sectional survey of 125
R&D managers found a positive relationship between managers expressing appreciation for
MANAGING TECHNICAL INNOVATION
23
innovation-oriented attitudes and the novelty of NPD programs, as well as the quality of these
programs products. In addition, two cross-sectional studies showed that the combination of
rewarding desired behavior and punishing undesired behavior (i.e., transactional leadership) was
positivel related to a projects perceived novelt and usefulness (Crill, 2020), as ell as its
profitability (Dayan, Di Benedetto, & Colak, 2009).
Although most of the relationships between the rewarding function and innovation were
positive, it is less clear what processes enabled these outcomes. Three of the four studies that
examined intervening processes found non-significant relationships between the leader function
and a mediator: intrinsic motivation (Crilly, 2020), the implementation of new ideas (Bettencourt
et al., 2017), and social cohesion (Shaner et al., 2016). However, the remaining study showed a
strong, positive relationship between providing rewards and cross-functional R&D cooperation
(Stock et al., 2014).
In sum, these results show there is a positive relationship between managers recognizing
and rewarding innovation and innovation outcomes. Although the mechanisms that explain this
relationship have been subject to limited study, one way it appears that rewards may facilitate
innovation is by encouraging members to look beyond the bounds of their immediate project
team to identify and work with external stakeholders (e.g., other departments, customers). Such
stakeholders may provide unique information and other resources that facilitate project success.
4.8 Challenging Assumptions
The eighth leader function we identified was challenging assumptions (k = 5).
Challenging assumptions broadly refers to activities such as encouraging open debate about ideas
and processes, asking questions that stimulate intellectual curiosity, pointing out beliefs that may
be hindering performance, and questioning the necessity of old routines. Bass (1985) theor of
MANAGING TECHNICAL INNOVATION
24
transformational leadership refers to this leader function as intellectual stimulation. Given that
innovation by nature requires moving beyond already known solutions, it is obvious why the
function of challenging assumptions plays such a critical role in technical innovationa claim
supported by meta-analytic research on creative climates (Hunter et al, 2007).
Hirst and Manns (2004) time-lagged study of 22 R&D teams found that challenging
assumptions is positively correlated with meeting project objectives one year later. Similar
findings were observed in a pair of time-lagged studies by Keller (1992, 2006) across both
subjective and objective criteria. The mechanisms through which challenging assumptions
influences technical innovation was examined in two studies. Hirst and Mann (2004) found that
team reflexivity mediated this relationship. Team reflexivity refers to collective reflection upon
current practices with the goal of determining whether any changes should be made (West,
2000). In their qualitative study of four NPD projects, Brun and Sætre (2009) observed that
questioning assumptions can also facilitate innovation at key moments in a project by
strategically delaying convergence on a solution, resulting in a temporary period of sustained
ambiguity. Delayed convergence tended to occur when competing ideas could not be resolved
through discussion and required empirical testing.
Thus, while studies on challenging assumptions are limited, the available evidence
demonstrates that this leader function is positively associated with technical innovation. By
challenging assumptions at key moments in a project, managers may cultivate team learning. The
act of questioning the status quo appears to temporarily stimulate divergence of thought,
providing the motivation for exploring new ideas.
4.9 Environmental Scanning and Sensemaking
MANAGING TECHNICAL INNOVATION
25
The ninth leader function identified here is environmental scanning and sensemaking (k =
3). Innovation projects rarely, perhaps never, unfold exactly as planned. Unexpected events can
emerge at any moment that significantly impact project resources and constraints (Magni,
Maruping, Hoegl, & Proserpio, 2013; Medeiros, Watts, & Mumford, 2017). For example, the
turnover of a critical team member or the introduction of some new technology can drastically
alter the probability of project success. Managers help their teams adapt to such changes through
environmental scanning and sensemaking. Environmental scanning involves monitoring and
anticipating opportunities and threats emerging from within and outside the project team (Watts,
Patel, Rothstein, & Natale, 2020). Following scanning, managers must engage in sensemaking
the process of helping team members reach a shared understanding of a change event (Morgeson,
2005; Weick, 1995)to facilitate adaptation to altered project conditions.
In a qualitative study of this leader function, Lassen, Waehrens, and Boer (2009)
observed that managers facilitated the implementation of new ideas by making sense of market
information for technological teams and technological information for market teams. In other
words, managers support innovation processes by bringing in new information that complements
their teams etant knoledge. In a cross-sectional study, 104 technology managers were
surveyed about their tendencies to search for, assimilate, and utilize external information about
technological and market developments (Enkel, Heil, Hengstler, & Wirth, 2017). On average,
these behaviors were positively related to the development of both exploratory and exploitative
innovation products. In a cross-sectional study of 247 R&D and product managers, satisfaction
with NPD program performance was positively correlated with the degree to which these
managers appraised and managed three forms of risktechnological, marketing, and
organizational (Mu, Peng, & MacLachlan, 2009). Thus, the available evidence, though limited,
MANAGING TECHNICAL INNOVATION
26
suggests that environmental scanning and sensemaking are a critical function performed by those
who lead technical innovation.
4.10 Securing and Allocating Resources
The tenth leader function we identified was securing and allocating resources (k = 3).
Resources come in varied forms, including technical expertise, personnel hours, materials,
equipment, and information. In the present review, a cross-sectional study of 453 NPD managers
found a strong, positive relationship between providing resources and ratings of NPD program
performance (Shaner et al., 2016). This study also showed that within-team cohesion mediated
this relationship. In contrast, Hung et al.s (2013) survey of 74 principal investigators found no
relationship between the provision of resources and output of research labs. Finally, in Obstfelds
(2012) qualitative study of a major automotive manufacturer, it was found that managers were
able to secure more of one kind of resource by providing another. Specifically, when managers
made information about an ongoing project easily interpretable by external stakeholders (i.e.,
providing informational resources), these stakeholders were more willing to get involved with
the project (i.e., acquiring expertise and political resources).
In sum, while one study showed a strong, positive relationship between the provision of
resources and innovation, another identified no relationship. However, the third study showed
that it is not the amount of resources per se that matters most, but the kinds of resources and
when they are allocated. In other words, managers appear to facilitate innovation not by offering
an all-you-can-eat resource buffet, but by strategically exchanging and allocating resources as
needed at key points in the lifecycle of a project. Of course, more research on the function of
securing and allocating resources is needed to better understand the types of resources that are
most needed at various points in the innovation lifecycle.
MANAGING TECHNICAL INNOVATION
27
4.11 Developing Team Members
The eleventh, and final, leader function identified in our review is developing team
members (k = 2), primarily in the form of technical expertise. Although members of innovation
teams typically already possess the bench skills needed to execute basic work in their domain
(Mumford & Gustafson, 1988), the nature of technical innovation often demands that project
members stretch beyond their existing knowledge base by integrating new information and
developing new skills. Managers can pla a role in developing members epertise b sponsoring
opportunities for members to attend professional conferences, skill workshops, or certification
and degree programs. Additionally, when managers have extensive expertise in the domain, they
can directly transfer their knowledge to members by serving as a mentor.
In one study, for example, Hung et al. (2013) surveed 74 principal investigators lab
management practices, and then the authors collected si objective indicators of each labs
research output (e.g., publications, patents, citations). Hung et al. observed a positive relationship
between supporting the self-development of the principal investigators teams and the labs
research output. In a second study, Eubanks, Palanski, Swart, Hammond, and Oguntebi (2016)
conducted a historiometric analysis of the relationships that 59 Nobel Laureates had with their
mentors. To the extent that the Laureates mentors provided regular and constructive feedback
and evaluation, they were more likely to try new things early in their career and mid-career.
Although there is clearly a dearth of research on this function, the preliminary evidence shows
the importance of managers attending to the development of their team members when leading
for technical innovation.
4.12 Leader Function Interactions
MANAGING TECHNICAL INNOVATION
28
Although the majority of studies examined leader functions in isolation, four studies
examined and reported the interactive effects of leader functions. Two of these studies assessed
how providing autonomy interacted with a type of task-oriented function (e.g., planning,
coordinating, and monitoring work). In one study, Andrews and Farris (1967) found that
providing autonom served as a buffer hen a leaders technical skill as lo. That is, lo
leader technical skill was only detrimental to subordinate performance when it was paired with
low autonomy. In Kock et al.s (2015) study, they observed that when leaders provided higher
levels of autonomy, formal processes of implementing new ideas were positively related to front-
end success; however, when autonomy was low, process formalization was unrelated to front-
end success. Two other studies examined interactions between different leader functions. Schultz
et al. (2013) found a non-significant effect of planning and feedback frequency on decision-
making clarity. Oh et al. (1991) also observed a non-significant interaction effect when they
examined the influence of supporting the social climate and planning, coordinating, and
monitoring work on project success. Although there was a paucity of research examining leader
function interactions, it is plainly evident that leader functions do not exist in isolation. We
discuss below how this gap might be addressed in future research.
5. Discussion
Drawing on a functional perspective of leadership (McGrath, 1962; Morgeson et al.,
2010), the present review established a categorization of leader functions in the context of work
calling for technical innovation. We summarized the relationships between these functions and
innovation and highlighted the available evidence on the intervening processes through which
these functions relate to innovation (see Table 2). This review illuminated a wide range of
functions that managers use in the context of technical innovation. It also showed that many of
MANAGING TECHNICAL INNOVATION
29
these functions are performed by leaders at varying levels within organizations (e.g., project
supervisors, mid-level managers, and senior executives). The leadership framework presented
here provides a foundation for understanding more precisely what leader functions are related to
technical innovation and how these functions may translate into technical innovation.
MANAGING TECHNICAL INNOVATION
30
Table 2. Number of Studies Examining the Relationship between each Leader Function and a Process or Outcome
Note. When a study examined multiple processes or outcomes, it was counted in all applicable categories.
Group Processes
Proximal Outcomes
Distal
Outcomes
Leader Functions
Social
Motivation
Cognition
Behavior
Innovation
Project
Performance
Product
Innovation
Innovation
Impact
1. Planning, Coordinating, and Monitoring Work
2
1
2
1
9
9
8
10
2. Providing Autonomy
2
2
1
2
9
5
4
3
3. Setting and Clarifying Objectives
1
0
0
0
5
3
5
6
4. Managing Boundaries
4
0
1
3
3
8
3
4
5. Supporting the Social Climate
2
2
0
1
5
4
1
4
6. Evaluating Work and Providing Feedback
0
1
1
0
4
1
3
3
7. Recognizing and Rewarding Performance
2
1
0
1
1
1
5
3
8. Challenging Assumptions
1
0
1
1
1
4
0
2
9. Environmental Scanning and Sensemaking
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
10. Securing and Allocating Resources
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
11. Developing Team Members
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
MANAGING TECHNICAL INNOVATION
31
5.1 Theoretical Implications
This review has several theoretical implications. First, we contribute to construct clarity,
particularly with respect to the inputs and outputs of managing technical innovation. Constructs
are the foundation of theory, because theory seeks to explain how constructs are related to each
other (Bacharach, 1989). When constructs have poor clarity, it hampers efforts not only to build
new theory, but also to develop measures, manipulate constructs, and to compare, aggregate, and
replicate studies (Byrne, Peters, & Weston, 2016; Post, Sarala, Gatrell, & Prescott, 2020). Even
if constructs are initially operationalized clearly, as fields develop, the meanings of constructs
can change or be used inconsistently (Casper, Vaziri, Wayne, DeHauw, & Greenhaus, 2018;
Vankatraman & Rajanujam, 1986). Two of the ways construct ambiguity can manifest are
distinct constructs being assigned the same label (i.e., the jingle fallacy; Kelley, 1927) and alike
constructs being assigned different labels (i.e., the jangle fallacy; Kelley, 1927). Indeed, we
observed instances of both in our review of over 50 years of research on managing technical
innovation.
With respect to leader functions, we observed instances of both jingle and jangle
fallacies. In an instance of the jingle fallacy, we found that the term innovation leadership (or
innovation-oriented leadership) reflected providing task feedback in some cases (e.g.,
Bettencourt et al., 2017) and recognizing and rewarding performance in others (e.g., Stock et al.,
2014). In an instance of the jangle fallacy, we found that the act of showing respect and concern
for ones team members and their elfare (Hemphill & Coons, 1957; Stogdill, 1963) was
variously labeled as consideration, team building, and benevolent leadership. Jingle and jangle
fallacies were also evident in the outputs side of our conceptual model. For example, the term
team performance was used to capture a wide array of distinct concepts, including sufficient
MANAGING TECHNICAL INNOVATION
32
allocation of personnel (e.g., Stockstrom & Hersatt, 2008), meeting technical and scheduling
goals (e.g., Ishikawa, 2012a), positive collaborative relationships (e.g., Revilla & Rodríguez,
2011), potential profitability (Waldman & Atwater, 1994) and realized profitability (Kyriazis et
al., 2017). The jangle fallacy was also present in the outputs of our conceptual model. The terms
innovativeness, newness, and radical innovation were all used to reflect how novel a product (or
group of products) as relative to an organiations eisting products or those of the
organiations competitors (Rese, Gemünden, & Baier, 2013; Stock et al., 2014, OConnor &
Rice, 2013).
By directly evaluating the measures used in quantitative studies and the specific functions
observed in qualitative studies, the present review contributes to construct clarity by untangling
the jinglejangle fallacies highlighted above. This, in turn, enables future work to be more
parsimonious, accurate, and precise, all of which are a boon to advancing theory and informing
practice. With respect to parsimony, in this review, we showed how the same leader functions
and innovation outcomes can be referred to by different labels (i.e., the jangle fallacy). We
provide a categorization scheme that reduces redundancies, making it easier for disciplines that
study similar phenomena, but using different terms, to learn from one another (Davies et al.,
2018). With respect to accuracy, the present review showed how distinct leader functions and
innovation outcomes can be referred to by the same labels (i.e., the jingle fallacy). Our
categorization scheme reinforces boundaries between constructs that have either been lost over
time or never clearly drawn. Finally, with respect to precision, we advance a categorization
scheme in this review that will enable more precise theorizing about the relationships between
leader functions and innovation outcomes. Management research in general suffers from a lack
of precision in its theorizing (Edwards & Berry, 2010), and leadership research is no exception
MANAGING TECHNICAL INNOVATION
33
(Antonakis, 2017). One of the consequences of imprecise theorizing is that the hypotheses we
test become less falsifiable, resulting in a proliferation of statistically significant effects that have
limited application to the real world (Alvesson, 2020). The categorization scheme we provide
supports the kind of theoretical precision needed to remedy these problems.
Second, in addition to contributing to construct clarity, the present review offers a
synthesis of the literature on leading technical innovation in the form of a conceptual model (see
Figure 1). Because theory is concerned with explaining the relationships between constructs,
mechanisms are an essential component, as they show why and how constructs relate to each
other (Bacharach, 1989; Makadok et al., 2018). Thus, our conceptual model contributes to theory
by showing how the pieces of this interdisciplinary research area may fit together. This allows
subsequent research to examine mechanisms that theoretically connect the actions of leaders to
the innovative outcomes of their work units.
Given the temporal distance between specific leader functions and innovative outcomes,
it can be challenging to determine which mechanisms are relevant. It often takes several years,
for example, for a leaders vision for a new product to come to fruition (Isaacson, 2014). When
the temporal gap between cause and effect is so large, there are myriad constructs that may play
an intervening role. Thus, to determine what constructs are related to each other, we must know
when changes in these constructs occur (Mitchell & James, 2001; Steele, 2020). By
distinguishing processes, proximal outcomes, and distal outcomes, our conceptual model
illuminates the temporal ordering of changes in these constructs. This, in turn, aids future
research in developing and testing models of innovation management. For example, if one were
interested in eamining the effects of training targeted at improving leaders skills in challenging
assumptions, our model suggests that the earliest assessments of the trainings effects ill
MANAGING TECHNICAL INNOVATION
34
manifest in group and innovation processes. Further, the model suggests that it may take months
or years for the training to affect downstream outcomes, such as product innovation. It also
suggests that stronger relationships will be expected between variables that are closer together in
time. For instance, any given leader function is likely to be more strongly related to innovation
processes than it is to innovation impact. Thus, if a leader function is significantly related to the
former in one study but not the latter in another study, it may not be that these studies have failed
to replicate; rather, it may be that the difference in temporal distance changes the strength or
nature of the functions causal effect.
A third theoretical contribution of this study is the provision of a categorization of inputs,
processes, and outputs. In addition to clarifying boundaries between constructs, this
categorization allows researchers to identify meaningful differences across literatures, which
may reveal differences in underlying assumptions about the phenomena of interest (Post et al.,
2020). For example, while the organizational behavior and psychology literatures focus on
motivational processes (e.g., creative self-efficacy, intrinsic motivation) (Hughes et al., 2018),
we found that the innovation management literature primarily focuses on social processes (e.g.,
developing new relationships, team cohesion). What this suggests is that fields differ in what
they presume to be the key means through which leaders influence technical innovation. In the
organizational behavior and psychology literatures, the most widely cited theory of creativity
(Amabile, 1996) places motivation as the central mechanism through which contextual factors
will influence creative efforts. As a result, the leaders primary function is typically seen as
increasing their folloers motivation, particularl intrinsic motivation. In contrast, highly cited
works in the innovation management literature (e.g., Allen, 1970; Nieto & Santamaria, 2007; for
revies of highl cited orks, see Dabi, Mari, Vlai, Diam, & Vanhaverbeke [2021] and
MANAGING TECHNICAL INNOVATION
35
Rigby [2016]) emphasize collaboration, knowledge sharing, and access to new information.
Consequently, the leaders primary function is usually seen as developing the informational
relationships between their followers and relevant people outside the team. Owing to these
different theoretical foundations, it is perhaps unsurprising that the respective studies of these
fields focus on different processes. Highlighting these differences presents an opportunity for
future research to expand theorizing and reconsider the processes presumed to be pivotal in
connecting leader functions to innovative outcomes.
5.2 An Agenda for Future Research
The present effort demonstrates that the literature on functional leadership and technical
innovation has reached an important stage of maturity in which basic relationships between
many leader functions and technical innovation criteria have been established. As a result, future
studies that simply re-examine the relationships between these same leader functions and criteria
are unlikely to add much value. An important next step is extricating specific innovation
processes and examining the unique effects of leader functions on these processes. In other
words, we should ask, when are certain leader functions most useful for facilitating technical
innovation? Theories of innovation describe numerous processes that occur between initially
identifying a problem or opportunity and launching a finished product (Amabile & Pratt, 2016;
Cooper & Kleinschmidt, 1986; Perry-Smith & Mannucci, 2017). However, with a few
eceptions, leaders effects on these specific processes (e.g., problem definition, information
gathering, idea evaluation) have not been the subject of much empirical attention (Reiter-Palmon
& Illies, 2004). Specifically, the available empirical work on leadership and specific innovation
processes tends to ignore processes beyond idea generation (Watts et al., 2017), and it tends to
MANAGING TECHNICAL INNOVATION
36
rely on simulated studies of innovation processes using student participants as opposed to
technical experts (e.g., Lovelace & Hunter, 2013; Sosik, Kahai, & Avolio, 1998).
A key implication of the process-based view of technical innovation is that project needs
will vary across the stages of innovative work. A functional perspective suggests that what a
team needs when initially defining the problem to be solved, for example, may differ from what
a team needs when they begin testing prototypes. As a result of these varying needs, the
functions that leaders should perform to maimie their teams effectiveness will also vary
across time. Thus, we recommend that future research take into consideration these processes.
This research agenda has several implications for how studies can be designed to advance
knowledge on this topic. We organize this research agenda into three sections: refining
measurement, exploring mediators, and accounting for time.
5.2.1 Refining Measurement
Perhaps the most important next step is refining our measurement of both functional
leadership and technical innovation. On the leadership side, there is an abundance of quantitative
studies measuring leadership styles, chief among them is transformational leadership (Watts et
al., 2020). While leadership styles offer parsimony, they lack precision, and as a result, they have
limited utility for advancing our understanding of the specific functions by which managers
foster technical innovation. Broad leadership styles also appear to be largely interchangeable,
demonstrating nearly identical correlations with creativity and innovation (Lee et al., 2020). A
likel eplanation for this is that these measures capture more of individuals attitudes about
managers than the managers actual behavior (Lee, Martin, Thomas, Guillaume, & Maio, 2015;
Martinko, Mackey, Moss, Harvey, McAllister, & Brees, 2018). Thus, like the studies we focused
on in this review, we suggest future research use more specific measures of leader functions (for
MANAGING TECHNICAL INNOVATION
37
one example, see appendix in Morgeson et al., 2010)that is, observable actions that managers
take. Generally, in our review, qualitative studies were more precise in the leader functions they
examined (e.g., Arrighi et al., 2015; Brun & Sætre, 2009). However, there were a number of
qualitative studies excluded from our review because leaders were too ambiguously described as
supportive or unsupportive. Thus, e encourage future studies to describe or measure the
leader function being examined precisely.
On the innovation side, we suggest clarifying the specific stage (or stages) of innovation
one is examining (Cooper & Kleinschmidt, 1986; Montag et al., 2012; Perry-Smith & Mannucci,
2017). In quantitative studies, measures that do not differentiate these stages (e.g., George &
Zhou, 2001; Scott & Bruce, 1994; Tierney, Farmer, & Graen, 1999) may be less helpful towards
achieving this end. Thus, it may be preferable to use measures that were developed with stages of
innovation in mind (e.g., Harrison & Wagner, 2016; Janssen, 2000; Zhang & Bartol, 2010).
Similarly, for qualitative studies, we encourage future research to narrow the focus to these
stages of innovation or to the transition between stages.
Of course, for technical innovation, another set of criteria are relevantspecifically, how
well groups perform relative to their goals. Such criteria include efficiency, quality, adherence to
schedules, adherence to budgets, and speed to market (Ancona & Caldwell, 1992; Keller, 2006).
In addition, there are longer term outcomes to consider, such as customer satisfaction,
profitability, and market creation. When distal criteria like these are considered, future research
should avoid treating all these criteria as interchangeable. For example, in one study (Keller,
2006), the observed relationship between intellectual stimulation (which we categorized as
challenging assumptions) and R&D team performance varied substantiall depending on the
indicator of performancefrom r = -.13 (adherence to budgets) to r = .40 (technical quality of
MANAGING TECHNICAL INNOVATION
38
work). Although these variables were assumed to reflect the same construct (i.e., R&D team
performance), it seems inappropriate to do so in hindsight. For this domain of research to further
develop, we encourage future research to both theorize about and operationalize variables at a
more granular level.
5.2.2 Exploring Mediators
In this review, we have called for moving beyond asking whether leadership functions are
related to technical innovation and argued that we should be asking what leader functions are
related to innovation and when (i.e., at which stages of innovation). We further suggest that
future research investigate howthat is, what mediates the relationships between each leader
function and innovation processes? Although the studies we reviewed examined numerous
processes, mediation was seldom statistically tested. Only one study examined innovative
processes as mediators (i.e., front-end success; Markham, 2013). The remaining mediators were
general group processes. A detailed list of the mediators statistically tested by studies in our
review is provided in Table 3.
In the 15 studies that examined mediation, the categories most represented were social
and behavioral processes. This is perhaps not surprising given the degree to which
communication and cohesion have been discussed as critical to facilitating innovation in cross-
functional teams (Moenaert, Souder, & De Meyer, 1994; Nakata & Im, 2010). Motivational and
cognitive processes were examined less frequentlyonly three and four studies, respectively.
Interestingly, these ratios are quite different from a recent review of leadership and innovation
where the focus was not specifically technical innovation (Hughes et al., 2018). In that study, the
authors observed a predominant focus on motivational mediators (k = 34), while cognitive and
social mediators were represented less than half as often (k = 16 and 13, respectively). These
MANAGING TECHNICAL INNOVATION
39
trends suggest that within the leadership, creativity, and innovation literature broadly writ, there
are notable differences across innovation contexts in both the mediational processes and criteria
emphasized.
Table 3. Mediators Tested in Studies Included in Systematic Review
Mediators
Type
References
Front-end success
Innovation Process
Markham (2013)
Reflexivity
Group Process: Cognition
Hirst & Mann (2004)
Reduction of uncertainty
Group Process: Cognition
Verworn et al. (2008)
Decision-making clarity
Group Process: Cognition
Schultz et al. (2013)
Creative self-efficacy
Group Process: Motivation
Zhang & Zhou (2014)
Commitment to innovation
Group Process: Motivation
Bettencourt et al. (2017)
Positive psychological capital
Group Process: Motivation
Gupta & Singh (2014)
Intrinsic motivation
Group Process: Motivation
Crilly (2020)
Boundary spanning
Group Process: Social
Hirst & Mann (2004)
Norm for maintaining consensus
Group Process: Social
Ishikawa (2012a)
Communication quality
Group Process: Social
Kyriazis et al. (2017)
Communication safety
Group Process: Social
Hirst & Mann (2004)
Communication openness
Group Process: Social
Kyriazis et al. (2017)
Between-team cohesion
Group Process: Social
Shaner et al. (2016)
Cross-functional cooperation
Group Process: Social
Stock et al. (2014)
Leadermember exchange
Group Process: Social
Lin et al. (2018)
Intra-team collaboration
Group Process: Behavior
Zhu & Chen (2016)
Intra-team competition
Group Process: Behavior
Zhu & Chen (2016)
Internal communication
Group Process: Behavior
Ishikawa (2012a)
External communication
Group Process: Behavior
Ishikawa (2012a)
Team collaboration
Group Process: Behavior
Kyriazis et al. (2017)
Task communication
Group Process: Behavior
Hirst & Mann (2004)
Voice behavior
Group Process: Behavior
Chen & Hou (2016)
The present review illustrated that there are many opportunities for exploring how leader
functions are related to technical innovation. We encourage future research to consider a broader
set of potential mediating mechanisms, such as risk-taking (Jassawalla & Sashittal, 2002),
knowledge hiding (erne, Nerstad, Dsvik, & kerlavaj, 2014), group affect (Barsade & Knight,
2015), and information search strategies (Kim & Atuahene-Gima, 2010). We also suggest
MANAGING TECHNICAL INNOVATION
40
considering possible non-linear relationships. As noted earlier, there is a growing body of
research demonstrating that leaders of innovative projects must find a balance between doing too
little and too much (Acar et al., 2019). An examination of mediators will allow us to understand
when and why these curvilinear relationships are observed.
5.2.3 Accounting for Time
Examining how leader functions cause changes in group behaviorsas mediated by
variables such as those described aboverequires that studies consider the role of time (Fischer
et al., 2017; McClean, Barnes, Courtright, & Johnson, 2019). To date, in quantitative studies, the
role of time has largely been ignored, as evidenced by the frequency with which cross-sectional
designs were utilized. In contrast, the qualitative studies we reviewed often explicitly considered
time. For example, Olausson and Berggren (2010) documented how teams responded to
unexpected events over the duration of a project. Of course, observing how processes unfold
over time is a strength of qualitative research (Burgelman, 2011), but there are designs that can
be used in quantitative research to complement these qualitative findings.
One such design is a time-lagged design. Time-lagged studies typically measure each
variable in ones model once, but these measurement occasions are separated in time. Only seven
studies in our review used this design, separating the measurement of leader function and
innovation by a range of 4 months to 15 years. Although cross-sectional designs allow us to
examine one of the three conditions for establishing causalitythat is, correlationtime-lagged
studies allow us to examine a secondtemporal precedence (Spector, 2019). This is especially
important when mediators are being tested. Along related lines, experimental designs that tie
performance tasks to different stages of innovation may prove useful for isolating the effects of
MANAGING TECHNICAL INNOVATION
41
leader functions on particular innovation processes (Medeiros, Steele, Watts, & Mumford, 2018;
Sørensen, Mattsson, & Sundbo, 2010).
Another approach is experience sampling or daily diary designs (Beal, 2015; see, for
example, Amabile, Barsade, Mueller, & Staw, 2005). There is variation in how these designs are
eecuted, but generall the goal is to capture individuals immediate and natural eperience in
their environment on a repeated basis for a few days or weeks (Gabriel et al., 2019). These
designs have a couple of strengths that would be useful for advancing functional leadership and
technical innovation research. One advantage is mitigating memory biases (Robinson & Clore,
2002). Experience sampling designs address this by providing narrower frames of reference (e.g.,
right now, today). A second strength of experience sampling designs is mitigating common
method bias (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Podsakoff, 2012). Mitigation can occur when
researchers relate measures taken in the morning (e.g., ratings of leaders setting and clarifing
the das objectives) ith measures taken later in the da (e.g., clarit on criteria evaluating ne
ideas) or measures taken the following morning (e.g., learning from in-house product testing).
Common method bias can also be addressed by partitioning between- and within-person
variance. When measures are repeatedly administered, researchers can show how much of a
correlation between two variables is explained by stable factors (e.g., personality) and how much
is explained by changes that have occurred between measurement occasions.
5.3 Limitations
Three limitations should be considered when interpreting and applying this categorization
of leader functions that have been shown to relate to technical innovation. First, the present
review is inherently constrained by what leader functions have been studied. For example, we
did not find a single study on how managers select members to be a part of their group. This is
MANAGING TECHNICAL INNOVATION
42
surprising given that stable team member attributes (e.g., technical background, personality, etc.)
are presumed to have a pronounced influence on team functioning and innovation outcomes
(Mohammadi, Broström, & Franzoni, 2017; van Knippenberg, 2017). Additionally, whereas
three of the leader functions we identified clearly involve an external focus (i.e., managing
boundaries, environmental scanning, and securing and allocating resources), the other eight
functions appear to be internally focused.5 It is unclear if this emphasis on internal functions
accurately represents the activities of leaders in contexts calling for technical innovation, or if the
internal weighting is simply due to the literature historically giving more attention to internal
functions. Thus, we cannot infer that the 11 leader functions identified here are the only ones that
are related to technical innovationthey are simply the functions that been examined to date.
A second limitation is that leader functions are oftentimes studied in isolation, and they
were mostly discussed in such a fashion throughout this review. Although isolating particular
leader functions allows for studying their relationships with innovation processes and outcomes,
these functions rarely unfold in isolation. For example, when managers provide frequent task
feedback to their teams, they are not only directly contributing to refinement of the work but also
serving the secondary function of developing team members technical epertise.
A third limitation is that the research designs and methods used to study the relationship
between leader functions and technical innovation have tended to ignore the issue of time. As
discussed in our agenda for future research, it remains unclear when particular leader functions
are most needed by their project teams. Insights bearing on timing may be especially useful for
resolving some of the paradoxes identified in the recent literature on innovation (Miron-Spektor
& Beenen, 2015; Steele, Hardy, Day, Watts, & Mumford, 2021)paradoxes that can be
observed in the present categorization. For example, our review suggests that managers may
MANAGING TECHNICAL INNOVATION
43
facilitate technical innovation by providing autonomy, but also by constraining autonomy via
clarifying goals and monitoring work. Managers can support innovation processes and outcomes
by critiquing performance, and also by rewarding performance. Paradoxes can also be observed
in the dual-roles of some leader functions. When managing boundaries, for instance, managers
must build network connections with external sources that provide useful information and other
resources while buffering their team from disruptive external influences. Similarly, managers of
technical innovation must judge when to temporarily disrupt the status quo by challenging
assumptions and when to adhere to extant assumptions. Achieving this level of nuance in our
discussion was not possible in the present review, because this level of specificity was not
adequately captured in most of the studies we reviewed.
5.4 Implications for Practice
Bearing these limitations in mind, the practical implications of this systematic review are
clear. This clarity is due in large part to the pragmatism of a functional lens. That is, compared
with other popular leadership perspectives like trait-based models, the execution of these leader
functions can oftentimes be observed ith the naked ee. Further, leader functions are
relatively flexible, and therefore feasible to act upon as levers for change in organizations (Yukl,
2012). The present review demonstrates that managers who deploy the 11 leader functions
summarized here are likely to also observe increases in innovation processes and outcomes in
contexts calling for technical innovation. Thus, on a basic level, the categorization of leader
functions presented here can be viewed as an evidence-based blueprint for ho managers
should act to increase the probability of innovation success. However, as noted above, given that
most of the studies included in this review do not allow for strong causal inferences, we suggest
that this practical implication be taken with caution.
MANAGING TECHNICAL INNOVATION
44
There are many potential applications of the leader function categorization in
organizations. First, given that some managers are more skilled than others at executing these
functions, organizations may benefit from using these functions as criteria when selecting new
managers. Second, this categorization supplies observable and proximal criteria that can be used
to evaluate managerial performance. Such criteria are particularly important in this context,
because the summative outcomes of innovation often take years to appear and are thus difficult
to attribute to any particular manager. Just as frequent feedback from managers appears to
facilitate innovation, frequent feedback for managers based on this categorization may help to
facilitate effective leadership throughout a project, as ell as throughout a managers career.
Third, managers of technical innovation might benefit from developmental programs and
informal practices aimed at modeling and reinforcing the functions identified here. In conclusion,
we hope this categorization serves as a useful framework for guiding future research, as well as
helping organizations to identify, evaluate, and develop managerial talent in ways that strengthen
their technical innovation capabilities.
MANAGING TECHNICAL INNOVATION
45
References
References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the systematic review.
*Aagaard, A., and Gertsen, F. 2011. Supporting radical front end innovation: perceived key
factors of pharmaceutical innovation. Creativity and Innovation Management 20: 330-
346.
Acar, O. A., Tarakci, M., and van Knippenberg, D. 2019. Creativity and innovation under
constraints: A cross-disciplinary integrative review. Journal of Management 45: 96-121.
Ahearne, M., Mathieu, J., and Rapp, A. 2005. To empower or not to empower your sales force?
An empirical examination of the influence of leadership empowerment behavior on
customer satisfaction and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology 90: 945-955.
Allen, T. J. 1970. Communication networks in R & D laboratories. R&D Management 1: 14-21.
Allen, T. J., and Cohen, S. I. 1969. Information flow in research and development laboratories.
Administrative Science Quarterly 14: 12-19.
Alvesson, M. 2020. Upbeat leadership: A recipe foror againstsuccessful leadership studies.
The Leadership Quarterly 31: 101439.
Amabile, T. M. 1988. A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in
Organizational Behavior 10: 123-167.
Amabile, T. M. 1996. Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Amabile, T. M. 1997. Motivating creativity in organizations: On doing what you love and loving
what you do. California Management Review 40: 39-58.
Amabile, T. M., Barsade, S. G., Mueller, J. S., and Staw, B. M. 2005. Affect and creativity at
work. Administrative Science Quarterly 50: 367-403.
Amabile, T. M., and Pratt, M. G. 2016. The dynamic componential model of creativity and
innovation in organizations: Making progress, making meaning. Research in
Organizational Behavior 36: 157-183.
Ancona, D. G., and Caldwell, D. F. 1992. Bridging the boundary: External activity and
performance in organizational teams. Administrative Science Quarterly 37: 634-665.
Anderson, N., Potonik, K., and Zhou, J. 2014. Innovation and creativity in organizations: A
state-of-the-science review, prospective commentary, and guiding framework. Journal of
Management 40: 1297-1333.
*Andrews, F. M., and Farris, G. F. 1967. Supervisory practices and innovation in scientific
teams. Personnel Psychology 20: 497-515.
*Andriopoulos, C., Gotsi, M., Lewis, M. W., and Ingram, A. E. 2018. Turning the sword: How
NPD teams cope with front‐end tensions. Journal of Product Innovation Management
35: 427-445.
Andriopoulos, C., and Lewis, M. W. 2009. Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational
ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization Science 20: 696-717.
*Annosi, M. C., Magnusson, M., Martini, A., and Appio, F. P. 2016. Social conduct, learning
and innovation: an abductive study of the dark side of agile software development.
Creativity and Innovation Management 25: 515-535.
Antonakis, J. 2017. On doing better science: From thrill of discovery to policy implications. The
Leadership Quarterly 28: 5-21.
Armbruster, H., Bikfalvi, A., Kinkel, S., and Lay, G. 2008. Organizational innovation: The
challenge of measuring non-technical innovation in large-scale surveys. Technovation,
28: 644-657.
MANAGING TECHNICAL INNOVATION
46
*Arrighi, P. A., Le Masson, P., and Weil, B. 2015. Managing radical innovation as an innovative
design process: generative constraints and cumulative sets of rules. Creativity and
Innovation Management 24: 373-390.
*Austin, R. D., Devin, L., and Sullivan, E. E. 2012. Accidental innovation: Supporting valuable
unpredictability in the creative process. Organization Science 23: 1505-1522.
Bacharach, S. B. 1989. Organizational theories: Some criteria for evaluation. Academy of
Management Review 14: 496-515.
Baer, M., and Oldham, G. R. 2006. The curvilinear relation between experienced creative time
pressure and creativity: moderating effects of openness to experience and support for
creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology 91: 963-970.
*Bahemia, H., Sillince, J., and Vanhaverbeke, W. 2018. The timing of openness in a radical
innovation project, a temporal and loose coupling perspective. Research Policy 47: 2066-
2076.
*Barnowe, J. T. 1975. Leadership and performance outcomes in research organizations: The
supervisor of scientists as a source of assistance. Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance 14: 264-280.
Barsade, S. G., and Knight, A. P. 2015. Group affect. Annual Review of Organizational
Psychology and Organizational Behavior 2: 21-46.
Bass, B. M. 1985. Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.
Beal, D. J. 2015. ESM 2.0: State of the art and future potential of experience sampling methods
in organizational research. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and
Organizational Behavior 2: 383-407.
*Behrens, J., and Ernst, H. 2014. What keeps managers away from a losing course of action?
Go/stop decisions in new product development. Journal of Product Innovation
Management 31: 361-374.
*Bettencourt, L. A., Bond III, E. U., Cole, M. S., and Houston, M. B. 2017. Domain‐relevant
commitment and individual technical innovation performance. Journal of Product
Innovation Management 34: 159-180.
Berger, A., and Brem, A. 2016. Innovation hub how‐to: Lessons from Silicon Valley. Global
Business and Organizational Excellence 35: 58-70.
Berson, Y., Waldman, D. A., and Pearce, C. L. 2016. Enhancing our understanding of vision in
organizations: Toward an integration of leader and follower processes. Organizational
Psychology Review 6: 171-191.
Blau, P. 1964. Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.
*Blindenbach‐Driessen, F., and Van Den Ende, J. 2010. Innovation management practices
compared: The example of project‐based firms. Journal of Product Innovation
Management 27: 705-724.
Bloom, N., Jones, C. I., Van Reenen, J., and Webb, N. 2020. Are ideas getting harder to find?.
American Economic Review 110: 1104-1144.
*Brun, E., and Sætre, A. S. 2009. Managing ambiguity in new product development projects.
Creativity and Innovation Management 18: 24-34.
*Bstieler, L., and Hemmert, M. 2010. Increasing learning and time efficiency in
interorganizational new product development teams. Journal of Product Innovation
Management 27: 485-499.
Burgelman, R. A. 2011. Bridging history and reductionism: A key role for longitudinal
qualitative research. Journal of International Business Studies 42: 591-601.
MANAGING TECHNICAL INNOVATION
47
Byron, K., and Khazanchi, S. 2012. Rewards and creative performance: a meta-analytic test of
theoretically derived hypotheses. Psychological Bulletin 138: 809-830.
Casper, W. J., Vaziri, H., Wayne, J. H., DeHauw, S., and Greenhaus, J. 2018. The jingle-jangle
of worknonwork balance: A comprehensive and meta-analytic review of its meaning
and measurement. Journal of Applied Psychology 103: 182-214.
Castellion, G., and Markham, S. K. 2013. Perspective: New product failure rates: Influence of
argumentum ad populum and self‐interest. Journal of Product Innovation Management
30: 976-979.
erne, M., Nerstad, C. G., Dsvik, A., and kerlavaj, M. 2014. What goes around comes around:
Knowledge hiding, perceived motivational climate, and creativity. Academy of
Management Journal 57: 172-192.
*Chen, A. S. Y., and Hou, Y. H. 2016. The effects of ethical leadership, voice behavior and
climates for innovation on creativity: A moderated mediation examination. The
Leadership Quarterly 27: 1-13.
*Chuang, C. H., Jackson, S. E., and Jiang, Y. 2016. Can knowledge-intensive teamwork be
managed? Examining the roles of HRM systems, leadership, and tacit knowledge.
Journal of Management 42: 524-554.
*Clausen, T., and Korneliussen, T. 2012. The relationship between entrepreneurial orientation
and speed to the market: The case of incubator firms in Norway. Technovation 32: 560-
567.
*Cohendet, P. S., and Simon, L. O. 2016. Always playable: Recombining routines for creative
efficiency at Ubisoft Montreals video game studio. Organization Science 27: 614-632.
Cooper, R. G., and Kleinschmidt, E. J. 1986. An investigation into the new product process:
Steps, deficiencies, and impact. Journal of Product Innovation Management 3: 18-29.
*Crilly, B. C. 2020. Ambidextrous project management: The influences of leadership styles,
project management practices, and team characteristics on creativity and innovation.
Doctoral dissertation, Hood College.
Dabi, M., Mari, G., Vlai, B., Daim, T. U., and Vanhaverbeke, W. 2021. 40 years of
excellence: An overview of Technovation and a roadmap for future research.
Technovation 106: 102303.
Davies, A., Manning, S., and Söderlund, J. 2018. When neighboring disciplines fail to learn from
each other: The case of innovation and project management research. Research Policy
47: 965-979.
*Dayan, M., Di Benedetto, C. A., and Colak, M. 2009. Managerial trust in new product
development projects: Its antecedents and consequences. R&D Management 39: 21-37.
*Deken, F., Carlile, P. R., Berends, H., and Lauche, K. 2016. Generating novelty through
interdependent routines: A process model of routine work. Organization Science 27: 659-
677.
DeRue, D. S., Nahrgang, J. D., Wellman, N. E. D., and Humphrey, S. E. 2011. Trait and
behavioral theories of leadership: An integration and meta‐analytic test of their relative
validity. Personnel Psychology 64: 7-52.
Dong, Y., Liao, H., Chuang, A., Zhou, J., and Campbell, E. M. 2015. Fostering employee service
creativity: Joint effects of customer empowering behaviors and supervisory empowering
leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology 100: 1364-1380.
MANAGING TECHNICAL INNOVATION
48
Edwards, J. R., and Berry, J. W. 2010. The presence of something or the absence of nothing:
Increasing theoretical precision in management research. Organizational Research
Methods 13: 668-689.
Eisenhardt, K. M. 1985. Control: Organizational and economic approaches. Management
Science 31: 134-149.
*Enkel, E., Heil, S., Hengstler, M., and Wirth, H. 2017. Exploratory and exploitative innovation:
To what extent do the dimensions of individual level absorptive capacity contribute?.
Technovation 60: 29-38.
*Eubanks, D. L., Palanski, M. E., Swart, J., Hammond, M. M., and Oguntebi, J. 2016. Creativity
in early and established career: Insights into multi‐level drivers from Nobel Prize
winners. Journal of Creative Behavior 50: 229-251.
Felekoglu, B., and Moultrie, J. 2014. Top management involvement in new product
development: A review and synthesis. Journal of Product Innovation Management 31:
159-175.
Fischer, T., Dietz, J., and Antonakis, J. 2017. Leadership process models: A review and
synthesis. Journal of Management 43: 1726-1753.
Gabriel, A. S., Podsakoff, N. P., Beal, D. J., Scott, B. A., Sonnentag, S., Trougakos, J. P., and
Butts, M. M. (2019. Experience sampling methods: A discussion of critical trends and
considerations for scholarly advancement. Organizational Research Methods, 22(4), 969-
1006.
*Gama, F., Sjödin, D. R., and Frishammar, J. 2017. Managing interorganizational technology
development: Project management practices for market‐and science‐based partnerships.
Creativity and Innovation Management 26: 115-127.
George, J. M., and Zhou, J. 2001. When openness to experience and conscientiousness are
related to creative behavior: An interactional approach. Journal of Applied Psychology
86: 513-524.
Gobet, F., Lane, P. C., Croker, S., Cheng, P. C., Jones, G., Oliver, I., and Pine, J. M. 2001.
Chunking mechanisms in human learning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 5: 236-243.
Grant, R. M. 1996. Toward a knowledge‐based theory of the firm. Strategic Management
Journal 17: 109-122.
*Griffiths-Hemans, J., and Grover, R. 2006. Setting the stage for creative new products:
Investigating the idea fruition process. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 34:
27-39.
*Gupta, V., and Singh, S. 2014. Psychological capital as a mediator of the relationship between
leadership and creative performance behaviors: Empirical evidence from the Indian R&D
sector. International Journal of Human Resource Management 25: 1373-1394.
Hall, D. T., and Mansfield, R. 1975. Relationships of age and seniority with career variables of
engineers and scientists. Journal of Applied Psychology 60: 201-210.
Harrison, S. H., and Wagner, D. T. 2016. Spilling outside the bo: The effects of individuals
creative behaviors at work on time spent with their spouses at home. Academy of
Management Journal 59: 841-859.
*Hebda, J. M., Vojak, B. A., Griffin, A., and Price, R. L. 2012. Motivating and demotivating
technical visionaries in large corporations: A comparison of perspectives. R&D
Management 42: 101-119.
MANAGING TECHNICAL INNOVATION
49
*Hemlin, S., and Olsson, L. 2011. Creativity‐stimulating leadership: A critical incident study of
leaders' influence on creativity in research groups. Creativity and Innovation
Management 20: 49-58.
Hemphill, J. K., and Coons, A. E. 1957. Leader behavior: Its description and measurement.
Columbus, OH: Ohio State University.
Haneda, S., and Ito, K. 2018. Organizational and human resource management and innovation:
Which management practices are linked to product and/or process innovation?. Research
Policy 47: 194-208.
*Hirst, G., and Mann, L. 2004. A model of R&D leadership and team communication: The
relationship with project performance. R&D Management 34: 147-160.
Homan, A. C., Gündemir, S., Buengeler, C., and van Kleef, G. A. in press. Leading diversity:
Towards a theory of functional leadership in diverse teams. Journal of Applied
Psychology.
Howell, J. M., and Higgins, C. A. 1990. Champions of technological innovation. Administrative
Science Quarterly 35: 317-341.
Hughes, D. J., Lee, A., Tian, A. W., Newman, A., and Legood, A. 2018. Leadership, creativity,
and innovation: A critical review and practical recommendations. The Leadership
Quarterly 29: 549-569.
Hülsheger, U. R., Anderson, N., and Salgado, J. F. 2009. Team-level predictors of innovation at
work: a comprehensive meta-analysis spanning three decades of research. Journal of
Applied Psychology 94: 1128-1145.
*Hung, C. L., Kuo, S. J., and Dong, T. P. 2013. The relationship between team communication,
structure, and academic R&D performance: empirical evidence of the national
telecommunication program in Taiwan. R&D Management 43: 121-135.
Hunter, S. T., Bedell, K. E., and Mumford, M. D. 2007. Climate for creativity: A quantitative
review. Creativity Research Journal 19: 69-90.
Ilgen, D. R., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M., & Jundt, D. 2005. Teams in organizations: From
input-process-output models to IMOI models. Annual Review of Psychology 56: 517-543.
*Im, S., Montoya, M. M., and Workman Jr, J. P. 2013. Antecedents and consequences of
creativity in product innovation teams. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30:
170-185.
Isaacson, W. 2014. The innovators: How a group of hackers, geniuses, and geeks created the
digital revolution. New York: Simon & Schuster.
*Ishikawa, J. 2012a. Transformational leadership and gatekeeping leadership: The roles of norm
for maintaining consensus and shared leadership in team performance. Asia Pacific
Journal of Management 29: 265-283.
*Ishikawa, J. 2012b. Leadership and performance in Japanese R&D teams. Asia Pacific Business
Review 18: 241-258.
Janssen, O. 2000. Job demands, perceptions of effort‐reward fairness and innovative work
behaviour. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 73: 287-302.
Jassawalla, A. R., and Sashittal, H. C. 2002. Cultures that support product-innovation
processes. Academy of Management Perspectives 16: 42-54.
*Jayawarna, D., and Holt, R. 2009. Knowledge and quality management: An R&D perspective.
Technovation 29: 775-785.
MANAGING TECHNICAL INNOVATION
50
*Johnson, W. H. A. 2000. Technological innovation and knowledge creation: A study of the
enabling conditions and processes of knowledge creation in collaborative R&D projects.
Doctoral dissertation, York University.
Judge, T. A., Piccolo, R. F., and Ilies, R. 2004. The forgotten ones? The validity of consideration
and initiating structure in leadership research. Journal of Applied Psychology 89: 36-51.
Katz, R., and Tushman, M. 1979. Communication patterns, project performance, and task
characteristics: An empirical evaluation and integration in an R&D setting.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 23: 139-162.
*Keller, R. T. 1992. Transformational leadership and the performance of research and
development project groups. Journal of Management 18: 489-501.
*Keller, R. T. 2006. Transformational leadership, initiating structure, and substitutes for
leadership: A longitudinal study of research and development project team performance.
Journal of Applied Psychology 91: 202-210.
*Kelley, D., and Lee, H. 2010. Managing innovation champions: The impact of project
characteristics on the direct manager role. Journal of Product Innovation Management
27: 1007-1019.
Kim, N., and Atuahene‐Gima, K. 2010. Using exploratory and exploitative market learning for
new product development. Journal of Product Innovation Management 27: 519-536.
*Kim, Y., Min, B., and Cha, J. 1999. The roles of R&D team leaders in Korea: A contingent
approach. R&D Management 29: 153-166.
Kelley, T. L. 1927. Interpretation of educational measurements. New York: World Book.
*Kock, A., Heising, W., and Gemünden, H. G. 2015. How ideation portfolio management
influences front‐end success. Journal of Product Innovation Management 32: 539-555.
*Kolb, J. A. 1992. Leadership of creative teams. Journal of Creative Behavior 26: 1-9.
Kozlowski, S. W., Gully, S. M., McHugh, P. P., Salas, E., and Cannon-Bowers, J. A. 1996. A
dynamic theory of leadership and team effectiveness: Developmental and task contingent
leader roles. In Research in personnel and human resource management, ed. G. R. Ferris,
14: 253-305. Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Kozlowski, S. W., Mak, S., and Chao, G. T. 2016. Team-centric leadership: An integrative
review. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior 3:
21-54.
*Kyriazis, E., Massey, G., Couchman, P., and Johnson, L. 2017. Friend or foe? The effects of
managerial politics on NPD team communication, collaboration and project success.
R&D Management 47: 61-74.
*Lassen, A. H., Waehrens, B. V., and Boer, H. 2009. Re‐orienting the corporate entrepreneurial
journey: Exploring the role of middle management. Creativity and Innovation
Management 18: 16-23.
Leavitt, K., Mitchell, T. R., and Peterson, J. 2010. Theory pruning: Strategies to reduce our
dense theoretical landscape. Organizational Research Methods 13: 644-667.
Lee, A., Legood, A., Hughes, D., Tian, A. W., Newman, A., and Knight, C. 2020. Leadership,
creativity and innovation: A meta-analytic review. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology 29: 1-35.
Lee, A., Martin, R., Thomas, G., Guillaume, Y., and Maio, G. R. 2015. Conceptualizing
leadership perceptions as attitudes: Using attitude theory to further understand the
leadership process. The Leadership Quarterly 26: 910-934.
MANAGING TECHNICAL INNOVATION
51
*Lin, W., Ma, J., Zhang, Q., Li, J. C., and Jiang, F. 2018. How is benevolent leadership linked to
employee creativity? The mediating role of leadermember exchange and the moderating
role of power distance orientation. Journal of Business Ethics 152: 1099-1115.
Lovelace, J. B., and Hunter, S. T. 2013. Charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders'
influence on subordinate creative performance across the creative process. Creativity
Research Journal 25: 59-74.
Makadok, R., Burton, R., and Barney, J. 2018. A practical guide for making theory contributions
in strategic management. Strategic Management Journal 39: 1530-1545.
Magni, M., Maruping, L. M., Hoegl, M., and Proserpio, L. 2013. Managing the unexpected
across space: Improvisation, dispersion, and performance in NPD teams. Journal of
Product Innovation Management 30: 1009-1026.
*Markham, S. K. 2013. The impact of front‐end innovation activities on product performance.
Journal of Product Innovation Management 30: 77-92.
Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., and Zaccaro, S. J. 2001. A temporally based framework and
taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review 26: 356-376.
Martinko, M. J., Mackey, J. D., Moss, S. E., Harvey, P., McAllister, C. P., and Brees, J. R. 2018.
An exploration of the role of subordinate affect in leader evaluations. Journal of Applied
Psychology 103: 738-752.
*Martinsuo, M., and Poskela, J. 2011. Use of evaluation criteria and innovation performance in
the front end of innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management 28: 896-914.
McClean, S. T., Barnes, C. M., Courtright, S. H., and Johnson, R. E. 2019. Resetting the clock
on dynamic leader behaviors: A conceptual integration and agenda for future research.
Academy of Management Annals 13: 479-508.
*McElvaney, L. A. 2006. The relationship between functional supervisor behavior and employee
creativity in a project matrix organization. Doctoral dissertation, Saybrook University.
McGrath, J. E. 1962. Leadership behavior: Some requirements for leadership training.
Washington, DC: U.S. Civil Service Commission, Office of Career Development.
*McLean, L. D. 2011. Understanding creativity in organizations: The relationships among
cross-level variables and creativity in research and development organizations. Doctoral
dissertation, University of Minnesota.
Medeiros, K. E., Steele, L. M., Watts, L. L., and Mumford, M. D. 2018. Timing is everything:
Examining the role of constraints throughout the creative process. Psychology of
Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts 12: 471-488.
Medeiros, K. E., Watts, L. L., and Mumford, M. D. 2017. Thinking inside the box: Educating
leaders to manage constraints. In Handbook of research on creative problem-solving skill
development in higher education, ed. C. Zhou, 25-50. IGI Global.
Mintzberg, H. 1971. Managerial work: Analysis from observation. Management Science 18:
B97-B110.
Miron-Spektor, E., and Beenen, G. 2015. Motivating creativity: The effects of sequential and
simultaneous learning and performance achievement goals on product novelty and
usefulness. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 127: 53-65.
Mitchell, T. R., and James, L. R. 2001. Building better theory: Time and the specification of
when things happen. Academy of Management Review 26: 530-547.
Moenaert, R. K., Souder, W. E., De Meyer, A., and Deschoolmeester, D. 1994. R&D-marketing
integration mechanisms, communication flows, and innovation success. Journal of
Product Innovation Management 11: 31-45.
MANAGING TECHNICAL INNOVATION
52
Mohammadi, A., Broström, A., and Franzoni, C. 2017. Workforce composition and innovation:
ho diversit in emploees ethnic and educational backgrounds facilitates firm‐level
innovativeness. Journal of Product Innovation Management 34: 406-426.
Montag, T., Maertz Jr, C. P., and Baer, M. 2012. A critical analysis of the workplace creativity
criterion space. Journal of Management 38: 1362-1386.
Morgeson, F. P. 2005. The external leadership of self-managing teams: intervening in the context
of novel and disruptive events. Journal of Applied Psychology 90: 497-508.
Morgeson, F. P., DeRue, D. S., and Karam, E. P. 2010. Leadership in teams: A functional
approach to understanding leadership structures and processes. Journal of
Management 36: 5-39.
*Mu, J., Peng, G., and MacLachlan, D. L. 2009. Effect of risk management strategy on NPD
performance. Technovation 29: 170-180.
Mumford, M. D., and Gustafson, S. B. 1988. Creativity syndrome: Integration, application, and
innovation. Psychological Bulletin 103: 27-43.
Mumford, M. D., Scott, G. M., Gaddis, B., and Strange, J. M. 2002. Leading creative people:
Orchestrating expertise and relationships. The Leadership Quarterly 13: 705-750.
Nakata, C., and Im, S. 2010. Spurring cross‐functional integration for higher new product
performance: A group effectiveness perspective. Journal of Product Innovation
Management 27: 554-571.
Nieto, M. J., and Santamaría, L. 2007. The importance of diverse collaborative networks for the
novelty of product innovation. Technovation 27: 367-377.
Nonaka, I. 1994. A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science
5: 14-37.
*O'Connor, G. C., and Rice, M. P. 2013. A comprehensive model of uncertainty associated with
radical innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management 30: 2-18.
*Obstfeld, D. 2012. Creative projects: A less routine approach toward getting new things done.
Organization Science 23: 1571-1592.
*Oh, K., Kim, Y., and Lee, J. 1991. An empirical study of communication patterns, leadership
styles, and subordinate satisfaction in R&D project teams in Korea. Journal of
Engineering and Technology Management 8: 15-35.
*Olausson, D., and Berggren, C. 2010. Managing uncertain, complex product development in
high‐tech firms: in search of controlled flexibility. R&D Management 40: 383-399.
Ouchi, W. G. 1979. A conceptual framework for the design of organizational control
mechanisms. Management Science 25: 833-848.
*Patanakul, P., Chen, J., and Lynn, G. S. 2012. Autonomous teams and new product
development. Journal of Product Innovation Management 29: 734-750.
Parker, C. P., Baltes, B. B., Young, S. A., Huff, J. W., Altmann, R. A., Lacost, H. A., and
Roberts, J. E. 2003. Relationships between psychological climate perceptions and work
outcomes: A meta‐analytic review. Journal of Organizational Behavior 24: 389-416.
Patton, M. Q. 2002. Qualitative evaluation and research methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
*Peltokorpi, V., and Hasu, M. 2015. Moderating effects of transformational leadership between
external team learning and research team performance outcomes. R&D Management 45:
304-316.
Pelz, D. C., and Andrews, F. M. 1966. Scientists in organizations. New York: Wiley.
MANAGING TECHNICAL INNOVATION
53
Perry-Smith, J. E., and Mannucci, P. V. 2017. From creativity to innovation: The social network
drivers of the four phases of the idea journey. Academy of Management Review 42: 53-
79.
Pinder, C. C. 2008. Work Motivation in organizational behavior (2nd ed.). Toronto, ON:
Psychology Press.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., and Podsakoff, N. P. 2012. Sources of method bias in social
science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of
Psychology 63: 539-569.
Post, C., Sarala, R., Gatrell, C., and Prescott, J. E. 2020. Advancing theory with review articles.
Journal of Management Studies 57: 351-376.
*Reid, S. E., Roberts, D., and Moore, K. 2015. Technology vision for radical innovation and its
impact on early success. Journal of Product Innovation Management 32: 593-609.
*Rese, A., Gemünden, H. G., and Baier, D. 2013. Too many cooks spoil the broth: Ke persons
and their roles in inter-organizational innovations. Creativity and Innovation
Management 22: 390-407.
*Revilla, E., and Rodríguez, B. 2011. Team vision in product development: How knowledge
strategy matters. Technovation 31: 118-127.
Reiter-Palmon, R., and Illies, J. J. 2004. Leadership and creativity: Understanding leadership
from a creative problem-solving perspective. The Leadership Quarterly 15: 55-77.
Rigby, J. 2016. A long and winding road: 40 years of R&D Management. R&D Management 46:
1062-1061
*Roberts, M. K. 2000. Performance measurement, feedback, and reward processes in research
and development work teams: Effects on perceptions of performance. Doctoral
dissertation, University of North Texas.
*Rosso, B. D. 2014. Creativity and constraints: Exploring the role of constraints in the creative
processes of research and development teams. Organization Studies 35: 551-585.
Robinson, M. D., and Clore, G. L. 2002. Belief and feeling: evidence for an accessibility model
of emotional self-report. Psychological Bulletin 128: 934-960.
Robledo, I. C., Peterson, D. R., and Mumford, M. D. 2012. Leadership of scientists and
engineers: A three‐vector model. Journal of Organizational Behavior 33: 140-147.
*Sarin, S., and O'Connor, G. C. 2009. First among equals: The effect of team leader
characteristics on the internal dynamics of cross‐functional product development
teams. Journal of Product Innovation Management 26: 188-205.
*Sarpong, D., and Maclean, M. 2012. Mobilising differential visions for new product innovation.
Technovation 32: 694-702.
*Schultz, C., Salomo, S., de Brentani, U., and Kleinschmidt, E. J. 2013. How formal control
influences decision‐making clarity and innovation performance. Journal of Product
Innovation Management 30: 430-447.
*Scott, S. G., and Bruce, R. A. 1994. Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of
individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal 37: 580-607.
*Seidel, V. P., and OMahon, S. 2014. Managing the repertoire: Stories, metaphors, prototypes,
and concept coherence in product innovation. Organization Science 25: 691-712.
*Sergeeva, N., and Trifilova, A. 2018. The role of storytelling in the innovation process.
Creativity and Innovation Management 27: 489-498.
MANAGING TECHNICAL INNOVATION
54
*Shaner, M. B., Beeler, L., and Noble, C. H. 2016. Do we have to get along to innovate? The
influence of multilevel social cohesion on new product and new service development.
Journal of Product Innovation Management 33: 148-165.
Sivasubramaniam, N., Liebowitz, S. J., and Lackman, C. L. 2012. Determinants of new product
development team performance: A meta‐analytic review. Journal of Product Innovation
Management 29: 803-820.
Sosik, J. J., Kahai, S. S., and Avolio, B. J. 1998. Transformational leadership and dimensions of
creativity: Motivating idea generation in computer-mediated groups. Creativity Research
Journal 11: 111-121.
Sørensen, F., Mattsson, J., and Sundbo, J. 2010. Experimental methods in innovation research.
Research Policy 39: 313-322.
Spector, P. E. 2019. Do not cross me: Optimizing the use of cross-sectional designs. Journal of
Business and Psychology 34: 125-137.
Steele, L. M. 2020. Temporal dynamics of creativity and motivation: What we know, what we
dont, and a fe suggestions for filling the gap. In Creativity and innovation in
organizations, ed. M. D. Mumford and E. M. Todd, 105-135. New York: Routledge.
Steele, L. M., Hardy III, J. H., Day, E. A., Watts, L. L., and Mumford, M. D. 2021. Navigating
creative paradoxes: Exploration and exploitation effort drive novelty and
usefulness. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts 15: 149-164.
*Stetler, K. L., and Magnusson, M. 2015. Exploring the tension between clarity and ambiguity in
goal setting for innovation. Creativity and Innovation Management 24: 231-246.
*Stock, R. M., Totzauer, F., and Zacharias, N. A. 2014. A closer look at cross‐functional R&D
cooperation for innovativeness: Innovation‐oriented leadership and human resource
practices as driving forces. Journal of Product Innovation Management 31: 924-938.
*Stockstrom, C., and Herstatt, C. 2008. Planning and uncertainty in new product development.
R&D Management 38: 480-490.
Stogdill, R. M. 1963. Manual for the leader behavior description questionnaire—Form XII.
Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University, Bureau of Business Research.
Stone-Romero, E. F. 2011. Research strategies in industrial and organizational psychology:
Nonexperimental, quasi-experimental, and randomized experimental research in special
purpose and nonspecial purpose settings. In APA handbook of industrial and
organizational psychology, ed. S. Zedeck, 1: 37-72. Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Suddaby, R. 2010. Editor's comments: Construct clarity in theories of management and
organization. Academy of Management Review 35: 346-357.
Thongpapanl, N. T. 2012. The changing landscape of technology and innovation management:
An updated ranking of journals in the field. Technovation 32: 257-271.
Tierney, P., Farmer, S. M., and Graen, G. B. 1999. An examination of leadership and employee
creativity: The relevance of traits and relationships. Personnel Psychology 52: 591-620.
Utterback, J. M. 1971. The process of technological innovation within the firm. Academy of
Management Journal 14: 75-88.
van Knippenberg, D. 2017. Team innovation. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and
Organizational Behavior 4: 211-233.
van Knippenberg, D., De Dreu, C. K., and Homan, A. C. 2004. Work group diversity and group
performance: an integrative model and research agenda. Journal of Applied Psychology
89: 1008-1022.
MANAGING TECHNICAL INNOVATION
55
Venkatraman, N. and Rajanujam, V. 1986. Measurement of business performance in strategy
research: A comparison of approaches. Academy of Management Review 11: 801-814.
*Verworn, B., Herstatt, C., and Nagahira, A. 2008. The fuzzy front end of Japanese new product
development projects: impact on success and differences between incremental and radical
projects. R&D Management 38: 1-19.
*Waldman, D. A., and Atwater, L. E. 1994. The nature of effective leadership and championing
processes at different levels in a R&D hierarchy. Journal of High Technology
Management Research 5: 233-245.
*Walter, A., Parboteeah, K. P., Riesenhuber, F., and Hoegl, M. 2011. Championship behaviors
and innovations success: An empirical investigation of university spin‐offs. Journal of
Product Innovation Management 28: 586-598.
*Wang, A. C., and Cheng, B. S. 2010. When does benevolent leadership lead to creativity? The
moderating role of creative role identity and job autonomy. Journal of Organizational
Behavior 31: 106-121.
*Wang, A. C., Chiang, J. T. J., Tsai, C. Y., Lin, T. T., and Cheng, B. S. 2013. Gender makes the
difference: The moderating role of leader gender on the relationship between leadership
styles and subordinate performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes 122: 101-113.
Watts, L. L., Mulhearn, T., J., Todd, E. M., and Mumford, M. D. 2017. Leader idea evaluation
and follower creativity: Challenges, constraints, and capabilities. In Handbook of
research on leadership and creativity, ed. M. D. Mumford and S. Hemlin, 82-99.
Cheltenham, UK: Elgar.
Watts, L. L., Patel, K. R., Rothstein, E. G., and Natale, A. 2020. How do leaders plan for firm
innovation? Strategic planning processes and constraints. In Frontier series on
organizational creativity and innovation, ed. M. D. Mumford, 249-276. Taylor &
Francis.
Watts, L. L., Steele, L. M., and Den Hartog, D. N. 2020. Uncertainty avoidance moderates the
relationship between transformational leadership and innovation: A meta-analysis.
Journal of International Business Studies 51: 138-145.
Weick, K. E. 1995. Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
West, M.A. 2000 Reflexivity, revolution, and innovation in work teams. In Product development
teams, ed. M. M. Beyerlein, D. A. Johnson, and S. T. Beyerlein, 1-29. Stanford, CT: JAI
Press.
West, M. A., and Farr, J. L. 1990. Innovation at work. In Innovation and creativity at work, ed.
M. A. West and J. L. Farr, 1-13. Chichester, England: Wiley.
Yukl, G. 2012. Effective leadership behavior: What we know and what questions need more
attention. Academy of Management Perspectives 26: 66-85.
Zhang, X., 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: 107-128.
*Zhang, X., and Zhou, J. 2014. Empowering leadership, uncertainty avoidance, trust, and
employee creativity: Interaction effects and a mediating mechanism. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes 124: 150-164.
*Zhu, Y. Q., and Chen, H. G. 2016. Empowering leadership in R&D teams: a closer look at its
components, process, and outcomes. R&D Management 46: 726-735.
MANAGING TECHNICAL INNOVATION
56
Footnotes
1 Because creativity can be seen as the early stages of the broader phenomenon of innovation
(Mumford & Gustafson, 1988; West & Farr, 1990), for the remainder of the introduction, we
refer only to innovation for the sake of brevity. Creativity and innovation will be discussed as
interrelated constructs separately in subsequent sections.
2 The asterisk is a truncation symbol, which when used will search for all forms of the word to
which it is applied. For example, the keyword manag* will search for the terms manage,
manager, management, and managing.
3 Two journals in the top 10 list were not manually searched because they either do not publish
empirical work (i.e., Academy of Management Review), or they do not publish peer-reviewed
work intended for a scholarly audience (i.e., Harvard Business Review).
4 Occasionally, a study used process innovations as a criterion, but the majority used product
innovations.
5 We thank an anonymous reviewer for bringing this point to our attention.
1
Appendix
Table A1. Summary of effects categorized by leader functions
Methodology
Leader Function Variable
Innovation Variable
Reported Effects
Source ID
Sample
Data type
Level
Source Label
Level
Source Label
or Inferences
1. Planning, Coordinating, and Monitoring Work
Andrews1967
21 teams of scientists at
a NASA research
center
Cross-sectional
surveys
Supervisor
Plan and schedule
Individual
Advancing knowledge
in field (S)
r = .30
Annosi2016
79 teams in 4 R&D
organizations
belonging to the same
multinational
telecommunications
company
Qualitative
abductive
surveys;
interviews;
organizational
documents
Supervisor
Agile methodology
Team
Learning and
innovation (S)
Negative
inference
Arrighi2015
2 NPD projects using
computer-aided design
tools
Qualitative
case studies;
interviews;
observation
Supervisor
Identify and
explore constraints
Project
Engaging in direct
exploration (S);
developing shared
understandings of
constraints (S)
Positive
inference
Austin2012
20 cases were drawn
from widely ranging
domains of activity
(e.g., arts, sciences,
design, entertainment,
and product
development)
Qualitative
case studies;
interviews;
observation;
documents
Supervisor
Intentionally
supporting
outcome variability
Team,
individual
Accidental innovation
(S)
Positive
inference
Bahemia2018
Managers at Jaguar
Cars
Qualitative
case study;
interviews
Supervisor
Appropriately
timing shifts from
closed to open
innovation; use of
appropriation
strategies
Project
Profit from innovation
(S)
Positive
inference;
positive
inference
Behrens2014
137 R&D managers
working in German
firms
Experiment
using surveys
Mid-level
management
Receiving
consultant advice;
receiving visual
decision aids
Project
Likelihood to exploit
an innovation project
(S)
Negative;
negative
Aedi Click here to access/download;Table;Managing Innovation
Review_R&R2_Appendix.docx
2
Methodology
Leader Function Variable
Innovation Variable
Reported Effects
Source ID
Sample
Data type
Level
Source Label
Level
Source Label
or Inferences
Blindenbach-
Driessen2010
135 projects across
firms in information
technology,
engineering,
construction, and
related industries in the
Netherlands
Cross-sectional
surveys
Supervisor
Planning
Project
Performance of
innovation projects
(S)
r = .28
Clausen2012
182 CEOs in 22 R&D
incubators in Norway
Cross-sectional
surveys
Senior
management
Entrepreneurial
orientation
Department
Speed to market (S)
Positive
Cohendet2016
Ubisofts Montreal
studio (largest video
game development
office in the world)
Qualitative
case study;
interviews;
observation
Mixed
Recombine
clashing truces
Project
New video game
development (S)
Positive
inference
Deken2016
International
automotive
manufacturing firm
Ethnography;
interviews;
observation;
organizational
documents
Supervisor
Flex, stretch, and
invent new work
routines
Project
Producing novel
outcomes (S)
Positive
inference
Gama2017
R&D units in 3
multinational
manufacturing firms in
Sweden
Qualitative
case studies;
interviews;
organizational
documents
Mixed
Adapt coordination
and control
practices for
different
partnerships
Department
Interorganizational
technology
development success
(S)
Positive
inference
Gupta2014
496 scientists in 11
R&D laboratories of
the largest public-sector
civilian research
organization in India
Cross-sectional
surveys
Supervisor
Task-oriented
Individual
Problem identification
(S); information
search (S); idea
generation (S); idea
promotion (S)
r = .17; r = .13; r
= .22; r = .26
Hemlin2011
153 critical incidents
collected from 75
members of academic
or industrial research
groups in Sweden
Qualitative
critical
incidents
Supervisor
Coordinated group
research and
assigned tasks
Team,
individual
Creativity and
innovation (S)
Positive
inference
Hirst2004
22 R&D teams in 4
organizations
Time-lagged
(12 months
between
measuring
predictor and
Supervisor
Director
Team
Met project objectives
(S)
r = .03
3
Methodology
Leader Function Variable
Innovation Variable
Reported Effects
Source ID
Sample
Data type
Level
Source Label
Level
Source Label
or Inferences
outcome)
surveys
Hung2013
74 PIs or co-PIs of
teams conducting
National
Telecommunication
Program projects in
Taiwan
Cross-sectional
surveys;
archival data
Supervisor
Average of
manages laboratory
and
coordinate/control
mechanisms
Team
Research output (O)
Positive; none
Keller1992
48 teams from 3 R&D
organizations
Time-lagged
(12 months
between
measuring
predictor and
outcome)
surveys
Supervisor
Initiating structure
Team
Aggregate of technical
value, value to
company, and overall
performance (S);
aggregate of met
schedule and cost
goals (S)
r = .29; r = .31
Keller2006
52 to 118 project teams
from 5 industrial R&D
organizations
Time-lagged
(12 months
between
measuring
predictor and
outcome)
surveys
Supervisor
Initiating structure
Team
Met cost goals (S);
met schedule goals
(S); technical quality
(S); new product
profitability (O);
speed to market (O)
r = .27; r = .30; r
= .23; r = .34; r
= .39
Kim1999
87 project teams from 3
government-sponsored
and 3 private R&D
organizations in Korea
Cross-sectional
surveys
Supervisor
Strategic planning
Team
Team performance (S)
r = .25
Kock2015
175 medium and large
firms in Germany
Cross-sectional
surveys
Mid-level
management
Process
formalization
Department
Project portfolio
success (S)
r = .33
Lassen2009
2 medium-sized
technology companies
in Denmark
Qualitative
case studies;
interviews;
observation;
organizational
documents
Mid-level
management
Balance planned
and emergent
activities
Department
Corporate
entrepreneurship (S)
Positive
inference
McElvaney2006
55 engineering
consultants
Cross-sectional
surveys
Supervisor
Providing
challenging work
Individual
Creative processes (S)
r = .47
4
Methodology
Leader Function Variable
Innovation Variable
Reported Effects
Source ID
Sample
Data type
Level
Source Label
Level
Source Label
or Inferences
O'Connor2013
12 radical innovation
projects in 10 large
firms in the United
States
Qualitative
case studies;
interviews
Supervisor
Identifying areas of
uncertainty; reduce
uncertainty
Project
Radical innovation (S)
Positive
inference
Oh1991
199 individuals in
small project teams at 6
research institutes
funded by the Korean
government
Cross-sectional
surveys
Supervisor
Initiating structure
Project
Team satisfaction with
project results (S)
r = .42
Olausson2010
3 commercial NPD
projects at a high-tech
equipment supplier
Qualitative
case studies;
interviews;
observation;
organizational
documents
Supervisor
Plan using
interactive visual
communication
Project
Creative processes (S)
Positive
inference
Rosso2014
4 R&D project teams
from corporate research
laboratories in a
multinational Fortune
500 company
Qualitative
theory
elaboration
interviews;
observation
Supervisor
Provide role clarity
and organization;
accountability
Team
Creative processes (S)
Positive
inference
Sarin2009
64 NPD projects in 6
Fortune 1000 firms
Cross-sectional
surveys
Supervisor
Initiating process
structure
Team
Communication
quality (S); functional
conflict resolution
behavior (S);
collaboration (S)
None; none;
none
Sarpong2012
4 NPD projects in 3
software organizations
Qualitative
case studies;
interviews;
observation;
organizational
documents
Supervisor
Forecasting and
discussing future
actions and
potential
consequences
Team
Shared product vision
among stakeholders
Positive
inference
Schultz2013
162 technology-
oriented firms in
Denmark and Austria
Cross-sectional
surveys
Mid-level
management
Project
management tools
Department
NPD program
performance (S); NPD
program
innovativeness (S)
r = .33; r = .38
Stockstrom2008
475 R&D directors in
mechanical and
Cross-sectional
surveys
Mid-level
management
Intensity of
planning
Project
Team performance
(S); new product
performance (S)
r = .35; r = .26
5
Methodology
Leader Function Variable
Innovation Variable
Reported Effects
Source ID
Sample
Data type
Level
Source Label
Level
Source Label
or Inferences
electrical engineering
companies in Japan
Verworn2008
497 R&D directors in
mechanical and
electrical engineering
companies in Japan
Cross-sectional
surveys
Mid-level
management
Intensity of
planning
Project
Team performance
(S); new product
performance (S)
r = .38; r = .38
Waldman1994
40 R&D teams from
three units in the
United States
Cross-sectional
surveys
Supervisor
Inactive leadership
(reversed)
Team
Team performance (S)
r = .15
2. Providing Autonomy
Aagaard2011
8 pharmaceutical
companies in Europe
and the United States
Qualitative
case studies;
interviews;
observation;
organizational
documents
Mixed
Empowerment to
learn and explore
Project
Radical front end
innovation (S)
Positive
inference
Andrews1967
21 teams of scientists at
a NASA research
center
Cross-sectional
surveys
Supervisor
Average of use of
consultation and
freedom
Individual
Advancing knowledge
in field (S)
r = .38
Andriopoulos2018
5 NPD consultancies
Qualitative
case studies;
interviews;
observation;
organizational
documents
Supervisor
Benevolent
dictatorship
Project
Front-end NPD (S)
Positive
inference
Barnowe1975
81 geographically
separated subunits of a
large basic and applied
research organization in
the United States
Cross-sectional
surveys;
archival data
Supervisor
Closeness of
supervision
(reversed)
Team
Contribution to
scientific knowledge
and solving applied
problems (S+O)
r = .34
Chuang2016
162 R&D teams in 34
information technology
firms in Taiwan
Cross-sectional
surveys
Supervisor
Empowering
leadership
Team
Knowledge
acquisition (S); team
knowledge sharing (S)
r = .10; r = .33
Gupta2014
496 scientists in 11
R&D laboratories of
the largest public-sector
Cross-sectional
surveys
Supervisor
Empowering
Individual
Problem identification
(S); information
search (S); idea
r = .16; r = .13; r
= .23; r = .24
6
Methodology
Leader Function Variable
Innovation Variable
Reported Effects
Source ID
Sample
Data type
Level
Source Label
Level
Source Label
or Inferences
civilian research
organization in India
generation (S); idea
promotion (S)
Hemlin2011
153 critical incidents
collected from 75
members of academic
or industrial research
groups in Sweden
Qualitative
critical
incidents
Supervisor
Promoted
independence
Team,
individual
Creativity and
innovation (S)
Positive
inference
Hirst2004
22 R&D teams in 4
organizations
Time-lagged
(12 months
between
measuring
predictor and
outcome)
surveys
Supervisor
Facilitator
Team
Met project objectives
(S)
r = .25
Ishikawa2012b
119 R&D teams from 6
manufacturing firms in
Japan
Cross-sectional
surveys
Supervisor
Shared leadership
Team
Team performance (S)
r = .42
Johnson2000
10 technical knowledge
creation projects
Qualitative
case studies;
interviews;
cross-sectional
surveys
Supervisor
Project autonomy
Project
Met technical
performance goals (S)
None
Kelley2010
89 project champions
in three large,
multinational
companies in South
Korea
Cross-sectional
surveys
Mixed
Average of
supervisor
monitoring,
supervisor control
(reversed), and
project champion
empowerment
Project
Project innovativeness
(S); project strategic
relatedness (S)
r = .15; r = .29
Kock2015
175 medium and large
firms in Germany
Cross-sectional
surveys
Mid-level
management
Creative
encouragement
Department
Project portfolio
success (S)
r = .33
Kolb1992
15 R&D teams
Cross-sectional
surveys
Supervisor
Average of exhibits
trust and autonomy
Team
Team performance (S)
r = .45
McElvaney2006
55 engineering
consultants
Cross-sectional
surveys
Supervisor
Providing
autonomy
Individual
Creative processes (S)
None
McLean2011
596 R&D employees
Cross-sectional
surveys
Supervisor
Non-controlling
supervision
Individual
Creative processes
(S); invention
r = .28; r = -.02;
r = -.02; r = .03
7
Methodology
Leader Function Variable
Innovation Variable
Reported Effects
Source ID
Sample
Data type
Level
Source Label
Level
Source Label
or Inferences
disclosures (O); patent
applications (O);
patent awards (O)
Rosso2014
4 R&D project teams
from corporate research
laboratories in a
multinational Fortune
500 company
Qualitative
theory
elaboration
interviews;
observation
Supervisor
Freedom from
micromanagement;
flexibility;
freedom; autonomy
Team
Creative processes (S)
Positive
inference
Sarin2009
64 NPD projects in 6
Fortune 1000 firms
Cross-sectional
surveys
Supervisor
Participation
Team
Communication
quality (S); functional
conflict resolution
behavior (S);
collaboration (S)
Positive;
positive;
positive
Wang2013
261 R&D engineers in
high-tech companies in
Taiwan
Cross-sectional
surveys
Supervisor
Authoritarian
leadership
(reversed)
Individual
Task performance (S);
general innovation (S)
r = .15; r = .15
Zhang2014 (Study
1)
322 engineers working
on new energy-saving
bulb designs
Time-lagged
(2 months
between
measuring
predictor and
outcome)
surveys
Supervisor
Empowering
leadership
Individual
Creativity and
innovation (S)
r = .45
Zhu2016
54 R&D teams in a
system integration
company in Taiwan
Cross-sectional
surveys
Supervisor
Average of
differentiated
individual-focused
empowering
leadership
(reversed) and
group-focused
empowering
leadership
Team
Team innovativeness
(S); team performance
(S)
r = .30; r = .19
3. Setting and Clarifying Objectives
Aagaard2011
8 pharmaceutical
companies in Europe
and the United States
Qualitative
case studies;
interviews;
observation;
Mixed
Clear
communication of
direction, status,
and goal; an
innovation strategy
Project
Radical front end
innovation (S)
Positive
inference
8
Methodology
Leader Function Variable
Innovation Variable
Reported Effects
Source ID
Sample
Data type
Level
Source Label
Level
Source Label
or Inferences
organizational
documents
and objectives
guiding but not
dictating
innovation;
measuring
innovation
Andrews1967
21 teams of scientists at
a NASA research
center
Cross-sectional
surveys
Supervisor
Influence on goals
Individual
Advancing knowledge
in field (S)
r = .28
Bstieler2010
61 firms engaged in
interorganizational
NPD in South Korea
Cross-sectional
surveys
Senior
management
Management
direction
Project
Learning (S); met
schedule goals (S)
r = .28; r = .45
Cohendet2016
Ubisofts Montreal
studio (largest video
game development
office in the world)
Qualitative
case study;
interviews;
observation
Mixed
Balancing tension
between creativity
and efficiency
Project
New video game
development (S)
Positive
inference
Hung2013
74 PIs or co-PIs of
teams conducting
National
Telecommunication
Program projects in
Taiwan
Cross-sectional
surveys;
archival data
Supervisor
Sets team
objectives
Team
Funding and research
output (O)
None
Im2013
206 managers of
product innovation
projects in high-tech
manufacturing
industries in the US
Cross-sectional
surveys
Senior
management
Encouragement to
take risks
Project
New product
competitive advantage
(S)
r = .08
Kock2015
175 medium and large
firms in Germany
Cross-sectional
surveys
Mid-level
management
Ideation strategy
Department
Project portfolio
success (S)
r = .27
McElvaney2006
55 engineering
consultants
Cross-sectional
surveys
Supervisor
Reduce extreme
workload pressure
Individual
Creative processes (S)
r = .38
Patanakul2012
555 NPD project
managers in the United
States
Cross-sectional
surveys
Supervisor
Vision clarity
Project
Met cost goals (S);
met schedule goals
(S); new product sales
and profits (S)
r = .42; r = .42; r
= .45
9
Methodology
Leader Function Variable
Innovation Variable
Reported Effects
Source ID
Sample
Data type
Level
Source Label
Level
Source Label
or Inferences
Peltokorpi2015
124 teams in a multi-
technological contract
research organization in
Finland
Cross-sectional
surveys;
archival data
Supervisor
Vision
Team
Number of
publications (O)
r = -.01
Reid2015
200 biotechnology and
nanotechnology firms
in the United Kingdom
and North America
Cross-sectional
surveys
Senior
management
Technology vision
Project
Early success with
customers (S);
technical competitive
advantage (S)
Positive;
positive
Revilla2011
78 NPD managers in
Spain
Cross-sectional
surveys
Mixed
Team vision trade-
off; team vision
strategic fit; team
vision clarity
Project
Team effectiveness
(S)
Positive;
conditionally
positive;
conditionally
positive
Sarin2009
64 NPD projects in 6
Fortune 1000 firms
Cross-sectional
surveys
Supervisor
Initiating goal
structure
Team
Communication
quality (S); functional
conflict resolution
behavior (S);
collaboration (S)
Positive;
positive;
positive
Sarpong2012
4 NPD projects in 3
software organizations
Qualitative
case studies;
interviews;
observation;
organizational
documents
Supervisor
Framing the
problem to be
solved by the new
product;
specification of
tangible product
attributes
Team
Shared product vision
among stakeholders
Positive
inference
Scott1994
172 engineers,
scientists, and
technicians employed
in a large, centralized
R&D facility of a major
industrial corporation
in the United States
Cross-sectional
surveys
Supervisor
Leader role
expectations of
innovation
Individual
Creativity and
innovation (S)
r = .33
Seidel2014
6 NPD projects in 3
industries (i.e.,
consumer electronics,
medical/sports therapy
devices, and
automotive)
Qualitative
case studies;
interviews;
observation;
organizational
documents
Supervisor
Representing a
concept through
stories, metaphors,
and physical
prototypes
Project
Shared understanding
of desired product (S)
Positive
conditional
inference
10
Methodology
Leader Function Variable
Innovation Variable
Reported Effects
Source ID
Sample
Data type
Level
Source Label
Level
Source Label
or Inferences
Stetler2015
409 employees in the
R&D department of an
automobile
manufacturer
Cross-sectional
surveys
Supervisor
Average of project
goal clarity and
goal to be
innovative
Individual
Number of new ideas
(S); implementing
new ideas (S);
business unit
performance (S)
r = .19; r = .34; r
= .37
4. Managing Boundaries
Andrews1967
21 teams of scientists at
a NASA research
center
Cross-sectional
surveys
Supervisor
Inter-group
relations
Individual
Advancing knowledge
in field (S)
r = .53
Cohendet2016
Ubisofts Montreal
studio (largest video
game development
office in the world)
Qualitative
case study;
interviews;
observation
Mixed
Reform truces
Project
New video game
development (S)
Positive
inference
Griffiths-
Hemans2006
144 R&D employees
Cross-sectional
surveys
Mixed
Visionary
Individual
Creativity (S);
Concretization (S)
r = .06; r = .35
Hemlin2011
153 critical incidents
collected from 75
members of academic
or industrial research
groups in Sweden
Qualitative
critical
incidents
Supervisor
Enhanced external
contacts
Team,
individual
Creativity and
innovation (S)
Positive
inference
Hirst2004
22 R&D teams in four
organizations
Time-lagged
(12 months
between
measuring
predictor and
outcome)
surveys
Supervisor
Boundary spanner
Team
Met project objectives
(S)
r = .35
Ishikawa2012a
122 R&D teams from 7
manufacturing firms in
Japan
Cross-sectional
surveys
Supervisor
Gatekeeping
leadership
Team
Team performance (S)
r = .32
Ishikawa2012b
119 R&D teams from 6
manufacturing firms in
Japan
Cross-sectional
surveys
Supervisor
Gatekeeping
leadership
Team
Team performance (S)
r = .37
Kim1999
87 project teams from 3
government-sponsored
Cross-sectional
surveys
Supervisor
Average of
championing and
gatekeeping
Team
Team performance (S)
r = .23
11
Methodology
Leader Function Variable
Innovation Variable
Reported Effects
Source ID
Sample
Data type
Level
Source Label
Level
Source Label
or Inferences
and 3 private R&D
organizations in Korea
Kolb1992
15 R&D teams
Cross-sectional
surveys
Supervisor
Average of
representation,
superior relations,
and good standing
Team
Team performance (S)
r = .51
Kyriazis2017
184 technical managers
and 145 marketing
managers
Cross-sectional
surveys
Mid-level
management
Average of
technical political
ally, technical
negative politics
(reversed),
marketing political
ally, and marketing
negative politics
(reversed)
Project
Team performance (S)
r = .31
Markham2013
272 members of the
Product Development
and Management
Association
Cross-sectional
surveys
Mixed
Championing
Department
NPD program success
(S)
r = .27
Rese2013
101 inter-
organizational projects
in Germany
Cross-sectional
surveys
Mixed
Role density of
champions
Project
Project innovativeness
(S); project
performance (S)
Positive;
positive
Sergeeva2018
29 innovation
champions from large
infrastructure,
engineering, and
construction firms in
the United Kingdom
Qualitative
interviews
Mixed
Storytelling about
innovation
Project
Acquiring support for
a new idea across
varied audiences (S)
Positive
inference
Shaner2016
453 members of the
Product Development
and Management
Association
Cross-sectional
surveys
Mid-level
management
Cross-functional
leadership
Department
NPD program
performance (S)
r = .43
Waldman1994
40 R&D teams from 3
units in the United
States
Cross-sectional
surveys
Supervisor
Championing
Team
Team performance (S)
r = .21
12
Methodology
Leader Function Variable
Innovation Variable
Reported Effects
Source ID
Sample
Data type
Level
Source Label
Level
Source Label
or Inferences
Walter2011
123 founders of
academic spin-offs in
Germany
Time-lagged
(10 to 15 years
between
measuring
predictor and
outcome)
surveys
Senior
management
Network building
Project
New product sales
growth (O)
r = .23
5. Supporting the Social Climate
Andrews1967
21 teams of scientists at
a NASA research
center
Cross-sectional
surveys
Supervisor
Motivating others
Individual
Advancing knowledge
in field (S)
r = .47
Chen2016
291 scientists working
in R&D for a defense-
related institute in
Taiwan
Time-lagged
(3 months
between
measuring
predictor and
outcome)
surveys;
archival data
Supervisor
Ethical leadership
Individual
Creativity bonuses (O)
r = .11
Gupta2014
496 scientists in 11
R&D laboratories of
the largest public-sector
civilian research
organization in India
Cross-sectional
surveys
Supervisor
Average of
recognizing and
inspiring, leading
by example, and
team building
Individual
Problem identification
(S); information
search (S); idea
generation (S); idea
promotion (S)
r = .14; r = .14; r
= .19; r = .19
Hebda2012
64 total interviews with
24 technical
visionaries, their 22
technical managers,
and 18 associated HR
managers
Qualitative
interviews
Mixed
Interpersonal
management skills
(e.g., show interest
and appreciation,
providing
challenge)
Project
Developing and
commercializing
breakthrough
innovations (S)
Positive
inference
(stronger)
Keller1992
48 teams from three
R&D organizations
Time-lagged
(12 months
between
measuring
predictor and
outcome)
surveys
Supervisor
Average of
charismatic
leadership and
consideration
Team
Aggregate of technical
value, value to
company, and overall
performance (S);
aggregate of met
schedule and cost
goals (S)
r = .33; r = .27
13
Methodology
Leader Function Variable
Innovation Variable
Reported Effects
Source ID
Sample
Data type
Level
Source Label
Level
Source Label
or Inferences
Keller2006
52 to 118 project teams
from five industrial
R&D organizations
Time-lagged
(5 years
between
measuring
predictor and
outcome)
surveys;
archival data
Supervisor
Charismatic
leadership
Team
Met cost goals (S);
met schedule goals
(S); technical quality
(S); new product
profitability (O);
speed to market (O)
r = .24; r = .30; r
= .46; r = .42; r
= .30
Kim1999
87 project teams from 3
government-sponsored
and 3 private R&D
organizations in Korea
Cross-sectional
surveys
Supervisor
Team building
Team
Team performance (S)
r = .27
Lin2018 (Study 2)
391 full-time
employees in 42 R&D
teams in a
communication
company in China
Time-lagged
(1 month
between
measuring
predictor and
outcome)
surveys
Supervisor
Benevolent
leadership
Individual
Creativity and
innovation (S)
r = .17
Oh1991
199 individuals in
small project teams at
six government-funded
research institutes in
Korea
Cross-sectional
surveys
Supervisor
Consideration
Project
Team satisfaction with
project results (S)
r = .44
Rosso2014
Four R&D project
teams from corporate
research laboratories in
a multinational Fortune
500 company
Qualitative
interviews
focused on
theory
elaboration;
observation
Supervisor
Requiring fun
group outings
Team
Creative processes (S)
Positive
inference
Sarin2009
64 NPD projects in 6
Fortune 1000 firms
Cross-sectional
surveys
Supervisor
Consideration
Team
Communication
quality (S); functional
conflict resolution
behavior (S);
collaboration (S)
None; positive;
none
Wang2010
167 R&D engineers in
seven high-tech
manufacturing
companies in Taiwan
Cross-sectional
surveys
Supervisor
Benevolent
leadership
Individual
Creativity and
innovation (S)
r = .33
14
Methodology
Leader Function Variable
Innovation Variable
Reported Effects
Source ID
Sample
Data type
Level
Source Label
Level
Source Label
or Inferences
Wang2013
261 R&D engineers in
high-tech companies in
Taiwan
Cross-sectional
surveys
Supervisor
Benevolent
leadership
Individual
Task performance (S);
general innovation (S)
r = .22; r = .23
6. Evaluating Work and Providing Feedback
Andrews1967
21 teams of scientists at
a NASA research
center
Cross-sectional
surveys
Supervisor
Average of critical
evaluation and
letting subordinates
know where they
stand
Individual
Advancing knowledge
in field (S)
r = .19
Bettencourt2017
339 R&D employees
from a Fortune 100
high-tech industrial
goods and services firm
Cross-sectional
surveys
Supervisor
Innovation
leadership
Individual
Implementing new
ideas (S); creativity
and innovation (S);
patents (O)
r = .07; r = -.05;
r = -.04
Jayawarna2009
7 technology-based
R&D organizations in
UK
Qualitative
case studies,
interviews
Mid-level
management
Strategic alignment
and flexibility of
quality system
Department
Knowledge
exploration and
exploitation (S)
Positive
inference
Kelley2010
89 project champions
in three large,
multinational
companies in South
Korea
Cross-sectional
surveys
Mixed
Sponsor meeting
frequency
Project
Project innovativeness
(S); project strategic
relatedness (S)
r = .21; r = .23
Lassen2009
2 medium-sized
technology companies
in Denmark
Qualitative
case studies,
interviews,
observation,
organizational
documents
Mid-level
management
Negotiate and
sanction ideas
Department
Corporate
entrepreneurship (S)
Positive
inference
Martinsuo2011
107 product
development managers
and experts in
industrial companies in
Finland
Cross-sectional
surveys
Mid-level
management
Average of
assessment
formality; use of
strategic criteria;
use of market
criteria; use of
technical criteria
Project
Product's competitive
potential (S);
product's future
business potential (S)
r = .29; r = .20
15
Methodology
Leader Function Variable
Innovation Variable
Reported Effects
Source ID
Sample
Data type
Level
Source Label
Level
Source Label
or Inferences
Olausson2010
3 commercial NPD
projects at a high-tech
equipment supplier
Qualitative
case studies;
interviews;
observation;
organizational
documents
Supervisor
Initiate
participative
reflection to
analyze past
experience and
modify new
projects
Project
Creative processes (S)
Positive
inference
Roberts2000
132 R&D teams from
20 companies
Cross-sectional
surveys
Supervisor
Feedback
frequency
Team
Team performance (S)
r = .31
Schultz2013
162 technology-
oriented firms in
Denmark and Austria
Cross-sectional
surveys
Mid-level
management
Stage-and-gate
type systems
Department
NPD program
performance (S); NPD
program
innovativeness (S)
r = .29; r = .17
7. Recognizing and Rewarding Performance
Bettencourt2017
339 R&D employees
from a Fortune 100
high-tech industrial
goods and services firm
Cross-sectional
surveys
Supervisor
Innovation rewards
Individual
Implementing new
ideas (S); creativity
and innovation (S);
patents (O)
r = -.09; r = .20;
r =.21
Crilly2020
202 project managers
Cross-sectional
surveys
Supervisor
Transactional
leadership
Project
Project creativity (S);
project performance
(S)
r = .32; r = .23
Dayan2009
107 product or project
teams in Turkey
Cross-sectional
surveys
Supervisor
Transactional
leadership
Project
Team learning (S);
speed to market (S);
new product sales and
profits (S)
r = .65; r = .07; r
= .25
Hebda2012
64 total interviews with
24 technical
visionaries, their 22
technical managers,
and 18 associated HR
managers
Qualitative
interviews
Mixed
Formal awards and
recognition;
money, incentives,
and performance
grading; informal
rewards and
recognition
Project
Developing and
commercializing
breakthrough
innovations (S)
Positive
inference
(weaker)
Hung2013
74 PIs or co-PIs of
teams conducting
National
Telecommunication
Cross-sectional
surveys;
archival data
Supervisor
Provides incentives
Team
Funding and research
output (O)
Positive
16
Methodology
Leader Function Variable
Innovation Variable
Reported Effects
Source ID
Sample
Data type
Level
Source Label
Level
Source Label
or Inferences
Program projects in
Taiwan
Shaner2016
453 members of the
Product Development
and Management
Association
Cross-sectional
surveys
Mid-level
management
Innovation
incentives
Department
NPD program
performance (S)
r = .04
Stock2014
125 R&D managers in
firms in several
economically
significant industry
sectors
Cross-sectional
surveys
Mixed
Innovation-
oriented leadership
Department
NPD program
newness (S); NPD
program
meaningfulness (S)
r = .26; r = .27
8. Challenging Assumptions
Brun2009
4 early-phase NPD
projects in established
medical-device
companies
Qualitative
case studies;
interviews;
observation;
organizational
documents
Supervisor
Testing multiple
hypotheses and
questioning
assumptions
underlying
interpretations of
data
Team
Convergence and
exploration (S)
Positive
inference
Hirst2004
22 R&D teams in four
organizations
Time-lagged
(12 months
between
measuring
predictor and
outcome)
surveys
Supervisor
Innovator
Team
Met project objectives
(S)
r = .36
Johnson2000
10 technical knowledge
creation projects
Qualitative
case studies;
interviews;
cross-sectional
surveys
Supervisor
Introduce creative
tension
Project
Met technical
performance goals (S)
None
Keller1992
48 teams from three
R&D organizations
Time-lagged
(12 months
between
measuring
predictor and
Supervisor
Intellectual
stimulation
Team
Aggregate of technical
value, value to
company, and overall
performance (S);
aggregate of met
r = .35; r = .28
17
Methodology
Leader Function Variable
Innovation Variable
Reported Effects
Source ID
Sample
Data type
Level
Source Label
Level
Source Label
or Inferences
outcome)
surveys
schedule and cost
goals (S)
Keller2006
52 to 118 project teams
from five industrial
R&D organizations
Time-lagged
(12 months
between
measuring
predictor and
outcome)
surveys
Supervisor
Intellectual
stimulation
Team
Met cost goals (S);
met schedule goals
(S); technical quality
(S); new product
profitability (O);
speed to market (O)
r = -.13; r = .27;
r = .28; r = .40; r
= .18
9. Environmental Scanning and Sensemaking
Mu2009
247 managers at high-
tech organizations in
China
Cross-sectional
surveys
Mid-level
management
Average of
technological,
organizational, and
market risk
management
Organization
NPD program
performance (S)
r = .49
Lassen2009
Two medium-sized
technology companies
in Denmark
Qualitative
case studies;
interviews;
observation;
organizational
documents
Mid-level
management
Reconcile market
and technological
understandings
Organization
Corporate
entrepreneurship (S)
Positive
inference
Enkel2017
104 technology
managers in the
Mobility Solutions
business sector of
Bosch Group
Cross-sectional
surveys
Mid-level
management
Average of
identification,
assimilation, and
utilization of
external knowledge
Team
Exploratory
innovation (S);
exploitative
innovation (S)
r = .40; r = .34
10. Securing and Allocating Resources
Hung2013
74 PIs or co-PIs of
teams conducting
National
Telecommunication
Program projects in
Taiwan
Cross-sectional
surveys;
archival data
Supervisor
Provides resources
Team
Funding and research
output (O)
None
Obstfeld2012
Major automotive
manufacturer
Ethnography;
interviews;
observation;
Mixed
Make knowledge
more explicit,
usable, and
Department
Creative processes (S)
Positive
inference
18
Methodology
Leader Function Variable
Innovation Variable
Reported Effects
Source ID
Sample
Data type
Level
Source Label
Level
Source Label
or Inferences
organizational
documents
relevant to the
situation at hand
Shaner2016
453 members of the
Product Development
and Management
Association
Cross-sectional
surveys
Mid-level
management
Resource support
for innovation
teams
Department
NPD program
performance (S)
r = .53
11. Developing Team Members
Eubanks2016
59 Nobel prize winning
scientists
Historiometric;
biographies
Supervisor
Mentor relationship
Individual
Trying new things in
early career (S); trying
new things in
established career (S)
r = .23; r = .35
Hung2013
74 PIs or co-PIs of
teams conducting
National
Telecommunication
Program projects in
Taiwan
Cross-sectional
surveys;
archival data
Supervisor
Support self-
development
Team
Research output (O)
Positive
Note. “SourceID = Last name of the first author and the publication year. “S = subjective criterion; “O = objective criterion.
